Royal family pondering

[Jollywren]

Just a pondering. Purely from an aristocratic onlooker pov (I'm not but if I was ....!)

Kate was a commoner by birth. So her kids are now only half royal. If they then marry someone ordinary too then the same in subsequent generations you get to an ordinary family with one royal ancestor - William- ( except in this case they will have kept the chain of office / power of monarchy throughout ) But are they now really royal in the sense the current queen is? If they aren't is that problematic? I know that's why previous royal generations kept marriage within their own extensive royal European circles.....

So many monarchs in history had quite a loose connection to the previous royal family/ monarch.

See the war of the roses for various great grand children of a monarch fighting over the crown.

Illigitimacy wasn't a barrier to Henry VII claiming the throne either!

Elizabeth Woodville was a widowed middle aged mother when she married Edward VI.

There is no straight line from William the Conqueror to now.

@Antarcticant no conspiracy, just a fact.

What are your grounds for saying it is a fact? Have you seen a paternity test or something?

Sorry this made me lol 😆

The rumors about Frances (spencer) Shand Kydd and James Goldsmith are part of an ugly strand of anti Semitism doing the rounds online.

For royalty just replace with Tyrany of Biggest Bollocks that killed the most competitors for the top prize . What you see now are the generational dregs of its succession. They haven’t changed, Her Maj might look like a little old dear, but she’s had laws changed so she can hang on to her ill gotten gains. There’s very little that’s good about royal, just entitled arses who did the best brown- nosing to get to where they are now.

No fact at all unless you can prove it.

That's what distinguishes Fact from Made Up Shite.

So, show us your proof or bugger off back down the rabbit hole.

Oh and no Internet links to dodgy conspiracy sites. A legally verified DNA result will suffice if from a reputable source.

Since you ate claiming "Fact" you must have that readily available, yes?

OK, I'm ready to be impressed with your extensive research.

Exactly what laws has the Queen "had changed so she can hang on to her ill gotten gains"?

I'm all agog so don't keep me in suspense will you!

Oh and it's Tyranny, not Tyrany.

And the brown - nosing isn't done by the ones at the top (no-one to brown nose!) but the ones underneath (definitely).

You are right about the original Kings by right of conquest though, that's of course how all Kings originated, the World over.

So, 2/10 I think.

Can you tell that History (factual) is rather a passion of mine? 😏

Even if Diana was fathered by someone other than Earl Spencer, the fact that he treated her as his daughter (and a dearly beloved one at that) makes her his daughter. The history of the aristocracy is littered with children who weren't the children of their mother's husband - usually after she'd done her duty with the heir and the spare - but were accepted into the family.

And didn't she say how she was meant to be a boy and how disappointed they were that she was a girl? that doesn't suggest she was another man's child.

Can you tell that History (factual) is rather a passion of mine?

Snap.

Princess Margaret was fond of her telling her children that she was Royal, they were not.

My (very basic) understanding is that historically, the reason royalty married royalty was no so much about royal blood as such but about keeping power and wealth within certain families or even gaining more. Alliances between Royalty families across Europe through marriage. Royalty, particularly the females had very little say in what they did. Often sent to another country to marry as an arrangement. Really quite an awful life for some, surrounded by wealth but basically a prisoner.
As national security and law became controlled by governments, there was less and less need to arrange marriages in order to maintain contol. When you think about it though, this is still only in fairly recent history.

Yes, Margaret was unfortunately rather a raging snob wasn't she. 😏

TheUsualChaos yes, of course. Marriage was political and/or financial. Women (girls often) had no say whatsoever. Pawns on a chessboard.

Queen Victoria undoubtedly married for love of Albert, but that was sheer luck.

I doubt her son loved Alexandra for love, and I doubt his son married Mary of Teck for love (although his letters leave no doubt that he did grow to love her).

The Queens father certainly loved her mother before marriage, and it's well known that the Queen married Philip in the face of her own mother's disapproval- because she loved him.

Now of course there will be no more Dynastic marriages. They will be for love of a person. So that's good.

Tsk. MARRIED Alexandra for love!

I wish there was an edit ability 😕

But, what about the dragons?

It’s definitely a good thing not to be too closely related. The Spanish royal family were so inbred they had incredible health issues

Yes, they are literally just bog standard normal humans just like the rest of us, but with a huge PR junket and endless millions that are used to spin a mythical quality around them, so that we somehow think they are special and that 'royal blood' is a thing. It is a load of nonsense.

History is not my passion, but I do like reading the papers. I have no links just a faint memory that there were land laws going on in Scotland, protection of something, and she applied for an exemption so it wouldn’t apply to her. She wasn’t going to lose any acres just didn’t want the new laws to apply to her. There’s been various pieces over the years of how her lawyers manipulate legislation to benefit her own self.
I used to live in a village that was, and still is, owned by one family, distant rellies. They had papers in the attic going back to Cromwell that detailed the birth of kings type of thing. They only owned all that because of brown-nosing aka loyalty to royalty rewards. None of the houses or the thousands of acres around the village is earned, the owners have never held down a job, it’s legacy.
I doubt a past king stayed in place without a great deal of brown-nosing his aides and closest circle. It was a dog eat dog violent place and likely hard to trust anyone not to knife you in the back at the earliest opportunity for advancement.
Men at their finest, not.
But that hasn’t changed, the world is still run by Neanderthals.
If you think the royals are not busy in the background with their lawyers protecting their assets, then you are very naive. Why wouldn’t they be? Not one brick or acre is legitimately theirs.
Apologies for the spelling mistake. 🤣

Diana was technically a commoner before she married Charles. . She wasn’t royalty per se.

I don't ever get this either, how does one magic into a royal via marriage.
I dislike the class system in the U.K. I always wonder what if it could support itself to such an extent if we eradicated the royal family.

I actually quite like having a RF but I do think that the upper middle classes aspire to be the aristocrats and they in turn look to the RF for anything above themselves. What if those whole layers of societies were cancelled. Would we be a more equal society? Ponders on...

www.theweek.co.uk/951912/queen-used-little-known-law-to-hide-private-wealth#bsht=CgRmYnNtEgYIAxAAGAo

It was well reported when the story broke, surprised you missed it.