[Ansteorra] OT: Queen Elizabeth II - is NOT the rightful heir to the throne of England

[Pat Mullins]

Actually, the son of a Spencer is second in line...




________________________________
 From: Peter Holland <pholland64 at gmail.com>
To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org> 
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] OT: Queen Elizabeth II - is NOT the rightful heir to the throne of England
 
my only comment they do not go back far enough
how is Edward III legit if his farther only loved men
Edward III is a Mortimer
so bastards abound
at the end of the day it means very little Elizabeth Windsor is Queen
and a son of the Spencer line is next in line
so yeah war of the roses

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013, Hillary Greenslade <hillaryrg at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Had to share, stubbled on this YouTube video of a documentary from May,
>> 2013,
>> titled: 'Queen Elizabeth II - is NOT the rightful heir to the throne of
>> England'.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=z5fIwLo1Trs<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5fIwLo1Trs>
>>
>
> My first thought was "Do we have to spray for Jacobites again?".
>
> I am NOT trying to slag you, Hillary!  It's fine that you mention it.
> The problem is that he's wrong in practice, and since practice
> actually controls royal successions, ...
>
>  Runs under an hour
>>
>
> Luckily, Googling quickly provided his theory, so I don't have to
> watch all 48:18.  It's actually an infestation of mutated
> quasi-Ricardians.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Alternative_successions_of_**
> the_English_crown<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_successions_of_the_English_crown>
>
> And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Edward_IV_of_England#**Controversy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Controversy>has
> rebuttals.  "Under English common law a child born to a married woman
> is presumed to be her husband's, although the husband may contest the
> presumption.  Also, even if he were illegitimate, Edward still had a
> direct (albeit legally barred) blood-claim to the throne through his
> mother Cecily, who was a great-granddaughter of Edward III through
> John of Gaunt and his illegitimate daughter (Cecily's mother) Joan
> Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland."  And even whether the barring was
> legal and the illegitimacy legal is questionable.
>
> Certainly in practice, Edward IV and his heirs by birth and/or law
> have usually had the overwhelming acceptance of the people in
> practice, which is really the true source of monarchy, despite Tony
> Robinson's nonsense of "The monarchy rests entirely on blood and
> inheritance".  I am minded of the motton on the inside of the crowns
> of Caid: "You rule because they believe".  It could just as justly be
> engraved inside the crowns of the UK.
>
> Danihel Lincolnia
> --
> Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com
> ______________________________**_________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/**listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-**ansteorra.org<http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org>
>



-- 
We must be born with an intuition of mortality…out we come blooded and
squalling with the knowledge that all the points of the compass there is
only one direction, and time is its measure.    Tom Stoppard
_______________________________________________
Ansteorra mailing list
Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org