The Real King of England.

[Elvedans]

Did anyone else see the programme about the real king of england?
Apparently King Edward the somethingth was illegitimate, meaning that all the other monarchs from Henry the seventh onwards were illegitimate too.
Our real monarch is a man called Michael, who currently lives in Australia as an ordinary person.

[Nurvingiel]

That's interesting! Why is that guy the King? I thought England didn't have a King. Who is he decended from?

Cool thread Elvedans.

[Radagast]

What utter, utter rubbish. People love to sprout ill-educated tri-pe like this. It matters not a bean whether Edward was illegitimate!. What people fail to understand is that whether or not he was the king's son- the king claimed him to be his son. That is all that matters in terms of the throne's succession. And besides- he current Royal family does not trace it's claim to the Tudors through Edward. Henry VII claimed the Crown by
right of conquest and his own ancestry. No monarch since 1483 has based their claim to the throne on descent from Edward IV! And all that rot about DNA- he overlooked of course that while DNA might prove a bloodline back to George, brother of Edward IV (provided comparative samples are available), it doesn't prove his starting point that Edward was illegitimate, even if relevant.

England has a Queen, Nurvingiel, but Charles will become King upon her death.

[gdl96]

We need Jerry Springer to resolve this one.

[jerseydevil]

I agree with Radagast up to a point. The only thing that matters is that the child is recognized as the next ruler by the king and is of his bloodline. There are tons of these conspiracy theories out there - and that is all they are - conspiracy theories. In the past, kings have by-passed the traditional person who would have been direct in line - in favor of another. I don't think there is another etched in stone about the succession, it's up to the current ruler's descretion.

Today's royal family is the Hanoverian line. George I was a german prince who took up the throne of England - him and George II didn't even speak english (or at least George II didn't very well). If someone felt they had a right to the throne - they could have gone to war over it like England has been forced into for centuries, such as during the War of the Roses.

Also - as Radagast said - all the DNA does is show who a person is related to - not whether a person is illegimate or not.

You should study English history if you want true intrigues. This one is nothing new - and is rather lame compared to the "Two Princes of the Tower" and so forth. Did Richard kill his own nephews to secure the throne for himself?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Radagast
England has a Queen, Nurvingiel, but Charles will become King upon her death.

I knew that much at least.

I don't see why the Australian guy is the real King. Queen Elizabeth II is the sole monarch ruler of England, but what do I know about the monarchy anyway.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I knew that much at least.

I don't see why the Australian guy is the real King. Queen Elizabeth II is the sole monarch ruler of England, but what do I know about the monarchy anyway.

Well you should - she is your head of state. You live under the monarchy.

[Nurvingiel]

Well I know the aspects that have anything to do with the Canadian government. She is the head of state, but the monarchy doesn't actually have any power in Canada. It's a formality without which we would have to restructure our system of government. The governor general, currently Adrienne (sp?) Clarkson doesn't have decision-making power either.

I believe the last one who did have power was Lord Byng, and because he tried to excercise it by overruling the parliment, we took it away.

Go us.

What kind of power does the Queen have in England, besides being fabulously wealthy?

[LuthienTinuviel]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel


What kind of power does the Queen have in England, besides being fabulously wealthy?

my little american school told me that shes nothing more than a figurehead, really.

but they also said that about our president too.. .. that he has no 'real' power to speak of.. it's because of the divisions and scattering of power.. who knew that he would wave his hand and magically produce an illegal war.. ..

i say illegal because i know I didn't vote for military action as is outlined to do in the US constitution... i may have gone too far...








[sarcasm / ....oops! / sarcasm]

[HOBBIT]

right ok then

Yes, I have learned too that Queen Elizabeth does not have that much power.

I know nothing about politics, but I'd say that Bush has a lot more power than the Queen.

It seems to me that PM power is close to President (Bush meets with Tony Blair often - he seems to be in charge. Bush has met with queen what, once? maybe twice).


She is just head of state there too.

I believe Bush actually has power, even with checks and balances and all. He is very influential being President and all....and that being Commander in Chief of Army bit.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by LuthienTinuviel
but they also said that about our president too.. .. that he has no 'real' power to speak of.. it's because of the divisions and scattering of power.. who knew that he would wave his hand and magically produce an illegal war.. ..

Maybe if you educated yourself and weren't blinded by your hatred of Bush - you would know that he didn't just wave his hand and produce a war. The MAJORITY of Congress approved it. Also - the war wasn't illegal.

i say illegal because i know I didn't vote for military action as is outlined to do in the US constitution... i may have gone too far...

Where does it state YOU get to vbote for military action? NOWHERE - you might want to read the Constitution.

The last war we had like that was actually voted on and DEWCLARED by Congress was World War II. Clinton was able to go into Bosnia (which I agree with) but few people considered that illegal - and Melochevic was LESS of a danger to the US than Saddam Hussein.

[HOBBIT]

Luckily I don't say anything that would make JD get worked up.

I've read the Constition.

Yeah, was going to say that Congress had to approve it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
I know nothing about politics, but I'd say that Bush has a lot more power than the Queen.

Of course the president has more power than the queen. Although - before the Kings and Queens had A LOT more power than the president - even during 1776 (one of the reasons for the American Revolution)

It seems to me that PM power is close to President (Bush meets with Tony Blair often - he seems to be in charge. Bush has met with queen what, once? maybe twice).

Well the queen has no influence on American politics - so why would the president repeatedly meet with her?

I believe Bush actually has power, even with checks and balances and all. He is very influential being President and all....and that being Commander in Chief of Army bit.

The President can do very little without Congress and Congress can not do anything that goes against the Constitution. Everything that goes on - has to be approved by the House and Senate.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Luckily I don't say anything that would make JD get worked up.

Yeah - you did. - see above.

I've read the Constition.

Yeah, was going to say that Congress had to approve it.

Then you would know that the president's power is restricted and that it take Congress to approve things - that includes budgets, tax cuts, etc.

[Nurvingiel]

Well, the President of the United states is at least as powerful as a Senator I'm sure. Our Prime Minister is powerful.

Anyway...

Originally posted by Elvedans
Did anyone else see the programme about the real king of england?
Apparently King Edward the somethingth was illegitimate, meaning that all the other monarchs from Henry the seventh onwards were illegitimate too.
Our real monarch is a man called Michael, who currently lives in Australia as an ordinary person.

Elvedans, why is this guy the real king according to the tv show? Why would everyone from Henry VII on be illegitimate?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Well, the President of the United states is at least as powerful as a Senator I'm sure. Our Prime Minister is powerful.

A senator can not do anything by himself though. And the Senate can't do anything without it first being passed through the House of Representatives.

Elvedans, why is this guy the real king according to the tv show? Why would everyone from Henry VII on be illegitimate?

The show claimed that Edward IV was the illigimate child of the King and therefore not supposed to ascend the throne of England. If this was true - it would mean that the whole line of succession to the throne after him was illegimate. In other words - the line of succession should have gone in another direction, according to this show.

[Ruinel]

roflmao! I'm getting a lot of laughs from this thread... please... carry on.

[HOBBIT]

Sigh JD :P

My posts were made when I was procrastinating and when I was very tired and I didn't want to say anything incorrect so I was being careful - just in case.

Of course the president has more power than the queen. Although - before the Kings and Queens had A LOT more power than the president - even during 1776 (one of the reasons for the American Revolution)

Well thanks for that :P I just SAID the president was more powerful. I was just replying to LuthienTinuviel - no sense in coming on too strong. And just in case I was wrong, I said something like "I'm pretty sure"

I know before kings and queens had a lot more power. Thanks for the history lesson though :P I'm a revolutionary war fan and I'm currently in Honors US History (a college level course) - so of course I wouldn't know that .

I shouldn't have phrased it like I wasn't sure of myself - but I didn't want someone (like you in your replies to me) jumping down my throat correcting every little mistake - so I was vague.

Well the queen has no influence on American politics - so why would the president repeatedly meet with her?

I was just saying to make the point that the Queen has no power and Bush has power. Why? Because LuthienTinuviel said she was taught that both were powerless - I was saying that this was incorrect.

The President can do very little without Congress and Congress can not do anything that goes against the Constitution. Everything that goes on - has to be approved by the House and Senate.

Yes I know that. Just because I didn't say it doesn't mean I need a lecture. I did no say he had unlimited powers as command in chief and his other duties - I simply said it gave him power. I know all about that.

Hopefully no comments to those

[The Gaffer]

Happy New Year everyone.

For info, the Queen has no real power because (largely thanks to Oliver Cromwell) Parliament, and specifically the elected chamber of the House of Commons, can exert its ultimate authority and overrule any action she or the House of Lords takes.

Strictly speaking, she DOES have power, because she "invites" the leader of the party with most Members of Parliament to form a government. She also signs legislation, attends Parliament at the start of every session and reads out a speech (written by the Government) detailing what "her Government" will do over the coming Parliamentary session.

Although symbolic, she COULD refuse to do any of these things and MPs would have to enforce the Parliament Act to exert their authority. Now THAT would be interesting.

Me, I'd be up for it if this Aussie bloke wants to have a go at doing her job. Let's see if he can do it any better.

[HOBBIT]

Well anyway, I have not seen this documentary - but I put in a search.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...E13780,00.html

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/top/sto...799940,00.html

That article was very informative and interesting. It be hilarious if this guy challenged Elizabeth for the throne.