Tony Robinson's latest offering, Britain's Real Monarch was very interesting and I am surprised that no discussion has already been started on the subject here. Is it that family lines, as well as Royal Lines are so tenuous and contorted that somewhere along the line a great many people could, if one or other person in history had done something different, then have found themselves a candidate for being an alternative monarch?
Anyway, I want to pick up on one thread in particular, that of the role of Henry VII. It is said that he had such a slender claim to the throne of England that he was really a rank outsider.
I put the argument that he actually had a greater claim to the throne than the Normans and the Saxons before them. This is because the Saxons more or less invaded Britain in the early 5th Century partly by the invitation of King Vortigern and finally ended up in founding England, its initially separate Kingdoms, eventually becoming one throne; that of England. This succeeded in squeezing the native British Kingdoms, extant for hundreds of years previous and presided over by a "Pendragon" (Head Dragon, or Head King) or Arthwyr (sort of Emperor figure), into lands now known as Wales, parts of Cornwall, and Brittany, (hence the name, at that time known as Armorica).
Now this means that actually the Saxon Kings, and of course the Norman Kings were actually only in residence because they invaded the Country: the native Royal Line of Britain (which incidentally, but not in inconsequentially, was linked to the Biblical Royal Line to Abraham), was therefore sidelined, and naturally enough, not mentioned in the "Anglo Saxon Chronicle", which is widely held as the definitive history of Dark Age Britain, which it is definately NOT: it being merely the history of the English speaking peoples; hence the absence of any mention of characters such as Athrwys ap Meurig, King of Gwent, who held the Saxon Hoardes at bay for 50 years of peace in his reign as Pendragon and "Arthwyr" of Britain, 482 - 562 when he abdicated after the battle of Camlan, firstly to the Isle of Apples, (Bardsey, also known as the Isle of Apples, or Avalon, just over the water from Camlan, (Cadlan, derived from cadgamlan, meaning a rout), on the Lleyn Peninsular) and then to Armorica where he became St Armel or St. Arthmael, and whose relics are still interned in the church at St. Armel des Boschaux today. I digress just slightly however.
These British lines as opposed to the English ones sort of fizzled into obscurity as a result of the Norman invasions into Wales and Wales' eventual subjugation.
Anyway, it just so happens that Henry VII was directly related to the British Royal Line and hence the Biblical Royal Line, through his paternal line of descent. He undoubtedly knew this, and his ascention to the Throne of England was seen by a good many in the "Celtic Fringes" as "The Second Coming of Arthur".
Thus, my theory is that actually the throne of Britain, (this being England and Wales, as Scotland was always separate from Britain at that time), rather than England, had been returned to its true heirs, rather than those of invaders.
I must confess to have some interest in the subject of ancient British Kings and the convoluted cover ups made in established history which has, over the centuries, been tailored effectively to make the "Ancient Britons" look an inept lot of barbarians, which they were not, and to make history look as though the Saxon, Norman and Hanoverian dynasties were true inheritors, which they were not.
Are not King Coel and King Caractacus still household names? Was not Trinovantum, (New Troy) founded by Brutus, founder of Britain, in about 1103 BC, only to be later renamed Londinium by the Romans, who are wrongly accredited with is founding?
Enough rambling anyway. This should stimulate some discussion??
I think the lack of discussion is down to the fact that this prog was a repeat. There was some debate on the forum after it's original showing.
Shame our real King, Thomas 1st, did not show a bit more interest in claiming the throne. Perhaps The Sun could aponsor him. Seriously though, if the accepted rules of succession were followed after Willian 1 then the Winsors or Thomas 1st would not be in the running for the throne.
I'd have thought, that as there are so many instances in British history where the dominant Royal line has some different blood put in it, through marriage, deposal etc. that almost everyone in Britain could go about saying that they have a claim to the throne- "Oh yes-my great-great-great-grandfather's brother's son's daughter's great-great-great-great-grandmother was the wife of Llewellyn the Great, don't you know." if they could be bothered to research their genealogy. My opinion is that, every way you look at it, it isn't worth obsessing over who has a stronger right to the throne or not these days- in any case, the Royal Family would most certainly not allow themselves to be deposed!!!
I find it interesting that a lot of British history can be put down to the consequences of shagging......ie if Catherine of Aragorn had produced a male heir who had lived then its quite likely Henry wouldn't have broken with Rome and(like France)Britain may have remained Catholic....the consequences for world history from that are incalculable.
Its also interesting that the reason that the current lot are decended from the Hannovarians is down to the fact that James II had syphallis and passed it on to his wife and threfor to his childen who were either barren or produced sickly infants(in the case of Anne 17 of them - none of whom survived her)and therefor to avoid a Jacobin return had to turn to Hannover...
quote:Originally posted by StevieB: Its also interesting that the reason that the current lot are decended from the Hannovarians is down to the fact that James II had syphallis and passed it on to his wife and threfor to his childen who were either barren or produced sickly infants(in the case of Anne 17 of them - none of whom survived her)and therefor to avoid a Jacobin return had to turn to Hannover...
N E Juan nice one i think Stevie B should maybe read up, i cant remeber the author but a book called Ungreatful daughters, should be looked at. It explains it all. basically the catholic James II was deposed for his Protestant Daughter, and here husband William of Orange, and then Anne but true the Hanavon line was selected because it was protesatant. and Chathoplics were by then disbarred, from the throne. I.E why Miss Parker Bowels can not come to the throne.
Originally posted by StevieB: Its also interesting that the reason that the current lot are decended from the Hannovarians is down to the fact that James II had syphallis and passed it on to his wife and threfor to his childen who were either barren or produced sickly infants
So that would be ignoring James VII son James VIII, the Old Pretender, and his son Bonnie Prince Charlie, the young Pretender, who were both quite hail and hearty!
Intersting use of the Scottish counting of the Stuart house....and of course there have always been persistant rumours of James' son not actually being his - no male heirs for years then not long after he gain's the throne one is produced....very conveinent...
Very true, there was the "Bedpan" conspiracy, but anyone who ever met James VIII confirmed he was a definite Stuart, no doubt. He had their "friendly" personality and looks.
I use the Scottish titles as I am Scottish, that is all.
Originally posted by TheWitch: Very true, there was the "Bedpan" conspiracy, but anyone who ever met James VIII confirmed he was a definite Stuart, no doubt. He had their "friendly" personality and looks.
I use the Scottish titles as I am Scottish, that is all.
AH yes the bedpan theory, James the second's son by his second wife, the old pretender, there are always theorys, wasnt there the one about a young elizabeth the first in her teens, was supposed to have given birth to a child, by her then stepfather, the husband of katherine parr who she married after henry VIII died, thomas seymour, or was it edward seymour, yet she was still called the virgen queen.
The problem with programmes like this is where one takes a starting position from. It could be argued that "Britain's real monarch" should be the descendants of the old Wessex line of Edgar the Atheling. But wait a minute, William the Conqueror won the throne of England by conquest and was indisputedly England's real monarch.
The succession more or less proceeds through his family (although Stephen's sons never succeeded)and we get the great Henry II and his descendants. And ultimately Richard II is deposed, and his real heirs were the Mortimers, not the Lancastrians, although again Henry IV claimed the throne through conquest. Throughout the Lancastrian era, the Yorkists had a better technical claim to the throne as descendants of the Mortimers.
Henry VII, for all his faults, claimed the throne by right of conquest too. Famously he dated his reign from the day before Bosworth to make all Richard III's followers appear traitors.
So to arbitrarily pick on Edward IV as the fracture in the royal line is no means of determining who Britain's real monarch is. The simple fact is that Queen Elizabeth II is queen by act of parliament and that the heirs of her body will be so in the future until such time as they self-destruct. She may have no more royal blood than many contributors to this forum but that is not the point.
I leave you with two loosely relevant thoughts. See A N Wilson's excellent book The Victorians for a compelling theory that Queen Victoria was not the daughter of the duke of Kent and therefore not William IV's true heir. Ergo QE II should not be queen now. And how many of us really believe that Prince Harry (3rd in line to the throne) is really Prince Charles's son. He looks nothing like any of the Windsors, but does have an uncanny resemblacne to James Hewitt as so many have noted.
Personally, I think I'd make a good job of being Britain's real monarch!
1. The succession more or less proceeds through his family (although Stephen's sons never succeeded)and we get the great Henry II and his descendants.
2. I leave you with two loosely relevant thoughts. See A N Wilson's excellent book The Victorians for a compelling theory that Queen Victoria was not the daughter of the duke of Kent and therefore not William IV's true heir. Ergo QE II should not be queen now.
3. And how many of us really believe that Prince Harry (3rd in line to the throne) is really Prince Charles's son. He looks nothing like any of the Windsors, but does have an uncanny resemblacne to James Hewitt as so many have noted.
re 1. Stephen and his sons were never the senior heirs to the throne. 2. Nothing compelling about it at all. There has been much gossip that victoria was not Edward Duke of Kent's daughter because some of her descendants aquired heamophilia from her. This ignores a basic understanding of genetics around heamophilia and assumes that what some of her descendants had was hwamophilia - this is disputed in some quarters. 3. Scandalous trash. OK so harry doesn't look like the Windsors but he does look very much like his Spencer cousins. Why do you assume he has to take his looks from his father's family rather than his mother's? Anyway wasn't it revealed recently that both he and William have had their paternity (from Charles) confirmed by DNA tests.
re 1. Stephen and his sons were never the senior heirs to the throne. 2. Nothing compelling about it at all. There has been much gossip that victoria was not Edward Duke of Kent's daughter because some of her descendants aquired heamophilia from her. This ignores a basic understanding of genetics around heamophilia and assumes that what some of her descendants had was hwamophilia - this is disputed in some quarters. 3. Scandalous trash. OK so harry doesn't look like the Windsors but he does look very much like his Spencer cousins. Why do you assume he has to take his looks from his father's family rather than his mother's? Anyway wasn't it revealed recently that both he and William have had their paternity (from Charles) confirmed by DNA tests.[/QUOTE]
re: 1. Not sure what you mean by the senior heirs, but my point was that by the premise of the TV programme, Stephen not being succeeded by one of his sons could easily have been taken as a starting point to find out Britain's rightful monarch descended say from Eustace. Of coure at that time there was no such thing as the rightful heir; Stephen's sons were "disinherited" by the agreement that brought Henry II the crown. He was of the blood royal albeit not the son of a king and to modern eyes had less of a claim than Stephen's sons. And primogeniture was by no means established either. William II was not the eldest surviving son of the Conqueror. Henry II was however te rightful king by consent of the body politic of the time, backed up by a not inconsiderable force of arms.
2. Maybe not a compelling argument then but tied in with the supposed disappearance of porphyria at the same time it seems to be a theory that is worthy of consideration, however redundant and pointless the exercise (why else do we contribute to forums such bas this)
3. How polite of you. If there has been a paternity test then that shows the doubt that breeds rumours. Why would the heir to the throne agree to a paternity test unless he himself were unsure? Even the Windsors would not do so to quash a rumour; if this were the case the results would surely have been publicised.
What i meant by Stephen and his sons not being the senior heirs is that whether we follow the salic or semi-salic rules of inheritance he did not have the best claim as his claim go from his mother. This meant he had no claim to the throne under the salic (males only inherit) rule and had an inferior claim under the semi-salic rules of inheritance where the issue of Henry I's daughter, Matilda, take precedence over those of his sister Adela, Stephen's mother.
2. Not althogether sure that porphyria has disappeared from the royal family. Some attribute this to being the disease that afflicted the late Duke of Kent and some assert that Prince Charles shows some signs of the disease - although these days it can often be controlled by drugs.
3. "If this were the case the results would surely have been publicised" Not sure i agree with you there at all. Why would they want to share the findings with the world it wouldn't quash the rumours just start new ones in the hope of further DNA tests. Oh um....
