Donate SIGN UP

Britains Real Monarch

Avatar Image
BertiWooster | 00:43 Wed 07th Jul 2010 | History
16 Answers
Why hasn't Tony Robinson had his head chopped off for suggesting that Britains rightful king is an aussie living in Australia .

i.e the whole Tudor dynasty is illegitimate
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 16 of 16rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by BertiWooster. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Our rightful king didn't seem too desperate to take the country over, as I recall (it was a year or two since I saw this programme). So we're probably better off with the Germans we have now. I sometimes with I could slap Mr Robinson about a bit myself - I think it's the short hair, it makes him look a fool - but I'm told by my partner, who has worked with him, that he's a lovely guy who'd give you the shirt off his back; so he is possibly on the royal list of licensed jesters, like Spike Milligan before him.
Question Author
What - do you mean the way Edmund Blackadder did .
Personally I have always considered the monarchy to be a set of scrounging b@stards so this vindicates me.
yes, something like that. Has Mosaic been executed yet?
You don't have to go that far!

After all James II was the rightful king and we basically chased him out of the country and sent William of Orange an invitation to take over the place
Wasn't there also some issue concerning Queen Victoria, and her haemophilia ?

Only male or female haemophiliacs will or won't pass the condition on to male or female heirs, and this shows that the line from Victoria onwards have not been the true heirs to the throne.

I can't remember all the details (obviously!!)
The Haemophilia gene can arise sponaneously although it's less probable so it's not proof positive that she was illigitimate but it's a possibility.

All in all the notion that our current monarch descends via generations of legal hereditary monarchs is a bit of a stretch
James II was replaced by his daughter, so that wasn't exactly a break in the line, just a speeding of the process. The disqualification of his son, on the basis of dodgy rumours about warming pans, is more suspicious.
-- answer removed --
Queen Victoria didn't have haemophilia.
King George III had porphyria and the the son of Tsar Nicholas II had haemophilia, not big on royal lineage.
I saw the show and viewed it as spurious nonsense.
This is a really old story, I saw the programme on TV some months ago, nobody commented when it was first shown!
Isn't the rightful monarch a "Coloured Man" who lives in South Africa? Bertie, the then Prince of Wales, visited South Africa and left a lady there a souvenir of his visit.
James II's son was not disqualified on the basis of the "warming pan" story, but because he was a Roman Catholic and therefore excluded under the Act of Settlement of 1700. This now sounds anachronistic but must be viewed in the context of the times, when England felt under very real threat from Catholic Europe.
sandy, yes, it was (allegedly) an illegitimate son of George III, who called himself George Rex and should maybe have been king before George IV. But illegitimate children, like Catholics, don't count.

http://www.turtlesa.com/ezine156.html
Apparently, it has been discovered that there is strong proof that the 15th-century English monarch Edward IV was illegitimate, thus throwing into question the legitimacy of all the kings and queens who followed.
William the Conqueror was of course Guillaume the Little Bustard of France......I am descended from Henry I and think that the old 'Winner stays on' system of monarchy was superior in every way......when Charles is crowned I will be at the front of the queue to sever his bonce and don the ermine cape for the good of this land.

1 to 16 of 16rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Britains Real Monarch

Answer Question >>

Related Questions