Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
It's II
Interesting information about the British monarchy
- Thread starter ChristianProgressive
- Start date
-
- Tags
- uk history
It's II
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
There's going to be mystical swords and stones to determine monarchical legitimacy next.
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
A made up entity is real, while an actual person and legal institution is fiction?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Freddie Mercury, Brian May, John Deacon and Roger Taylor are Queen - all else is non-musical.
Dave
That too, and even then the legitimacy of their claims was traced back to the Tudors, not the Plantagenets.
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Some who does research into rice is far more beneficial than another HRS.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,956
Plantagenets? Should have fought better at Bosworth.
Tudors? Should have had a monarch with kids.
Stuarts? Should have fought better at Culloden.
Tudors? Should have had a monarch with kids.
Stuarts? Should have fought better at Culloden.
Have you any idea how many illegitimate children the monarchy have produced over the years?
Why on earth would anyone think for a second that they had stumbled onto something new and groundbreaking with this little piece of irrelevant trivia? Every schoolchild knows this stuff.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,699
Have you any idea how many illegitimate children the monarchy have produced over the years?
Why on earth would anyone think for a second that they had stumbled onto something new and groundbreaking with this little piece of irrelevant trivia? Every schoolchild knows this stuff.
There's even a cake!
Edward VIII? Any suggestions?
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Maybe Australia could agree with Tony R. and declare him King. That way Australia could lose the English crown without changing the constitution (which for practical reasons is very hard to do).
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Oranges? Should have better ridden horse.
Hanovers? Should have produced a male heir (would have been fun in 1866).
ddt
Mafia Penguin
I don't know, at this point I'm willing to go with Trump's line of logic.
'What do you have to lose?'
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Anything before the Cromwell Do-Over is pretty academic anyway, right?
The same king was monarch before and after Cromwell, so there was no "do over". Charles I was succeeded by his son Charles II, who sat out Cromwell's period of governance in exile in the Netherlands.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
I disagree. The United States was born a republic and so never had a monarchy (unless you count Emperor Norton I
.) Overthowing a "rightful king" happened a few years later in France, when they removed Louis XVI's head.Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
No, but the do-over refers to the full stop. In theory (or more probably Conspiracy Theory) it doesn't matter that the new boss was same as the old boss. There was a clean break, and a restart. Cromwell could have put his own line on the throne, picked a reagent from a hat, or chosen any inbred chinless wonder sitting on a throne. What matters is that there was a new Day 1, that made anything that went before moot.