Discussion:
Shocking discovery
(too old to reply)
Keith F. Lynch
2024-04-01 20:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Over the past few decades, great strides have been made in DNA
analysis and in data science. Analysis of the DNA of living members
of the royal families of Europe have allowed reconstruction of their
earlier and earlier ancestors.

This has resulting in a shocking discovery. It turns out that William
the Conqueror was illegitimate, i.e. his parents were not married to
each other!

This of course means that none of his descendants were or are rightful
kings or queens or the ancestors thereof. This includes Princess
Sophia of the Palatinate, Electress of Hanover. By current law, all
British monarchs must be her descendants. This creates a problem.

Parliament is working late to change that law, replacing her with
Alfred the Great. The entire British population will them be checked
to see who is most closely related to him. That person will become
the new British king or queen (if they're a member of the Church of
England, of course). If you're British and a church member, please
spit in a cup and mail it to Buckingham Palace for DNA analysis.
Thanks.

Of course this means that all laws that were ratified by monarchs
since 1066 are hereby null and void, and the laws have reverted to
those extant in 1065. If you are fluent in Old English, please
report to Parliament for translation duty. Thanks.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Louis Epstein
2024-04-11 06:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Over the past few decades, great strides have been made in DNA
analysis and in data science. Analysis of the DNA of living members
of the royal families of Europe have allowed reconstruction of their
earlier and earlier ancestors.
This has resulting in a shocking discovery. It turns out that William
the Conqueror was illegitimate, i.e. his parents were not married to
each other!
Umm...William was known as "William the Bastard" before he did his
conquering...the marital status of his parents was well known.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
This of course means that none of his descendants were or are rightful
kings or queens or the ancestors thereof. This includes Princess
Sophia of the Palatinate, Electress of Hanover. By current law, all
British monarchs must be her descendants. This creates a problem.
Conquest has a way of restarting laws from scratch.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Parliament is working late to change that law, replacing her with
Alfred the Great. The entire British population will them be checked
to see who is most closely related to him. That person will become
the new British king or queen (if they're a member of the Church of
England, of course). If you're British and a church member, please
spit in a cup and mail it to Buckingham Palace for DNA analysis.
Thanks.
When Alfred died his son Edward the Elder took over despite the claims
of Ethelwald of York,son of Alfred's elder brother Ethelred I.

How long will this injustice persist?

And how can a Parliament convened by a false monarch have a say?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Keith F. Lynch
2024-04-11 13:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Keith F. Lynch
This has resulting in a shocking discovery. It turns out that William
the Conqueror was illegitimate, i.e. his parents were not married to
each other!
Umm...William was known as "William the Bastard" before he did his
conquering...the marital status of his parents was well known.
Yes, that was the whole point of my joke. You did notice the date I
posted it on, right?

Another part of the joke is that it's extremely unlikely that there's
anyone now living who is descended from Alfred who is not also
descended from William.
Post by Louis Epstein
Conquest has a way of restarting laws from scratch.
William did have a fairly good claim to the throne. He wasn't just
some random person who decided to take over. Edward the Confessor was
such a generous person that he was made a saint. Unfortunately, he
was so generous that he promised the throne to several people -- who
then fought over it.
Post by Louis Epstein
When Alfred died his son Edward the Elder took over despite the
claims of Ethelwald of York,son of Alfred's elder brother Ethelred I.
How long will this injustice persist?
And how can a Parliament convened by a false monarch have a say?
I don't think Edward the Elder ever convened a parliament.

Speaking of Edwards, I recently noticed that Ed 3 ruled for more years
than Eds 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 combined.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Louis Epstein
2024-04-11 15:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Keith F. Lynch
This has resulting in a shocking discovery. It turns out that William
the Conqueror was illegitimate, i.e. his parents were not married to
each other!
Umm...William was known as "William the Bastard" before he did his
conquering...the marital status of his parents was well known.
Yes, that was the whole point of my joke. You did notice the date I
posted it on, right?
Another part of the joke is that it's extremely unlikely that there's
anyone now living who is descended from Alfred who is not also
descended from William.
Post by Louis Epstein
Conquest has a way of restarting laws from scratch.
William did have a fairly good claim to the throne. He wasn't just
some random person who decided to take over. Edward the Confessor was
such a generous person that he was made a saint. Unfortunately, he
was so generous that he promised the throne to several people -- who
then fought over it.
Post by Louis Epstein
When Alfred died his son Edward the Elder took over despite the
claims of Ethelwald of York,son of Alfred's elder brother Ethelred I.
How long will this injustice persist?
And how can a Parliament convened by a false monarch have a say?
I don't think Edward the Elder ever convened a parliament.
I was pointing out the logical inconsistency of Charles III's parliament
setting the rules for his replacement,if in fact he was a usurper.
(Shades of the precedence of the Lords Le Despencer).
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Speaking of Edwards, I recently noticed that Ed 3 ruled for more years
than Eds 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 combined.
Edwards of course were the ones who continued to be named
after the Conquest but had the previous ones ignored for
numbering purposes (though Edward the Martyr got to be a
patron saint for being murdered for his stepmother's convenience,
an easier but more painful path than the Confessor took).

On a personal level...this address ***@lekno.ws
replaced the ***@put.com address I had had since
1995 when I sold the put.com domain in 2023.

Have you ever done anything about getting a pardon in Virginia?
You say you hope to get the bogus convictions reversed,but the
officialdom wants some sort of application,which I guess you
decline to file because it implies guilt?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Keith F. Lynch
2024-04-11 23:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by Louis Epstein
And how can a Parliament convened by a false monarch have a say?
I don't think Edward the Elder ever convened a parliament.
I was pointing out the logical inconsistency of Charles III's
parliament setting the rules for his replacement,if in fact he was
a usurper. (Shades of the precedence of the Lords Le Despencer).
The parliament convened by a previous Charles decided that he was not
the rightful king, nor was anyone else. They failed to disappear in
a puff of logic. Instead, the king's head disappeared in a flash of
steel. (But it was sewed back on later, so no harm done.)
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Speaking of Edwards, I recently noticed that Ed 3 ruled for more
years than Eds 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 combined.
Edwards of course were the ones who continued to be named after the
Conquest but had the previous ones ignored for numbering purposes
(though Edward the Martyr got to be a patron saint for being
murdered for his stepmother's convenience, an easier but more
painful path than the Confessor took).
What do you mean ignored? Edwards the Elder, Martyr, and Confessor
are better known as Edwards -2, -1, and 0, respectively, right?
Didn't everyone in the 9th century number things starting with -2?
Post by Louis Epstein
1995 when I sold the put.com domain in 2023.
You're in Samoa?
Post by Louis Epstein
Have you ever done anything about getting a pardon in Virginia?
You say you hope to get the bogus convictions reversed,but the
officialdom wants some sort of application,which I guess you
decline to file because it implies guilt?
That's off topic here, since I am not royalty, nor did my alleged
crime involve royalty. I will reply by email within a few days.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Louis Epstein
2024-04-17 21:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by Louis Epstein
And how can a Parliament convened by a false monarch have a say?
I don't think Edward the Elder ever convened a parliament.
I was pointing out the logical inconsistency of Charles III's
parliament setting the rules for his replacement,if in fact he was
a usurper. (Shades of the precedence of the Lords Le Despencer).
The parliament convened by a previous Charles decided that he was not
the rightful king, nor was anyone else. They failed to disappear in
a puff of logic. Instead, the king's head disappeared in a flash of
steel. (But it was sewed back on later, so no harm done.)
From a monarchist POV,a parliament's powers derive from the
Monarch (as does the right of the Monarch's subjects to choose
parliamentarians).

The putative first Lord Le Despencer was summoned by Simon De Montfort
in rebellion against Henry III,and died fighting against the King's
forces,but a later House of Lords reckoned right to that title to
derive from descent from him...the current heirs grow what I believe
is the only English tea.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Speaking of Edwards, I recently noticed that Ed 3 ruled for more
years than Eds 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 combined.
Edwards of course were the ones who continued to be named after the
Conquest but had the previous ones ignored for numbering purposes
(though Edward the Martyr got to be a patron saint for being
murdered for his stepmother's convenience, an easier but more
painful path than the Confessor took).
What do you mean ignored? Edwards the Elder, Martyr, and Confessor
are better known as Edwards -2, -1, and 0, respectively, right?
Didn't everyone in the 9th century number things starting with -2?
Post by Louis Epstein
1995 when I sold the put.com domain in 2023.
You're in Samoa?
Post by Louis Epstein
Have you ever done anything about getting a pardon in Virginia?
You say you hope to get the bogus convictions reversed,but the
officialdom wants some sort of application,which I guess you
decline to file because it implies guilt?
That's off topic here, since I am not royalty, nor did my alleged
crime involve royalty. I will reply by email within a few days.
(received).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Loading...