Tango01 | 09 Dec 2014 10:17 p.m. PST |
Scientists who studied genetic material from remains found in a Leicester car park say the finding might have profound historical implications. Depending on where in the family tree it occurred, it could cast doubt on the Tudor claim to the English throne or, indeed, on Richard's. The study is published in the journal Nature Communications link Amicalement Armand |
olicana | 10 Dec 2014 3:39 a.m. PST |
might have profound historical implications. No it will not. The present bunch of Royal leaches will not be going anywhere – they know when they are onto a good thing – and possession is, as they say, nine tenths of the law. |
Northern Monkey | 10 Dec 2014 4:18 a.m. PST |
Leaches! What a small-minded remark. We have a constitutional monarchy in the UK, a system that has served us well for 400 years. I rather think the Royal family make more of a contribution to the nation than you or I will ever do. I for one prefer the status quo to a President Blair or Livingston lining their own pockets. |
olicana | 10 Dec 2014 4:50 a.m. PST |
I wonder if you'll think the same when your King is Charles III. |
DeltaBravo | 10 Dec 2014 5:21 a.m. PST |
I think he wants to be a 'George' but the beauty of our system is that it really doesn't matter who the monarch is as it's not a popularity contest. If we abolish the monarchy we will still have to pay someone (probably lots more people in fact) to fulfill the public duties and we will still have to pay for all of the security and trimmings that go with any head of state. But on top of that we will have an election every 4-5 years to pay for, plus all of the security, pension benefits etc for each former head of state. And that's before we get on to who will then own the Crown Estate, from which HMRC profits quite hansdomly even after the Civil List is paid for, The current 'leeches' as you put it are actually very cost-effective. ps – didn't the Editor do this very same topic a few weeks ago? |
Big Martin Back | 10 Dec 2014 5:27 a.m. PST |
Yes – because I commented on it back then. And it's leEches (if that's what you think they are. |
bsrlee | 10 Dec 2014 5:41 a.m. PST |
No Charles Mk3, Chuck has said he will reign as a George after his Grandfather. Charles and Arthur are not considered 'lucky' names for English monarchs – Charles 1 ended up a head short and Charles 2 had several near misses. As for Arthur, the main contender for the title died unexpectedly, Arthur Tudor( son of Henry 7)from the 'sweating sickness'. The current incumbents don't need to rely on direct descent from the Plantagenets as they only have to trace back to William of Orange, who was 'contracted' to be King when James Mk 2 was turfed out. |
Royston Papworth | 10 Dec 2014 6:39 a.m. PST |
Ah, but Dutch Willy was a grandson of a Stuart, if I remember correctly, plus he was married to James' daughter, strengthening his claim. Personally (as if anyone listens to me) I think that Charles should stand aside and let William rule. He is young and popular, with an attractive wife. If he comes to the throne next, then it would strengthen the monarchy. If Charles does, I don't think that he would become the head of the Commonwealth and that the monarchy would outlast him… If Charles thinks of the country and the monarchy first, he will step aside, the trouble is that he (along with Andrew) thinks of himself first…. And yes, I am pro monarchy… |
Perris0707 | 10 Dec 2014 6:53 a.m. PST |
Are you saying Charles's wife is not attractive??? :0) |
olicana | 10 Dec 2014 7:02 a.m. PST |
He is young and popular, with an attractive wife. Wow, so that is what being the head of state takes, is it? If Charles does, I don't think that he would become the head of the Commonwealth and that the monarchy would outlast him… The Commonwealth doesn't get a choice in the matter, and neither do I. That's what stinks about monarchies. |
Chortle | 10 Dec 2014 7:04 a.m. PST |
I once saw a program which claimed an English bowman in France interdicted the Royal line. Is this related to that possible faux pas? >We have a constitutional monarchy in the UK >a system that has served us well for 400 years Well, if you say so. BTW, is it true that all Royalty in Europe is related to William of Orange? Heard it somewhere and I never thought to look into it. |
Pedrobear | 10 Dec 2014 7:23 a.m. PST |
"Personally (as if anyone listens to me) I think that Charles should stand aside and let William rule." Pah! God for Harry, England, and St George! |
20thmaine | 10 Dec 2014 9:41 a.m. PST |
This finding does raise the possibility that we have the wrong Royal family (i.e. they ain't really Royal). In that case they aren't leaches but imposters ! Funny they aren't offering to make way should their claim to the throne be shown to be false. Not so much "anointed by God" more like "possession is nine tenths of the law". |
20thmaine | 10 Dec 2014 9:44 a.m. PST |
If Charles thinks of the country and the monarchy first, he will step aside There's little point in having a hereditary monarchy if people start just stepping aside. No – baring a sudden death – the UK will have a retirement age monarch forever. Charles is well over 60, if he lives as long as his parents then Billy gets the throne in his sixties, and so Georgie gets the throne in his sixties and on and on….forever. And so it goes. |
Zargon | 10 Dec 2014 10:09 a.m. PST |
Señor olicana, maybe becoming a Mexican citizen would appeal? It would alleviate your problem with the current status of the UK and its constitutional monarchy and we can all call you a 'sir' too so you don't feel left out. For God and King and a pox on parliament. |
olicana | 10 Dec 2014 10:35 a.m. PST |
I have no idea what that means. Mexico – is that a country you picked out at random? Personally, if I had to choose another country I would prefer to become a citizen of the USA. They got rid of our monarchy some time ago and they don't seem to feel it was a mistake. Or, perhaps France, they had a monarchy once too and don't clamour for its return. Countries with Presidents, especially the first world ones, seem to do quite well with a head of state their citizens get to vote for. As for being called 'Sir', I'll happily settle for Mister. Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite. |
Sobieski | 10 Dec 2014 6:04 p.m. PST |
The Americans discarded English quite a while ago, and (wrongly) don't seem to feel that was a mistake either. |
Zargon | 10 Dec 2014 7:13 p.m. PST |
Don't diddle-daddle oli-can-a, as demographically in the US of A your as likely to be called 'señor' there as well. Mexico, the reason? a country to live in with all the yearning of pure democratic zeal,yet none shown, and a lesson to all when they shoot their Royal for a net gain of nothing, and a place which makes one yearn for an English moniker, an English constituent democracy and dare I say it, the monarchy that comes with it ;) |
goragrad | 10 Dec 2014 9:26 p.m. PST |
Not to get fezzy, but when it requires 4096 hotel rooms to house the US president and entourage for an overnight stay in Australia, I don't think the US is a simple republic anymore. Something that has been evolving for some time but being taken to a new level under the current administration. I suppose some might consider an elected 'aristocracy' to be more palatable, but saw a piece recently by someone who had moved in both circles who saw more humility in those 'to the manor born.' As to the descent from Richard III, having only a modest acquaintance with English history, I remembered, as noted above, that the current monarchy had more of a Germanic lineage. |
boy wundyr x | 11 Dec 2014 7:57 a.m. PST |
I just hope someone tells me if I turn out to be the king. |
DontTreadOnMe | 11 Dec 2014 10:41 a.m. PST |
Goragrad: We've had Anglo-Saxons, Norwegians, Normans, Welsh, Scots, Dutch, Hannoverians and Saxe-Coburgians on the throne over the years. We're not fussy; We take all sorts! |
Tango01 | 11 Dec 2014 3:40 p.m. PST |
And Spanish too… or not? Amicalement Armand |
20thmaine | 11 Dec 2014 4:15 p.m. PST |
Charlie I was on the way to Spain to check out the infanta – when he was distracted by the French Henrietta Maria, although she was half Italian through her Medici mum. Who of course was half Austrian through her mum the Archduchess Joanna of Austria. Although she was half Hungarian through her mum Anne of Bohemia. Her Grandma, it turns out, was the Infanta Catherine of Navarre. Which actually made Henrietta Maria a bit Spanish A less convoluted tale is Mary I of England, who married Phillip the King of Spain (who became co-monarch). |