General Chat

Lets just have william as King and Kate as Queen and let charles and camilla have a happy retirement! As for religion I dont generally care either way and I love jews, mormons, muslims, budhists equally but I like traditions and this is Britain so I think we should respect the ruling head of states opinion.

yea it had been denied but labour are wanting to change it all for the modern way. i dont agree with it it think they should just leave it alone.

Too much damage has been done to the Constitution in the last decade, mainly for political reasons rather than practical.

The House of Lords is a case in point. Hereditary peers were often experts in various fields and acted as a revising body to ensure that legislation originating in the Commons stood up to legal and practical scrutiny. They could also delay non-financial Bills to give time for reconsideration.

Their replacement by political appointees and the influx of legislation from Brussels has reduced that reforming role and legislation is rubber-stamped without proper debate, resulting in the ill-thought through laws from which we are now suffering.

Why don't they leave things be.

Apart from interfering with our traditions and heritage, it cost millions of £ each time a new law is passed, money this government could better spend in other directions.

I take what I read in the media with a pinch of salt; also, I understood this had been denied by a government spokesman.

However, hypothetically speaking, if the law were to be changed re male / female heir to the throne, and Prince Charles were to die before the Queen, would Princess Anne then become queen?

thats true iv found out we have canadien on our tree was like gosh!! lol. anyone related to camilla then lol shes related to g w bush she was having her tree done and it links to him. i think theres things you just dont know lol

No-one appears to be a direct descendant of Vlad the Impaler (aka Dracula)

According to genealogical research conducted by historians Radu Florescu and Raymond McNally (published in their 1989 book Dracula: Prince of Many Faces), the Romanian male line died out in 1632. As for the Hungarian lineage, the last male descendant died late in the sixteenth century, though a female line can be traced for an additional hundred years. As for indirect descendants, it has been verified that Professor Constantin Balaceanu-Stolnici of Bucharest is descended from Vlad Dracula's half-brother, Vlad the Monk. According to researchers at the Institute of Genealogy of the Romanian Academy, other claims are unsubstantiated.'
According to Sir Iain Moncrieffe's book Princes William and Harry have Vlad the Monk as an ancester 18 generations back.

Attila the Hun's descendants are doubtful too fortunately LOL

Sue
x

LOL

True Brit?

Who's a true Brit? I'd have thought most of us by now have done enough family history to know there is no such thing.

Despite the probable lack of evidence, if you stop and think about it then you may very well find a royal or noble link. The maths make it more than probable that we are all more closely related than we realise.
As an author called Ralph Roberts demonstrates,
"Humanity," Roberts says, "is a lot more closely related than most people realize.

If you were to trace your own ancestry back a mere 20 generations”, he explains, “you'll find that you have (and everyone has) 1,048,576 18th great grandparents, spread out over a wide geographic area, through many countries and over several continents. That would be people living around the 1400s for most of us now alive. Follow the lines of their children, their children’s' children, and so forth back to this present time and you have tens of millions of cousins!”

Looking at the maths makes things really interesting. This is part of an article I found online.
In fact, most of the people who lived 1,200 years ago appear not twice, but thousands of times on our family trees, because there were only 200 million people on Earth back then. Simple division — a trillion divided by 200 million — shows that on average each person back then would appear 5,000 times on the family tree of every single individual living today.
……..there comes a time when every single person on Earth is an ancestor to all of us, except the ones who never had children or whose lines eventually died out.
And it wasn't all that long ago. When you walk through an exhibit of Ancient Egyptian art from the time of the pyramids, everything there was very likely created by one of your ancestors — every statue, every hieroglyph, every gold necklace.
If there is a mummy lying in the centre of the room, that person was almost certainly your ancestor, too.
It means when Muslims, Jews or Christians claim to be children of Abraham, they are all bound to be right.

One of my online contacts wrote on another forum
There are still many fools who claim to be "English through and through", little realising that there has never, ever been anyone of 'pure English blood'. Wearing Union Jack shorts and throwing lager bottles at foreign policemen will never change this fact, no matter how short the hair is cropped!

However that description might have sounded familiar to some of our ancestors. This is what was written in the 12th century.
William of Malmesbury, d. ca. 1143 writing on the Battle of Hastings:

"The English at that time wore short garments, reaching to the mid-knee; they had their hair cropped, their beards shaven, their arms laden with gold bracelets, their skin adorned with tattooed designs. They were accustomed to eat till they became surfeited, and to drink till they were sick."

So we are all of royal descent and that includes royalty from all over Europe. We are very likely to have cousins in continents all over the world.

Going back to the original post.......I think it seems only fair that a female older child should inherit. I also feel it is probably outdated to restrict the monarchy according to laws devised hundreds of years ago on a whim.

Sue
x

Well lets have Queen Boris then !

Anyone see the lovely Boris on WDYTYA a couple of weeks ago - if one of his ancestors had not been born on the wrong side of the blanket (along with a lot of us actually) he would have had a claim to the throne.........now he would make an interesting Royal...........

Eileen
birth name

Eileen - not for much longer if the powers to be have anything to do with it!

Let's just remember that were we living in certain other countries most of those posting above would be hearing a knock at the door by now. So before we criticise Great Britain too much, let us be grateful that we are still able to have quite a lot of free speech.

i havent a clue i will have to look into it more it is interesting. iv learnt alot about my own tree that i didnt know before too. have you lot found anything new out on your trees?

I quite liked what I knew of Diana and I quite like what I know of Camilla - I don't think it has to be an either/ or choice. Charles and Diana married, they weren't happy and they divorced. They're not the only ones to do that:) We don't know all the ins and outs just because the papers and books have reported what they're supposed to be.

Louise, the Royal family are more royal than the Spencers - they're the Royal family and the Spencers aren't :) When Queen Anne died in 1714, the throne went to her relation George of Hanover but he was obviously a descendant of the Stuarts. The Queen is a direct descendant of William the Conqueror but like most royals has an ancestry from many countries and nationalities.

hey i heard that the spencers are the true royals more than the actual royal family we have today due to the german in them even tho they have english too the spencers are more english. i think its great how you lot defend diana nice to see some of us speaking our mind not many will they will just put up with it and except it. the true brits never except it! we use to march the streets years ago and stand up for our country.

Tina in those days to receive full nuptial mass which I believe she did she would have had to take instruction and be received into the catholic faith. I do not know how or what steps she took to enter the anglican church but there are some - had a friend who decided late seventies to become an anglican - she was baptised and then confirmed but more than that I cannot recall.

The Duchess of Cornwall, in Scotland known as The Duchess of Rothesay (Camilla Rosemary; formerly Parker Bowles; née Shand, born 17 July 1947) is the second wife of Charles, Prince of Wales (who is also Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay), the heir apparent to the thrones of the United Kingdom and the other 16 Commonwealth Realms.

Before their marriage she had been his long-time lover. As the consort of the Prince of Wales she is legally HRH The Princess of Wales;although she is officially styled "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall" ("Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Rothesay" in Scotland). Although this is unconventional, it avoids a conflict with the princely title which is closely identified by the public with her husband's first wife, Diana, Princess of Wales.

Also I believe Camilla is not a Catholic.Her previous husband was the Catholic.

Tina



Tina

This is yet another "Smokescreen" to cover years of total incompetance by the Labour Government so they can totally Bankrupt our Country while ensuring they all get a jolly good welcome at the EU trough with all its perks and Fiddles,and their experience will be welcomed with open arms.**M**/:o(>.

I do not know if as a baby Camilla was baptised into the Catholic church but certainly her first marriage was carried out in one!!!

I also agree with Chris and Tamar

My cousin in US, really envies us of our Queen.

Mo