Discussion:
Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To The Throne?
(too old to reply)
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-08 19:52:58 UTC
Permalink
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.

Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
twice removed to the throne in 1603.

However Prince Charles IS descended in the Royal Line of Succession from
FIVE of the six previous Kings George -- but NOT from King George IV.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------
The Heir-Apparent _may_ choose whatever name he/she wishes to be known
as; 'David' was King as 'Edward'; 'Albert' was King (and Crowned) as
'George'; while the current Queen chose to retain her Christian name....
presumably only the Heir-Apparent knows what name he will choose for
Kingship .... however I'm sure there's enough bookies who'll accept your
bet as to which it might be.
Aye maybe he doesn't want to be associated with previous kings called
Charles. Scared he'll lose his head perhaps :-)
Allan
Turenne
2007-11-08 20:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession...
I must have been absent the day we 'did' the Stuarts at school -
but.....

James I
I
I
Charles I
I
I
Charles II

How are Charles I and II not descended from James I & VI?

Or am I missing something?

Richard L
Joseph McMillan
2007-11-08 21:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession...
I must have been absent the day we 'did' the Stuarts at school -
but.....
<snip>
Post by Turenne
Or am I missing something?
I think what DSH is trying to say is that Charles is not biologically
a direct descendant of either of the Kings Charles.

He is, of course, in the royal line of succession from them, as he is
from every other previous monarch of the UK, Great Britain, England,
and Scotland.

I'm not sure what not being a direct biological descendant of a prior
king has to do with one's regnal name and number. Charles is also not
a lineal descendant of George IV. Neither were his grandfather and
great-grandfather, but that didn't keep them from being George V and
VI. Charles's great-great-grandfather wasn't a direct descendant of
Edward VI, but that didn't keep him from being Edward VII. Why should
not being a direct descendant of Charles I or II keep the current
Prince of Wales from someday being Charles III?

Joseph McMillan
Turenne
2007-11-08 22:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Golly! Is that really what he was saying? He gets more obtuse by the
day. He knows full well that the names of monarchs have no link to the
relationship between the monarchs. Look at Charles XIV of Sweden..!

Richard
Hal
2007-11-08 23:15:11 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <***@excelsior.com> wrote:
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Baldoni <baldoniXXV@gmail.com>
2007-11-08 23:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !

All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.

In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
--
Count Baldoni
Robert Peffers
2007-11-09 01:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
--
Count Baldoni
Who really cares anyway?
Whack all imperialists
2007-11-09 01:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
--
Count Baldoni
Who really cares anyway?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Agreed - he would probably spend most of his time practising being a
tampon for Comeinand Park-Yer Balls
Baldoni <baldoniXXV@gmail.com>
2007-11-09 09:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read somewhere
that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
-- Count Baldoni
Who really cares anyway?
Exactly.
--
Count Baldoni
The Doctor
2007-11-09 03:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
Olivier
2007-11-09 11:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
And William is a descendant of king Charles II by his mother !!
Robert Peffers
2007-11-09 21:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
Member - Liberal International
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
other member of the very large Royal family.
The Highlander
2007-11-13 04:21:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by The Doctor
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
Member - Liberal International
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
other member of the very large Royal family.
Currently numbering around 40 members.
Renia
2007-11-13 14:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by The Doctor
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
Member - Liberal International
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
other member of the very large Royal family.
Currently numbering around 40 members.
They've whittled them down a bit. Someone else will know the details,
but only The Queen, her hubby, 4 kids, and the grandkids count, these days.
Louis Epstein
2007-11-17 01:10:45 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty Renia <***@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
: The Highlander wrote:
:
:> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
:> <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:>>"The Doctor" <***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
:>>news:fh0jjo$4gu$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...
:>>
:>>>In article <***@gmail.co>, Baldoni <spam> wrote:
:>>>
:>>>>Hal expressed precisely :
:>>>>
:>>>>>On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <***@excelsior.com> wrote:
:>>>>>I'll spare the Irish.
:>>>>>
:>>>>>
:>>>>>>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal
:>>>>>>Line of
:>>>>>>Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:>>>>>>
:>>>>>
:>>>>>Why?
:>>>>
:>>>>Why indeed !
:>>>>
:>>>>All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
:>>>>somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
:>>>>becomes King.
:>>>>
:>>>>In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
:>>>>
:>>>
:>>>Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
:>>>--
:>>>Member - Liberal International
:>>>This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
:>>>God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
:>>>Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
:>>
:>>What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
:>>other member of the very large Royal family.
:>
:>
:> Currently numbering around 40 members.
:
: They've whittled them down a bit. Someone else will know the details,
: but only The Queen, her hubby, 4 kids, and the grandkids count, these days.

It all depends on your definition.

Everyone descended legitimately from the Electress Sophia is considered
to have an eligibility for the Throne by the Act of Settlement,unless
they are or have married Roman Catholics.

Only a few of them have British royal titles or duties.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Renia
2007-11-17 01:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
:> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
:>
:>
:>>
:>>>
:>>>>
:>>>>>I'll spare the Irish.
:>>>>>
:>>>>>
:>>>>>>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal
:>>>>>>Line of
:>>>>>>Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:>>>>>>
:>>>>>
:>>>>>Why?
:>>>>
:>>>>Why indeed !
:>>>>
:>>>>All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
:>>>>somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
:>>>>becomes King.
:>>>>
:>>>>In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
:>>>>
:>>>
:>>>Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
:>>>--
:>>>Member - Liberal International
:>>>God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
:>>>Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
:>>
:>>What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
:>>other member of the very large Royal family.
:>
:>
:> Currently numbering around 40 members.
: They've whittled them down a bit. Someone else will know the details,
: but only The Queen, her hubby, 4 kids, and the grandkids count, these days.
It all depends on your definition.
Everyone descended legitimately from the Electress Sophia is considered
to have an eligibility for the Throne by the Act of Settlement,unless
they are or have married Roman Catholics.
Only a few of them have British royal titles or duties.
I'm talking about the Civil List.
Sacha
2007-11-17 01:44:41 UTC
Permalink
On 17/11/07 01:33, in article fhlgch$c3u$***@mouse.otenet.gr, "Renia"
<***@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
<snip>
Post by Renia
I'm talking about the Civil List.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4971.asp

has the information you want.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'
Dave
2007-11-09 13:43:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:57:43 GMT, Baldoni
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
But I expect Hines is. After all, he is descended from every other
historical figure of note.
The Highlander
2007-11-13 04:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:57:43 GMT, Baldoni
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
But I expect Hines is. After all, he is descended from every other
historical figure of note.
I think you may have misspelled "hysterical"...
Breton
2007-11-09 13:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?

Breton
Baldoni <baldoniXXV@gmail.com>
2007-11-09 15:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I am not trolling. Look at the lifespan of former Prince's of Wales,
and former male monarchs. If you look at the women then they far
outlive the men.

Queen Victoria
Queen Mary
Princess Alice
Princess Alexandra
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

Edward VII
Prince Albert
George VI

The women all lived to grand old ages while the men all suffered ill
health and died young. If Charles ever makes King which I doubt that
he will then he will be there for 2 years tops.
--
Count Baldoni
David
2007-11-09 17:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I am not trolling. Look at the lifespan of former Prince's of Wales,
and former male monarchs. If you look at the women then they far
outlive the men.
Queen Victoria
Queen Mary
Princess Alice
Princess Alexandra
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
Edward VII
Prince Albert
George VI
The women all lived to grand old ages while the men all suffered ill
health and died young. If Charles ever makes King which I doubt that
he will then he will be there for 2 years tops.
--
Count Baldoni
Not all of these people are closely related to each other!

In general, yes, women in the First World live longer than men.
However, Charles' parents are both long-lived: his father is 86 and
healthy, his mother is 81 and healthy. Barring any accidents, Charles
can expect to live at least into his 80s. At nearly 59, Charles is
already older than his grandfather George VI, whose early death was
probably not due to congenital factors. Edward VIII had lived to be
nearly 78, after all, and I expect that Charles lives a healthier life
than both men.

If Charles lives to the age of at least 80 (in 2028) he will almost
certainly outlive his mother, even if she matches the late Queen
Mother's century. Obviously Charles will not have one of the famously
long reigns of British history, but that is the price to be paid for
being the child of a long-lived parent -- as was discovered not only
by Edward VII, but also George IV and before him Edward the Black
Prince.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-09 21:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
Well his last wife was younger than he and she is very dead.
What has age got to do with it?
People die at every age.
Baldoni <baldoniXXV@gmail.com>
2007-11-09 21:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I forgot to add that Charles is a rampant homosexual and trying to hide
this has caused him to age prematurely.
--
Count Baldoni
Breton
2007-11-09 21:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I forgot to add that Charles is a rampant homosexual and trying to hide
this has caused him to age prematurely.
--
Count Baldoni- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I though you said you weren't trolling.

Breton
The Highlander
2007-11-13 05:14:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:22:56 GMT, Baldoni
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I forgot to add that Charles is a rampant homosexual and trying to hide
this has caused him to age prematurely.
I think that's a gross libel.
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-12 12:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).

With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.

Citizen Jimserac
Turenne
2007-11-12 18:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.


Richard Lichten
Breton
2007-11-14 17:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Precisely. You could usefully have mentioned that abdication is not a
unilateral act. It can't happen before accession and even then only
with the consent, not only of the UK Parliament, but also the
Parliaments of all the overseas Realms.

Not going to happen.

Breton
The Highlander
2007-11-13 05:16:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:59:45 -0800, Citizen Jimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
Citizen Jimserac
Boy, we're really up to our necks in crap tonight , aren't we!
Breton
2007-11-14 17:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
As usual you missed the point. The point was not about the merits or
otherwise of Diana and Charles. The point was: why post in a group if
you think the topic (in this case, Royalty, has no merit and is not
worth discussing?

As you your comments about Prince Charles "abdicating", he can't. This
has been explained to you. Charles will become King by virtue of
operation of law when Queen Elizabeth dies.l

That's all you need to know.

Breton
Louis Epstein
2007-11-17 01:13:29 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty Citizen Jimserac <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Nov 9, 8:44 am, Breton <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> On Nov 8, 6:57 pm, Baldoni <baldoniXXV<nientespam>@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
:
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
:
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
:
: Citizen Jimserac

The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Sacha
2007-11-17 01:32:06 UTC
Permalink
On 17/11/07 01:13, in article
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: Citizen Jimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
Oh really, this is such a tired old subject! Of course the Prince of Wales
will not abdicate. If he intended to do so, he would not be flogging
himself to death doing one tenth of the things he does now, all of which
benefit this country and so many of which, most unfairly, never get the
press coverage of some starlet's underwear colour or size. He could have
spent his time driving fast cars, commissioning luxury boats and spending a
fortune on interior design of his private home.

The subject of his failed marriage occupies far too much space in terms of
his 'value' to this country. That failure took two people; his continuing
usefulness to us all and his genuine concerns for UK far overwhelm that, IMO
and involve his dedication alone. He has battled on through whatever has
been thrown at him and he is most definitely being seen in a new light
because his own talents do now have a chance to shine. Dutiful, studious
and painstaking don't make for glamour or headlines but they do endure and
I'm not the only person I know who is thankful to see those in the PoW.

Most certainly he will not abdicate. Why should he? For having a failed
marriage or a mistress when his marriage failed? If that were the case the
monarchy would have collapsed centuries ago. Those are private matters, not
those of State and what led to them is also private and the subject of far
too much utterly ridiculous hyperbole. I simply do not care who did what to
whom, or when. It is just none of my business.
Nor will the Queen abdicate - ever. She took a vow and she will stick to
it. She knows, as does her eldest son, that becoming Monarch is not an
elective choice. And both know that to emulate Edward VIII would weaken the
monarchy by making it so. IMO, we're lucky to have both of them.
--
Sacha
Stan Brown
2007-11-17 18:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:32:06 +0000 from Sacha
Post by Sacha
Nor will the Queen abdicate - ever. She took a vow and she will stick to
it. She knows, as does her eldest son, that becoming Monarch is not an
elective choice. And both know that to emulate Edward VIII would weaken the
monarchy by making it so.
I have no doubt that you're right in your projection: the Queen will
not ask Parliament to let her out of the job as long as she's alive.

But if she did, I do not think it be "emulating Edward VIII"? Rather,
she'd be emulating Wilhelmina and Juliana. The Dutch monarchy seems
quite strong (more so in some ways than the UK one).

So why do you think abdication as honorable retirement would be a bad
thing in the UK, when it clearly is not a bad thing in the
Netherlands?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Sacha
2007-11-17 22:51:47 UTC
Permalink
On 17/11/07 18:38, in article
Post by Stan Brown
Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:32:06 +0000 from Sacha
Post by Sacha
Nor will the Queen abdicate - ever. She took a vow and she will stick to
it. She knows, as does her eldest son, that becoming Monarch is not an
elective choice. And both know that to emulate Edward VIII would weaken the
monarchy by making it so.
I have no doubt that you're right in your projection: the Queen will
not ask Parliament to let her out of the job as long as she's alive.
But if she did, I do not think it be "emulating Edward VIII"? Rather,
she'd be emulating Wilhelmina and Juliana. The Dutch monarchy seems
quite strong (more so in some ways than the UK one).
So why do you think abdication as honorable retirement would be a bad
thing in the UK, when it clearly is not a bad thing in the
Netherlands?
This is like asking why an apple isn't an orange. Different countries,
different traditions, therefore different expectations. In UK the monarchy
isn't negotiable in terms of retirement or "I'm old and now I'm giving up".
The Queen's Coronation Oath did not include the words "until I abdicate or
retire". In this country the position of monarch is for life which is why
the abdication of Edward VIII was so shattering to the Commonwealth. He was
perceived as having failed in his duty to the country.
--
Sacha
allan connochie
2007-11-17 07:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: Citizen Jimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though that
in itself was probably inevitable anyway.

Allan
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-17 07:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
Post by Louis Epstein
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
[sop]
True.
Post by allan connochie
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though
that in itself was probably inevitable anyway.
Also True.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
The Highlander
2007-11-17 18:02:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:43:11 GMT, "allan connochie"
Post by allan connochie
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: Citizen Jimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though that
in itself was probably inevitable anyway.
Allan
I remember a specific example, when some idiot organized a TV quiz
show called "Royals vs. Commoners" or something similar and it quickly
became clear that the commoners were way ahead of the royals
intellectually. The studio audience seemed slightly stunned by this
revelation, and I have no doubt that people watching at home said
"Good God - even I knew THAT!" when yet another royal revealed his or
her ignorance. The continual haw-hawing of the royals didn't help.

It was, to put it bluntly, a shameful display and I have no doubt that
many began to wonder why they were paying via their taxes and the
civil list to maintain these illiterati in such style.

There was a joke doing the rounds at that time about a local squire
visiting the parish school and the headmaster, wishing to show off his
pupils' knowledge, asked one little boy, "Who wrote MacBeth?"

The little boy stammered, "Please sir, it wasn't me."

The headmaster and squire adjourned to the headmaster's study and over
a glass of sherry, the headmaster tried to make light of the pupil's
gaffe, saying that he was probably trying to be funny. The squire,
haw-hawing jovially, said, "Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I
guessed right away the little bugger had done it!"

I suspect that summarises the intellectual level of much of the
English landed gentry.
Turenne
2007-11-17 18:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Macbeth.......squire......headmaster.....etc....."Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I guessed right away the little bugger >had done it!"
Have you any other hoary old apocryphal stories to regale us with?
That one was probably hilarious in 1870 when it was already 30 years
old.

Richard Lichten
Louis Epstein
2007-11-17 01:08:47 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty Baldoni <baldoniXXV <nientespam>@gmail.com> wrote:
: Hal expressed precisely :
:> On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <***@excelsior.com> wrote:
:> I'll spare the Irish.
:>
:>> It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
:>> Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:>>
:> Why?
:
: Why indeed !
:
: All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
: somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
: becomes King.

I don't think he has given serious thought to being anything but
Charles III but the newspapers need to fill their space...

: In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.

Why do you say that?
I'm not aware that he has had significant health problems.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
David
2007-11-09 15:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
As has been pointed out, this is not particularly relevant.

I'm not sure why Princess Elizabeth chose the name "Charles" in 1948
-- perhaps it seemed more romantic -- but it's a little late to go
back now.

Anyway, there's a big difference between being a Charles and being a
George --

Random entry from the diary of a Charles:

CHARLES: London rioted again today. Some fool of a Puritan minister
(Dr. Morefruit Muddifoot, perhaps) says that after burning the
Catholics they will come and chop off my head. Ha, ha! What an
amusing people I rule.

GEORGE: Unable to hunt again due to the GOUT!!!! Mem: Find good
excuse to HANG that Scotch dog of a doctor!!!! Also, add another
course of meat pies to breakfast.
George Knighton
2007-11-10 13:11:41 UTC
Permalink
In addition to having a natural affinity for George VI and George V,
the Prince of Wales is known to be an admirer of George III.

It seems to me that there would be a very good chance that he would
pick that name for his reign.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-10 16:01:05 UTC
Permalink
What has he said about George III?

DSH
Post by George Knighton
In addition to having a natural affinity for George VI and George V,
the Prince of Wales is known to be an admirer of George III.
It seems to me that there would be a very good chance that he would
pick that name for his reign.
Claude Latremouille
2007-11-11 05:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Knighton
In addition to having a natural affinity for George VI and George V,
the Prince of Wales is known to be an admirer of George III.
It seems to me that there would be a very good chance that he would
pick that name for his reign.
*
Not to mention that George is one of his given names...
*
Have a nice day, folks!
*
Claude Latrémouille

=== ***@torfree.net ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
Louis Epstein
2007-11-17 01:16:32 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty George Knighton <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: In addition to having a natural affinity for George VI and George V,
: the Prince of Wales is known to be an admirer of George III.
:
: It seems to me that there would be a very good chance that he would
: pick that name for his reign.
:

George.
I don't think there's a serious chance that he will pick any name
other than Charles.

Of course he is two months from the age at which Edward VII acceded,
and seems likely to break the record for age at accession now held
by William IV.

Will he break the record for time as The Prince of Wales (50 years
next year,I think only George IV and Edward VII were Prince longer
than that)?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
David
2007-11-17 05:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
I don't think there's a serious chance that he will pick any name
other than Charles.
I don't either, but I wonder how much time a new monarch has to pick a
name? They need one pretty quickly for the formal proclamation, don't
they? Had Edward VII already made it known before his accession that
he wished to be known as Edward instead of Albert (contrary to his
mother's wishes)?
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-10 16:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?

Interesting Connection...

Perhaps he waxed rhapsodic during an American visit? <g>

DSH
Dear Spencer,
As I recall George III and Prince Charles have a hobby
in common ... both being avid farmers. Charles is very interested in
organic
farming.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Feck all sassanaigh
2007-11-10 16:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
Interesting Connection...
Perhaps he waxed rhapsodic during an American visit? <g>
DSH
Dear Spencer,
As I recall George III and Prince Charles have a hobby
in common ... both being avid farmers. Charles is very interested in
organic
farming.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And in the USA he could become George Michael 11 and hang around
public loos acting as a tampon..
The Highlander
2007-11-13 05:17:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:50:24 -0800, Feck all sassanaigh
Post by Feck all sassanaigh
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
Interesting Connection...
Perhaps he waxed rhapsodic during an American visit? <g>
DSH
Dear Spencer,
As I recall George III and Prince Charles have a hobby
in common ... both being avid farmers. Charles is very interested in
organic
farming.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And in the USA he could become George Michael 11 and hang around
public loos acting as a tampon..
Even despite your example, I find that unlikely.
Turlough
2007-11-10 18:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
jl
2007-11-12 10:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turlough
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
Watch two people doing sign language?

Jochen
--
------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com
Turlough
2007-11-12 11:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by jl
Post by Turlough
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
Watch two people doing sign language?
I'm afraid we'll never know, Jochen. The man is quite shy, you
understand. You have a great web site though... :>)
Sacha
2007-11-12 11:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turlough
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
"HIS passion for the countryside was mocked, he had a mania for architecture
and some dismissed him as a dangerous eccentric. Now a public rehabilitation
of King George III is being sought by the Prince of Wales.
Today ³mad² King George¹s place in history is as the monarch who lost the
American colonies. But in a BBC documentary the Prince says that his
ancestor¹s energy and down-to-earth charm might even have persuaded American
revolutionaries to change their minds if only a royal tour across the
Atlantic had been possible in the 18th century.
History has obscured the real George III, who demonstrated some of the most
attractive traits of any monarch, says the Prince, describing him as one of
Britain¹s most dutiful, cultured and misunderstood rulers.
For all the bouts of mania, enshrined on film in The Madness of King George,
the King was definitely not mad. ³I¹ve read the doctor¹s reports and the
King¹s correspondence in the royal archives and I concluded that yes, he was
ill, but he was not insane,² the Prince says in the BBC Two Timewatch
documentary, to be broadcast next week.
The Queen is backing the rehabilitation campaign. In March, Buckingham
Palace will stage the first major exhibition of artefacts collected by
George III and his consort, Queen Charlotte. The 500 pieces from the Royal
Collection present George as the era¹s leading patron of music, the arts and
sciences.
³For many years I¹ve been fascinated by my ancestor,² the Prince says.
³George III led Britain through 60 years of enormous social upheaval,
industrial revolution and terrible hardships inflicted by war with Napoleon.
Yet history remembers him above all as the Œmad king¹ or the king who lost
America. This is a travesty.²

extracted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1003367.ece
26.01.04

and from The Guardian 27.12.05

"Clarence House yesterday issued a pained denial of claims that the Prince
of Wales has held private discussions with "trusted friends" about the
possibility of reigning as George VII rather than risk the negative
connotations attached to the name King Charles.
...................
One such friend told the Guardian: "Anyone who knows the Prince of Wales
knows he does not sit around talking to his chums, discussing what he wants
to be called. Inasmuch as officials have discussed it with him at accession
planning meetings the thinking was that he would remain Charles.""

(posted to atr only)
--
Sacha
The Highlander
2007-11-13 05:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turlough
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
He's fishing for a chance to announce that Charles and he are cousins.
Turlough
2007-11-13 11:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
Post by Turlough
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
He's fishing for a chance to announce that Charles and he are cousins.
Where did all these kooks come from, Highlander? I was going to ask Auld
Bob to wheel out the Burns Unit, to speed up the inevitable, but these
whacks would probably enjoy the poetry and prose and start threads on
the pros and cons of alliteration and other incredibly fascinating
devices. I was also going to toss out one of my standard incendiary
*some of Queen Mum's ancestors came from Roscommon, etc* quips, but I
didn't want to be responsible for any of these olde duffers having a
stroke...
The Highlander
2007-11-13 16:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turlough
Post by The Highlander
Post by Turlough
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
He's fishing for a chance to announce that Charles and he are cousins.
Where did all these kooks come from, Highlander? I was going to ask Auld
Bob to wheel out the Burns Unit, to speed up the inevitable, but these
whacks would probably enjoy the poetry and prose and start threads on
the pros and cons of alliteration and other incredibly fascinating
devices. I was also going to toss out one of my standard incendiary
*some of Queen Mum's ancestors came from Roscommon, etc* quips, but I
didn't want to be responsible for any of these olde duffers having a
stroke...
That's very caring of you, Turlough! Here's how it works:

soc.culture.scottish and soc.culture.irish are irresistible targets
because they are two of the world's most interesting cultures.

In both groups the same agendas are at work. They are as follows:

People who are of Scottish or Irish descent who want to connect with
their roots.

People who aren't of Scottish or Irish descent but would love to be.

People with an axe to grind, aka "The English" and "The Australians".

People overcome with envy because the Scots can move smoothly into sex
mode by merely flipping up their kilts instead of spending hours
trying to disentangle their Y-fronts from their Doc Martins while
hobbling after their encounter of the evening, shouting, "Come back!
I love you! Didn't I buy you two rum and cokes!"

Irish people overcome with envy because the Scots have the knack of
wheedling free drinks out of tourists.

Scots overcome with envy because the Irish can blow up pubs where
tourists don't offer them free drinks and get away with it. "It was da
Rah, yer honour!"

Specialized agendas:

Men who want to be Braveheart.

Women who want to be interfered with by Braveheart.

Men who want to have a shower with Braveheart.

Men who want to join an IRA Active Service Unit.

Men who read Ray's memoirs and decide to pass.

Men who are drawn to the Scots/Irish image of unlimited violence.

Women who believe that Ireland is the land of the fairies.

Men who hope that Ireland is the land of the fairies.

People who think the Scots and Irish are "cute".

People who hate the Scots and the Irish for being "cute".

People who want to wear skirts but are afraid their mothers will find
out, unless there is an excuse, like "wearing the dress of my
ancestors!" (Fashion warning: a cute little summer number with polka
dots and a low bustline just isn't going to cut it, If you decide to
go for it anyway, at least shave your chest.)

People who want to spend the rest of their lives in a drunken stupor
shouting "Fuck the Bastard English!" or "Feck da Prods/Taigs!"

People who are bored with soc.culture.british and want more out of
Usenet than whining in four-part harmony.

People who are demented and think scs/sci can be a home on the Net.

People who get off on tormenting the demented.

People like you and I who watch all this with bemused wonder.
The Highlander
2007-11-13 04:19:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
twice removed to the throne in 1603.
Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.

Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".

Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.
Because Scotland is partly tribal, she is also High Chief and
entertains the clan chiefs to lunch once a year in Ednburgh after a
short service at St. Giles Cathedral, where the chiefs renew their
vows of allegiance to her. Some of them are not British, their
ancestors having emigrated or fled after the two unsuccessful
insurrections to place Bonnie Prince Charlie's father on the throne.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
However Prince Charles IS descended in the Royal Line of Succession from
FIVE of the six previous Kings George -- but NOT from King George IV.
There is no requirement that he need be. He is descended from Queen
Victoria, whose father died eight months after she was born. She
inherited the throne following the death of her uncle, William IV, who
died without legitimate issue.

Your comment seems completely gratuitous,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------
The Heir-Apparent _may_ choose whatever name he/she wishes to be known
as; 'David' was King as 'Edward'; 'Albert' was King (and Crowned) as
'George'; while the current Queen chose to retain her Christian name....
presumably only the Heir-Apparent knows what name he will choose for
Kingship .... however I'm sure there's enough bookies who'll accept your
bet as to which it might be.
Aye maybe he doesn't want to be associated with previous kings called
Charles. Scared he'll lose his head perhaps :-)
Allan
Robert Peffers
2007-11-13 20:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
twice removed to the throne in 1603.
Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.
Because Scotland is partly tribal, she is also High Chief and
entertains the clan chiefs to lunch once a year in Ednburgh after a
short service at St. Giles Cathedral, where the chiefs renew their
vows of allegiance to her. Some of them are not British, their
ancestors having emigrated or fled after the two unsuccessful
insurrections to place Bonnie Prince Charlie's father on the throne.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
However Prince Charles IS descended in the Royal Line of Succession from
FIVE of the six previous Kings George -- but NOT from King George IV.
There is no requirement that he need be. He is descended from Queen
Victoria, whose father died eight months after she was born. She
inherited the throne following the death of her uncle, William IV, who
died without legitimate issue.
Your comment seems completely gratuitous,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------
The Heir-Apparent _may_ choose whatever name he/she wishes to be known
as; 'David' was King as 'Edward'; 'Albert' was King (and Crowned) as
'George'; while the current Queen chose to retain her Christian name....
presumably only the Heir-Apparent knows what name he will choose for
Kingship .... however I'm sure there's enough bookies who'll accept your
bet as to which it might be.
Aye maybe he doesn't want to be associated with previous kings called
Charles. Scared he'll lose his head perhaps :-)
Allan
By the way he goes on now he seemes to have already lost much of its
contents.
Louis Epstein
2007-11-17 01:18:02 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty The Highlander <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
: On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
: <***@excelsior.com> wrote:
:
:>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
:>Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:>
:>Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
:>was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
:>twice removed to the throne in 1603.
:
: Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
: Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
: of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
:
: Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
: would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
:
: Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.

That is a misapprehension about the immutable,universal nature of
Monarchy held by certain Scots,evidenced on certain occasions as the
Mistaken Allegation of Arbroath.

: Because Scotland is partly tribal, she is also High Chief and
: entertains the clan chiefs to lunch once a year in Ednburgh after a
: short service at St. Giles Cathedral, where the chiefs renew their
: vows of allegiance to her. Some of them are not British, their
: ancestors having emigrated or fled after the two unsuccessful
: insurrections to place Bonnie Prince Charlie's father on the throne.
:>
:>However Prince Charles IS descended in the Royal Line of Succession from
:>FIVE of the six previous Kings George -- but NOT from King George IV.
:
: There is no requirement that he need be. He is descended from Queen
: Victoria, whose father died eight months after she was born. She
: inherited the throne following the death of her uncle, William IV, who
: died without legitimate issue.
:
: Your comment seems completely gratuitous,
:
:>DSH
:>
:>Lux et Veritas et Libertas
:>------------------------------------------
:>
:>"allan connochie" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
:>news:AIHYi.9746$***@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
:>>
:>> "Brian Sharrock" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
:>> news:bgFYi.9718$***@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
:>
:>>> The Heir-Apparent _may_ choose whatever name he/she wishes to be known
:>>> as; 'David' was King as 'Edward'; 'Albert' was King (and Crowned) as
:>>> 'George'; while the current Queen chose to retain her Christian name....
:>>> presumably only the Heir-Apparent knows what name he will choose for
:>>> Kingship .... however I'm sure there's enough bookies who'll accept your
:>>> bet as to which it might be.
:>>
:>> Aye maybe he doesn't want to be associated with previous kings called
:>> Charles. Scared he'll lose his head perhaps :-)
:>>
:>> Allan
:>
:

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
allan connochie
2007-11-17 07:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
: On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
:>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
:>Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:>
:>Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
:>was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
:>twice removed to the throne in 1603.
: Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
: Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
: of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
: Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
: would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
: Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.
That is a misapprehension about the immutable,universal nature of
Monarchy held by certain Scots,evidenced on certain occasions as the
Mistaken Allegation of Arbroath.
The Arbroath Letter states categorically that if the monarch isn't acting on
behalf of the Scottish people then they can be deposed. King Robert himself
must have agreed to this contractual monarchy even if he wasn't happy about
it. However James VII was actually thrown off the throne by the Scots
(admittedly they could only safely do this once he'd lost his English power
base) and was proclaimed a traitor. Again it was spelt out clearly what a
monarch must do to hold the crown and that was they had to be of the
Scottish royal line, be of the Protestant faith and swear the Coronation
Oath guaranteeing the Presbyterian settlement in Scotland. So the idea that
it is contractual with the people as to who gets to sit on the throne is as
old as the hills, in England as well as in Scotland. As to the monarchy
itself, no matter what you think, or wish, the case to be, the fact is that
if the British people decided they wanted a Republic (a mighty big if but
I'm talking hypothetically) then a Republic there would be!

Allan
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...