Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Not the Real Royals | |
Author: Curnoack. | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 05:44:23 01/08/05 Sat Not the Real Royals 03-01-2004 Back Print This Page ‘Hereditary legitimacy’ Monarchists fondly imagine that the present Queen can claim ‘hereditary legitimacy’ as Head of State by virtue of a royal bloodline governed by strict rules going back into the mists of time. However, the case for an unbroken royal bloodline leading directly to the Windsors must now be seen as fatally flawed. On Saturday 3rd January 2004 Tony Robinson hosted a Channel 4 programme which exposed the falsity of any Windsor bloodline claim and actually traced the current valid, legitimate royal bloodline to an unassuming scientist - a Briton who emigrated to Australia in 1960 and lives modestly with his family in a New South Wales village. He is Michael Abney-Hastings, the 14th Earl of Loudon. By strict hereditary rules he could claim to be King Michael I of England, but he voted for a republic in the Australian referendum, still stands by his vote, and has no plans for a change of lifestyle. What on earth is this all about? During his research into the Hundred Years’ War, the British historian, Professor Michael Jones, an expert on the 15th century, decided to check up on the allegation - voiced at the time and used by Richard III as a reason for deposing Edward V (one of the Princes in the Tower) - that Edward IV was not the son of Richard, Duke of York (who did have a legitimate royal bloodline) but was in fact the son of an English archer called Blaybourne. In Rouen Cathedral he found records of Edward IV’s birth showing a date which made it impossible that he could have been conceived with the participation of Richard, Duke of York. This means that the last reigning King of England with a legitimate royal bloodline was Richard III. Professor Jones’s research proves that at the time of Edward IV’s conception in 1441 his ‘parents’ were 160 kms apart. Edward’s ‘father’ - Richard, Duke of York - was fighting the French at Pontoise, near Paris at this time, while his mother, Lady Cecily, was based in Rouen and was apparently engrossed in the company of a local archer. King Louis XI of France did not accept that Edward IV was the legitimate king of England and he is recorded as shouting about Edward: ‘His name is not King Edward - everybody knows his name is Blaybourne.’ The Channel 4 programme tracked the family tree through Edward’s younger, legitimate brother, George, the Duke of Clarence, to calculate the true bloodline heir to the throne. Passing down the tree through King Henry X (who would have reigned 1851-1868) and Queen Barbara I (who would have reigned 1960-2002), they found the real current monarch to be Michael Abney-Hastings. Does any of this matter? Yes. While Britain still languishes under the burden of a hereditary system for the appointment of its Head of State, Professor Jones’s research undermines the monarchical hereditary system on its own terms. Further, the Blaybourne affair is unlikely to have been unique in the history of British ‘royal circles’. Numerous royal affairs or ‘irregular liaisons’ have been recorded across the centuries up to the present day, and so without watertight historical and/or scientific evidence (e.g. DNA) there can be no certainty of a continuous bloodline of royal succession. ‘Hereditary legitimacy’ is a busted flush! Of course, we in Republic do not care whether the monarch is Queen Elizabeth II or King Michael I: we are opposed in principle to any system of hereditary appointment, whether the bloodline is pure or not. We believe that the Head of State’s job should be open to anyone the British people wish to support by democratic election. An elected, non-executive President of Britain would in due course be succeeded not by his or her eldest son or daughter or some other relative but by another President representing the democratic choice of the British people. Bloodlines have no part to play in democracy. What is the Queen’s view on 'bloodline legitimacy’? It is thought that the Queen does not herself rely on ‘bloodline legitimacy’ for her claim to be Head of State, rather she believes that she is monarch by divine right - as symbolised by her anointment with ‘holy oil’ at the 1953 coronation service. Can she be serious? The medieval theory of the ‘divine right of kings’ was completely discredited in England by events at the end of the 17th century, and it is now laughably irrelevant. There is no evidence of God awarding any person or family the exclusive right to hold the job of Head of State; and, indeed, it is likely that most Britons do not now believe in God’s existence. As for the anointment with ‘holy oil’, Republic considers this to be nothing more or less than mumbo jumbo. A discredited theory of divine right compounded with a piece of blatant mumbo jumbo is a decidedly flimsy structure to use as the basis for appointing the Head of State in a modern, egalitarian, and predominantly secular country. What should Republic do about all this? The plain truth is that the royals and their apologists will advance any and every justification, however implausible, for their claim to the throne and the associated wealth, privilege and power. And judging by the history of other royal dynasties, the Windsors will cling tenaciously to their position. In the short term, the Queen will continue to exercise political power and influence - through the Privy Council and her regular audiences with the prime minister, and her family will continue to enjoy an opulent and self-indulgent lifestyle at the expense of the British people. (They own or control enormous tracts of land, originating from William I’s and Henry VIII’s expropriations; they continue to benefit from very substantial tax relief as they did throughout most of the 20th century; and they are now a massive charge on taxpayers through the civil list and the cost of police protection squads, royal buildings maintenance, travel expenses etc.). The extended royal family will continue to exploit their privileged position to the full. We should not be surprised if the Windsors cannot countenance the possibility of giving up their uniquely superior status. However, we must take every possible peaceful step to put an end to this arrogant abuse of the British people at the earliest opportunity. In Ending the Royal Farce - The Case for an Elected Head of State (published by Republic in September 2003), we show how monarchy deprives us of the fundamental right to elect our Head of State, devalues our system of government, and diminishes and corrodes our society; we propose the constitutional measures which will be needed to secure an orderly transition from monarchy to republic; and we outline the benefits to be enjoyed by Britons in a republic; in conclusion, we deconstruct and refute all the arguments advanced to justify or condone monarchy and the status quo. We in Republic are resolved to campaign vigorously to persuade the British people of the strength of our case and to move public opinion towards a position where the demand for a referendum on electing our Head of State becomes overwhelming. We will give a warm welcome to all those who share our views and would like to join our campaign - whether as active organisers, ordinary members, or supporters. Please look through the website pages for more information on how you can help our campaign. www.republic.org.uk [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Not that it matters..... | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:59:53 01/08/05 Sat .....Parliament has said that Queen Liz II is Queen and that's good enough for me. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: that;s good enough for me | |
|
Author: David Hicks [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:49:14 01/08/05 Sat ".....Parliament has said that Queen Liz II is Queen and that's good enough for me." If they don't agree with that, like Gerry Adams, they can't get to take their seats in the parliament at all, because swearing allegiance to her is one of the first things they have to do. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Curnoack | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:37:34 01/08/05 Sat Honestly, I do believe that you are quite insane! "It is thought that the Queen does not herself rely on ‘bloodline legitimacy’ for her claim to be Head of State, rather she believes that she is monarch by divine right - as symbolised by her anointment with ‘holy oil’ at the 1953 coronation service." What utter twaddle! What hellishly under-educated person wrote the above? If they stuck to the core fact instead of trying to "load" it in a particular direction using their amazingly limited skills then the point would carry itself. I found it rather an amusing tale without the unsubtle spin on it. "We will give a warm welcome to all those who share our views and would like to join our campaign" shows that this is a group not interested in moderate debate on the subject. On the contrary this forum is open to debate from those who object to the idea of an FC as much as those who are passionately for it. That is why I enjoy reading and (time permitting) contributing to this forum. However, I have to say, Curnoack, that your posts do not contribute to the debate in a well-balanced way. You post here spouting off the most ridiculous rubbish most of which is not about an FC. In fact I very much doubt your sanity and would question whether you have ever stayed in an institution. If you have had unpleasant experiences with & an inability to fit in with "Englishmen" then I would strongly suggest that you ask yourself: why that may be? I would suggest that it is because of your deeply unpleasant character, the fact that you define your politics by being anti- the issues of others rather than pro- your own issues. Consider - all of your posts are disruptive and most are loonatic. I am not interested in following any more of your posts and I feel that this forum would be seriously better-off without your name on it. Good bye! (Sorry - I cannot sign-off in Ewok.) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Ewok? | |
|
Author: David Hicks [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:46:25 01/08/05 Sat "(Sorry - I cannot sign-off in Ewok.)" Curnoack is a bit of a fruit loop but I hope that isn't a racist joke about the Cornish language... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Chose the Bastard by Lot for all I Care | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:01:35 01/09/05 Sun The question of blood legitimacy is totally irrelevant. The point of Monarchism is to keep the top job out of the hands of grasping politicians and to give the nation a symbol of unity above the partisan divisions. For that purpose we could chose the Monarch by lot for all I care. As for your slander against Her Majesty, it doesn’t matter. Even if as some assert the current royal family begins with Victoria, the family has done well by our people. If it goes back to the War of the Roses then the family has more to be proud of. But the fundamental point is to avoid having politicians fight over the top job and divide the nation in the process. Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: The real reason is | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:20:29 01/09/05 Sun "The point of Monarchism is to keep the top job out of the hands of grasping politicians and to give the nation a symbol of unity above the partisan divisions" The real reason is to keep the money flowing into the hands of a bunch of inbred aristos. However even the inbred ones aren't always genetically first in line. The royals ARE a partisan division. They represent everything undemocratic and primitive and discriminatory in this world. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Gas dha flows! | |
|
Author: My ny vynnav kows Sowsnek. [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:15:52 01/09/05 Sun Inbreeding, eh? You seem excessively interested in that, at least half a dozen of your recent posts emphasising intra-familial sex. But then, it is a fine old Cornish tradition, isn't it? Perhaps you've been taking the fine old Cornish expression, re'th omlansyewgh vamm, a bit too seriously yourself? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Thank you | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:31:07 01/10/05 Mon "at least half a dozen of your recent posts emphasising intra-familial sex. But then, it is a fine old Cornish tradition, isn't it?" Like this kind of racism in England... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Penn kalgh | |
|
Author: Yn poynt da, meur ras. [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:05:46 01/10/05 Mon A) Do you even understand the Cornish in these posts? B) What I said was positively mild compared to some of the things which you have said about the British in your posts. C) If you can not take a little joke at your own expense now and then, then you must be a very objectionable person to talk to. Molleth Dyw dhe vab dha vamm. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Rydhsys rag Kernow lemmyn! | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:20:48 01/10/05 Mon Do you even understand the Cornish in these posts? Na lever henna! A wodhes kewsel Curnoack? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Thus, by your logic, Tony Blair == Perfect? | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:00:17 01/09/05 Sun I see. So you quite clearly believe, that all leaders voted for by the people are perfect. Tony Blair and his party are flawless. Is that what you believe? As with many things in life, a balance between depotism and democracy must be found or there's going to be a worse problem. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I can't believe I'm saying this... | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:43:36 01/09/05 Sun Aw hell, are none of my prejudices safe? Steph, what are you doing? Don't you understand I cling to my anti-Americanism as vehemently as I do to my own skin? How dare you talk such rational, well-grounded common sense! What are you trying to do to me? Next thing you know I'll even be thinking there's hope for the US! Excuse me, I have to go and have a lie down - I feel light-headed. ;-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Glad to help | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:05:59 01/10/05 Mon I am allways glad to help destroy prejudices especially one as pernious as anti-Americanism :-) Cheers Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: americans... | |
|
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:42:50 01/11/05 Tue too bad you weren't alive during the revolutionary war, or you could have stopped all that republic nonsense...as for anti-americanism, i admit that i dont hold americans in very high esteem(id much rather eat my hat than talk to one) but i really dont blame people like myself for being anti-american, considering that the US does what ever the bloody hell it wants without regard for other countries. and until i see more rational people like this Steph character, i will continue to feel this way. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: anti-americanism | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:40:31 01/11/05 Tue Anti-americanism is one of those sad facts of life that many people just cant help feeling and its not there fault. I used to be very anti-ameircan, but I feel I have got over it, probably the only person who has partly as a result of Bush. Apart from some certain ideological adjustments, I honestly cant imagine doing things much different were I in the American position. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: I couldn't agree more. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:55:50 01/11/05 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: on that note... | |
|
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 07:55:04 01/13/05 Thu so the US finally stopped searching for WMDs...i could imagine doing a lot of things different if i were in there position, mainly making sure my own doorstep was clean before i went to clean other peoples, if you get my meaning... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You mean... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:31:25 01/13/05 Thu ... that Britain and America should not complain about anyone having WMDs until all of ours are dismantled first, thereby avoiding hypocrisy? It's an interesting argument. Rather like the Women of Greenham Common and all the rest of the CND mob. Also, I think we tried it in the twenties, when we were the only country to bother to keep to its Versailles Treaty amrmaments limits (frankly, I think we were glad to save the money), and it didn't work too well. THe argument, as I have always understood it, is that so long as anyone else has them we have to, because the others can't be trusted. If we say "Well, if we get rid of all our nukes, h-bombs, VX gas cylinders etc, will you guys in CHina and suchlike be good little tyrants and get rid of yours?" "Sure thing, boss." "Okay then." Not a very clever conversation. The snag is that, not even responsible governments can trust us to disarm either, so we get stalemate. If I'm honest, I acknowledge that considerably better minds than mine have pondered this problem and not reached any conclusions. Ban the Bomb! Four More Years! Hey, hey, LBJ etc. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Stuff and Nonsense | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:11:47 01/11/05 Tue There is no perfect Royal Line from which the Monarch is meant to be descended. There never has been. The Crown has never been passed on purely on the basis of primogeniture, has it? It has often been passed on as a result of battle (Richard III), conquest (WIlliam I, William and Mary), abdication (George V) and murder. This is really pretty irrelevant, because once someone is legally crowned, the crown technically belongs to them and their direct descendents until such time as parliament decides otherwise, so no-one has a greater claim to the Crown than the current monarch. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: (That should read George VI for George V) | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:04:16 01/12/05 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |