Breaking News! Royal Scandal! New DNA testing throws the whole legitimacy of the Plantagenets into doubt due to 'false paternity' results! 
-
-
Stillington was a politician imprisoned several times for being involved in various other plots. As a churchman, why didn't he speak out and denounce Edward for marrying 'bigamously' in 1464, given that the lady in question was actually still alive then? No one spoke out until she was dead, Edward IV was dead, and Edward V was safely in Richard's 'protection' in the Tower.Originally posted by Anna View PostIt isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
That'll be a blow to bbm.Originally posted by Anna View PostBreaking News! Royal Scandal! New DNA testing throws the whole legitimacy of the Plantagenets into doubt due to 'false paternity' results!
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...-royal-scandal
"Schürer and King now want to test the Y chromosomes of other de Warrens in the US and Australia, and men in the extended Duke of Beaufort family, an option that has clear advantages over the alternative of exhuming lots of dead bodies and testing those."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Flosshilde View PostThat'll be a blow to bbm.
"Schürer and King now want to test the Y chromosomes of other de Warrens in the US and Australia, and men in the extended Duke of Beaufort family, an option that has clear advantages over the alternative of exhuming lots of dead bodies and testing those."
Like the article said though, the twists and turns of the Mornachy, through the ages, as it was handed down, is rather complicated!Don’t cry for me
I go where music was born
J S Bach 1685-1750Comment
-
Wasn't the idea of unquestioned legitimate descent as a prerequisite to the throne dropped ever since Christmas Day 1066?Comment
-
It seems to have been whoever could bash the rival enough to win, until Elizabeth 1st of England was succeeded by her nearest relative, James VI & I. After James II it then became whoever Parliament invited.Comment
-
You're right, of course. 'Twas ever thus. What a great system for choosing monarchs, and we still have their descendants on the throne.Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post
If these rules applied today, we could have J Clarkson for king.
Comment
-
Well, you'll get the bare bones of it...Originally posted by Anna View Post
Did Bbm receive An Invitation to the proceedings? Perhaps some tuba underpinning the following would have added even more gravitas!Originally posted by Anna View Postanother famous relative for BBM?
Are you calling Bbm a b*st**d, Anna?!?!Originally posted by Anna View PostBreaking News! Royal Scandal! New DNA testing throws the whole legitimacy of the Plantagenets into doubt due to 'false paternity' results!
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...-royal-scandal 
"...the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears, and sometime voices..."
Comment
-
There were the Acts of Succession I, II and II started before Elizabeth I was born and then there was the Act of Settlement in 1701, basically the latter was brought in to keep the Catholics off the throne but all these acts were because of the failure of the reigning Monarchs at the time to produce children - so I should think a few false paternities were a necessity in some cases!!
The RSC have said that if Shakespeare hadn't written his play (which I intend to read this evening) then the Richard III Society wouldn't have existed and we would have all forgotten about him. Personally I think it's really good that he's been found and reburied because it's got people thinking about history, legacy of War of the Roses, etc.Comment
-
And after that, if you've an inclination, you can watch Olivier's film tomorrow. Must say, it seems a bit hammy in the opening scenes ... Specially treasured, in opening frames: Laurence Olivier present's ...Originally posted by Anna View Post
Ralph Richardson's performance as princely Buckingham to be prized, I think. Don't think I'm keen enough to watch it all through - a long way from all our newly-gained historical insights!It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
Which has a slight irony, considering that the play offers legitimacy to the dynasty that replaced Richard. WS knew which side his bread was buttered.Originally posted by Anna View PostComment
-
I haven't been following the Richard III news story, but why weren't Richard III's bones reburied in a ceremony by his own, Catholic, religion?Comment
-
I believe there was a special service held somewhere by Catholic Ricardians who were unhappy that the King wasn't reburied by way of the faith tradition that he practised.Originally posted by Honoured Guest View Post
I have some sympathy for this view but the simple reality is that, in these Post-Reformation royal days, this was never really on the cards.
I thought the service today, which included a Catholic cleric, was just about right and very simple and moving.Comment
-
Hang on a sec. Why are we revering a child murderer?Comment
-
And regicide.
Perhapsi t's time for what remains of Cromwell's (Oliver) remains to get a ceremonial re-burial?Comment
Comment