observer Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 Some interesting progs been running on TV, about the Tudor period - but the one I found most interesting is the fact that their dynasty was illegitimate. Henry VII was the paternal grandson of the widow of Henry V, by a low born Owen Tudor. On the maternal side, he could trace back to the second wife of John of Gaunt, son of Edward III. Seems Richard III could trace a paternal line back to Edward III. However, their "rights" were settled on the Battle Field of Bosworth not in a court of Law; but it calls into question the line of succession right down to our present Monarch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 The line of succsession is laid down as such:- The Act of Settlement (1701) laid down that only Protestant heirs of Princess Sophia, granddaughter of James I, may succeed to the British throne. Neither Roman Catholics, nor those who marry a Roman Catholic, nor those born out of wedlock, may remain in the line of succession. Under current common law the crown is passed on by male primogeniture under which younger sons succeed before their elder sisters. Anything that happened prior to that date does not matter a 'jot'. Line of Succession to the British Throne The Act of Settlement (1701) laid down that only Protestant heirs of Princess Sophia, granddaughter of James I, may succeed to the British throne. Neither Roman Catholics, nor those who marry a Roman Catholic, nor those born out of wedlock, may remain in the line of succession. Under current common law the crown is passed on by male primogeniture under which younger sons succeed before their elder sisters. See Line of Succession FAQs On 28 October 2011 the Leaders of the Commonwealth Realms agreed to work to change the succession laws so that descendants of the Prince of Wales will be able to marry a Roman Catholic and remain in the line of successsion, and the right of male primogeniture will no longer apply. It means that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have a first born daughter she will become Queen and any younger brothers will not take precedence. Their first born child will become 3rd in line to the throne. As well as approval by each of the 16 countries which make up the Commonwealth Realms, the changes to the law governing the Line of Succession require ammendments to some of Britain's key constitutional documents, including the Bill of Rights and Coronation Oath Act of 1688, the 1701 Act of Settlement and the 1707 Act of Union between Scotland and England. The Succession to the Crown Bill 2013 is currently before Parliament, and passed the third reading on 22 April 2013. As both Houses have agreed on the text of the Bill it now waits for the final stage of Royal Assent when the Bill will become an Act of Parliament. The birth of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's first child is expected in July 2013, however should the baby be female she would under existing law be next in line after her father and the application of the new Bill would only arise on the birth of a younger brother. This change will not apply retrospectively to the current line of succession which is given below: 1. HRH Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales (b. 1948)2. HRH Prince William of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge (b. 1982)3. HRH Prince Henry of Wales (b. 1984)4. HRH Prince Andrew, The Duke of York (b. 1960)5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988)6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990)7. HRH Prince Edward (b. 1964)8. James, Viscount Severn (b. 2007)9. Lady Louise Windsor (b. 2003)10. HRH Princess Anne, Princess Royal (b. 1950)11. Peter Phillips (b. 1977)12. Savannah Phillips (b. 2010)13. Isla Phillips (b. 2012)14. Zara Tindall (Phillips) (b. 1981)15. David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley (b. 1961)16. Hon. Charles Armstrong Jones (b. 1999)17. Margarita Armstrong-Jones (b. 2002)18. Lady Sarah Chatto (b. 1964)19. Samuel Chatto (b. 1996)20. Arthur Chatto (b. 1999)21. HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester (b. 1944)22. Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster (b. 1974)23. Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden (b. 2007)24. Lady Cosima Windsor (b. 2010)25. Lady Davina Lewis (b. 1977)26. Tane Mahuta Lewis (b. 2012)27. Senna Lewis (b. 2010)28. Lady Rose Gilman (b. 1980)29. Rufus Gilman (b. 2012)30. Lyla Gilman (b. 2010)31. HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (b. 1935)George Windsor, Earl of St. Andrews (excluded by marrying a Roman Catholic)Edward Windsor, Baron Downpatrick (excluded by becoming a Roman Catholic) Lady Marina Charlotte Windsor (excluded by becoming a Roman Catholic) 32. Lady Amelia Windsor (b. 1995)Lord Nicholas Windsor (excluded by becoming a Roman Catholic)Albert Windsor (excluded by becoming a Roman Catholic)Leopold Windsor (excluded by becoming a Roman Catholic)33. Lady Helen Taylor (b. 1964)34. Columbus Taylor (b. 1994)35. Cassius Taylor (b. 1996)36. Eloise Taylor (b. 2003)37. Estella Taylor (b 2004)Prince Michael of Kent (excluded by marrying a Roman Catholic) 38. Lord Frederick Windsor (b 1979)39. Lady Gabriella Windsor (b. 1981)40. HRH Princess Alexandra the Hon. Lady Ogilvy (b. 1936)41. James Ogilvy (b. 1964)42. Alexander Ogilvy (b. 1996)43. Flora Ogilvy (b. 1994)44. Marina Ogilvy, Mrs Paul Mowatt (b. 1966)45. Christian Mowatt (b. 1993)46. Miss Zenouska Mowatt (b. 1990)47. David Lascelles, 8th Earl of Harewood (b. 1950)48. Hon. Alexander Lascelles (b. 1980)49. Hon. Edward Lascelles (b. 1982)50. Hon. James Lascelles (b. 1953)51. Rowan Lascelles (b. 1977)52. Tewa Lascelles (b. 1985)53. Sophie Lascelles (b. 1973)54. Hon. Jeremy Lascelles (b. 1955)55. Thomas Lascelles (b. 1982)56. Ellen Lascelles (b. 1984)57. Amy Lascelles (b. 1986)58. Tallulah Lascelles (b. 2005)59. Henry Lascelles (b. 1953)60. Maximilian Lascelles (b. 1991)61. James Carnegie, 3rd Duke of Fife (b. 1929)62. David Carnegie, Earl of Southesk (b. 1961)63. Lord Charles Duff Carnegie (b. 1989)64. Hon. George William Carnegie (b. 1991)65. Hon. Hugh Alexander Carnegie (b. 1993)66. Lady Alexandra Etherington (b. 1959)67. Amelia Mary Carnegie Etherington (b. 2001)68. HM King Harald V of Norway (b. 1937)69. HRH Crown Prince Haakon of Norway (b. 1973)70. HH Prince Sverre Magnus of Norway (b. 2005)71. HRH Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway (b. 2004)72. Princess Martha Louise of Norway (b.. 1971)73. Maud Angelica Behn (b. 2003)74. Leah Isadora Behn (b. 2005)75. Emma Talullah Behn (b. 2008)Haakon Lorentzen (excluded by marrying a Roman Catholic)76. Olav Lorentzen (b. 1985)77. Christian Lorentzen (1988)78. Sophia Lorentzen (b. 1994)Ingeborg Lorentzen (excluded by marrying a Roman Catholic)79. Victoria Ribeiro (b. 1988)Ragnhild Lorentzen (excluded by marrying a Roman Catholic)Alexandra Lorentzen (excluded by marrying a Roman Catholic)80. HH Princess Astrid of Norway (b. 1932)81. Alexander Ferner (b. 1965)82. Stella Ferner (b. 1998)83. Carl-Christian Ferner (b. 1972)84. Cathrine Johansen (b. 1962)85. Sebastian Johansen (b. 1990)86. Madeleine Johansen (b. 1993)87. Benedikte Ferner (b. 1963)88. Elisabeth Ferner Beckman(b. 1969)89. Benjamin Ferner Beckman (b. 1999)Michael, King of Romania (excluded by marrying a Roman Catholic)90 . Princess Margarita of Romania (b. 1949)91. Princess Helen of Romania (b. 1950)92. Nicholas Medforth-Mills (b. 1985)93. Karina Medforth-Mills (b. 1989)94. Princess Irina of Romania (b. 1953)95. Michael Kreuger (b. 1985)96 Princess Sophie of Romania (b. 1957)97. Elisabeta-Maria Biarneix (b. 1999)Princess Marie of Romania (excluded by marrying a Roman Catholic)Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia (excluded by marrying a Roman Catholic)98. Prince Peter of Yugoslavia (b. 1980)99. Prince Philip of Yugoslavia (b. 1982)100. Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia (b. 1982) http://www.britroyals.com/succession.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracey Bennett Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 I know what you mean Obs. I watched Fit to Rule - the Lucy Worsley programme about the health of Kings and Queens. I was really surprised at the number of times a monarch either didn't have children or their children died and there was a scramble to find someone with a legitimate claim on the throne. Sometimes it seemed very tenuous indeed. That's obviously what prompted the 1701 legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 See I didn't make the top 100 then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 See I didn't make the top 100 then. I don't think you are in the bottom 100 either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 IF, they could trace the paternal line as far back as Alfred the Great, think you'll find the rightfull heir could be Sid ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 Alfred 'The Great' - William 'The Conqueror' - Richard 'The Lionheart' and .......... oh yes Sid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 if it was me, I would probably abdicate. King Sid just doesn't sit well. Mind you Evil king Sid has got a certain ring to it. Bring on the iron maiden and get the chopping block polished up. it's beginning to grow on me, must get the family tree looked up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 if it was me, I would probably abdicate. King Sid just doesn't sit well. Mind you Evil king Sid has got a certain ring to it. Bring on the iron maiden and get the chopping block polished up. it's beginning to grow on me, must get the family tree looked up. May be a lucrative pantomime career for Evil King Sid .Sid ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 Oh no it won't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 Still on the Tudors: seems life for the poor wasn't much fun. Assuming you had a cottage to live in, it would consist of a single room with an earthen floor; next to no windows, so very dark inside; no lighting as candles would be too expensive. A farm labourer could earn 4p for a 12 hour day; but was unlikely to afford a chicken (eqv £20) or a lemon (eqv £75) to eat. Meat was expensive, and prohibited on many religious days, so vegetables would be the main menu, plus fish. With no TVs, kids were the main result of passing your spare time; with high risks of death during child birth for women, and about half the kids dead of some kind of disease by age 5. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Henry VIII, would consume vast amounts of food at regular banquets; hence his obvious obesity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracey Bennett Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Someone's been watching the Time Traveller's Guide! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 All informative stuff Tracey - beats Corrie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracey Bennett Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 I'm very much enjoying the BBC history programmes at the moment, between BBC2 and BBC4 there's some great stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 I'm very much enjoying the BBC history programmes at the moment, between BBC2 and BBC4 there's some great stuff. Would that be BBC3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracey Bennett Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Ironically 'Great stuff' not so much in evidence on BBC 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Tracey, it's 'silly buggers' day on here today!, don't play because you'll never win these are professionals and Wolfie is 'King Silly bugger'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Never had you down as one who would roll over and give up on the silly bugger fight so easily Algy Wolfie's just a sweet playful little pup (or is it welk I'm not sure ) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 Never had you down as one who would roll over and give up on the silly bugger fight so easily Algy Wolfie's just a sweet playful little pup (or is it welk I'm not sure ) I became fed up of winning Dizz, nowt' wrong with Wolfie that a twelve bore wouldn't put right, if you read this wolfie I know your heart is in the right place, (it's just your brain that I'm not sure about). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 Ouch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 I became fed up of winning Dizz, I knew I would never win the silly bugger fight with you around alg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 I bow to the King! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 No need I have decided to abdicate after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 For those interested, there's a series just started on BBC 1, called the "White Queen"; which appears to be tracing events in relation to Elizabeth Woodville (Grey in the series?), who married Edward IV (arguably the son of "archer of Rouen, a commoner), and (half?)brother of Richard III. It seems she was the mother of "the Princes in the Tower"; and of Elizabeth of York, who married Henry VII; thus finally uniting the Houses of York and Lancaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracey Bennett Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 I was wondering how historically accurate it was as I watched last night (especially regarding the Mother in Law's massive head dress thing ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.