It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Queen Elizabeth II Is Not The Rightful Heir To The Throne

page: 2
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 


It was intended as a joke.




posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Ha! Sir Tony of Horsebury Road? I love it! I'm used to seeing Tony Robinson where people are digging up the dirt, and that irony does not escape me when it comes to this film. I rather enjoyed it as well as the discovery of the rightful heir who does seem more balanced than the current royal family. S&F for bringing this to light.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

smurfy
Is this the fellow from Ozzyeland? I remember that! (vid's not behaving today)


G'day mate, yes he is.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
Go home, Yogi, you're drunk.


Hic!!!! Hey! i resemble that remark.....



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

aboutface
Ha! Sir Tony of Horsebury Road? I love it! I'm used to seeing Tony Robinson where people are digging up the dirt, and that irony does not escape me when it comes to this film. I rather enjoyed it as well as the discovery of the rightful heir who does seem more balanced than the current royal family. S&F for bringing this to light.


LOL...............He said he voted for the Australian Republic and Tony Robinson reminded him he voted against himself, priceless.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
The documentary doesn't prove anything for sure. The king was away during a 5 week period where they think the child was conceived and they think it happend in the middle of the 5 week period. So it could be that the baby was just premature by a few weeks.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   

PhoenixOD
The documentary doesn't prove anything for sure. The king was away during a 5 week period where they think the child was conceived and they think it happend in the middle of the 5 week period. So it could be that the baby was just premature by a few weeks.



Or the Queen did a great impression of Ivana Humpalot.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


To be fair, the Stuart dynasty were descended from a Shopshire family (albeit of Norman origin)

Just don't tell the Scots!



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
It's also worth noting that half the populaton of Britain can probably trace ancestry back to one or other king of Britain, England, Scotland or the various earlier kingdoms.

Actually, it's probably more ....



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkYogi
 


Have seen this and it is true, the rightful heir is of the plantagenate line and unfortunatly he past away about a year ago, now his line are the rightful heir's to the ENGLISH throne but not necessarily the British throne and through Diana's blood line there is a link to the house of stewart so they may have a claim to the Scottish throne (Unless you are a campbel of course as those two clans have swapped sides quite often using the english against there rival's in there war with one another).
His son whom was the Rightfull Prince of wales (through the norman conquest of wales) is now the Rightfull heir to the throne of England and his son is whom is a child is now the rightful heir to that title.
When tony robinson tracked him down he asked him weather he was going to press his claim, which it turned out he knew all about himself since the TUDOR's stole/Usurped the throne and he said he was tempted to send that WOMAN living in his house a bill for 500 years back rent, he actually said well I'd need an army as they would not step down lightly.

Now here is the interesting part, as the line of the royals is essentially false under british law all the statutes made since the usurption of the throne are null and void as are all titles and decrees given either by them or there houses of lords and common's.

There is no statute of limitation under british law.

Now as it happen's I quite like the so called royals but let's be fair they are merely an oddity and a curio for the twenty first century but if honor to our ancestors ever meant anything we could heed the oath they made to there king and his descendants and throw them out so the rightful king whom is a quite commonly spoke Aussie (Unlike his now deceased father whom even looked like a king) could have his thrown back - IF he wanted it.

Also they are actually house of hapsbourg (real name battenbourg which the changed to mountbatten and windsor) so they do have a distant claim to the throne of charlamaign but none to the english thrown.

And royal or not I think our Vicky will always be one of the most famous queen's in history (My family may be related on my mothers side to princess alexandra).

Your average lord regardless of rank was a philandering user of the pretty girls whom they regarded as peasent's and by that argument though not legitimate probable a good quarter of the population could call themselves royal but laughter aside as a christian in My king is christ and I can by definition owe no other allegience.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   

LABTECH767
Now here is the interesting part, as the line of the royals is essentially false under british law all the statutes made since the usurption of the throne are null and void as are all titles and decrees given either by them or there houses of lords and common's.

You are mistaken on the subject of the law.
British law on the royal succession is based on the Act of Settlement of 1701.
In fact that was the FIRST law in English history to lay down any long-term rules of succession.
As long as the Queen has descended according to the provisions of that Act, then she is the rightful monarch by Act of Parliament, the only definition that has any value.

This alleged Plantagenet claim- what right did the Plantagenets themselves have? They were descended from William the Conqueror, who was a notorious usurper himself.
If anyone has the "right" to the throne, it would be the descendants of Edgar Atheling, grandson of Edmund Ironside, who "should have" inherited instead of Harold or William, or from his sister Margaret.
So why should anyone promote the usurping Plantagenets at the expense of the rightful Anglo-Saxon line?
(And I think you will find that Margaret's line, at least, has passed down through the Scottish kings to her present Majesty, so she wins after all).

I would argue that historically there is no such thing as "rightful heir". The earliest monarchy was always at least partly elective ( by the chief nobility, at least if there was no suitable son, preferably among the royal family, the descendants of Woden).
Canute's conquest was confirmed in this way.
It was the nobles who decided which of the sons of Canute should succeed him.
It was the chief nobles who later called in Edward the Confessor.
It was the chief nobles who chose Harold instead of Edgar Atheling.
King Stephen was elected in the same way.
The chief nobles accepted John, but later some of them tried to elect a replacement.
So the idea that there should be a strict rule of descent identifying a "rightful" heir was a much later invention.
So the fact that Parliament now confers the right to become monarch is actually a return to the original conditions of monarchy.



Also they are actually house of hapsbourg (real name battenbourg which the changed to mountbatten and windsor)

On a point of detail, the Hapsburgs and Battenbergs are two entirely different families.


edit on 11-2-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Something tells me we can trust someone named Disraeli when it comes to British Constitutional law.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   


good quarter of the population could call themselves royal but laughter aside as a christian in My king is Christ and I can by definition owe no other allegiance.
reply to post by LABTECH767
 


Very nice, very nice indeed my friend.n




posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Maybe this new blood is the reason the British monarchy still (seems to) have enough psychological health left to "rule" a kingdom.

2nd



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkYogi
 


Was'nt it the then Duke of Norfolk who should have been signed in, But he was a Roman Catholic.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   

robbeh
At least ther only german and not reptilian like that nutcase icke thinks....


Don't think that is true. But the real Dracos are insectoid, and they're under the earth with other scarey things.

I feel very sorry for them and pray often, for don't know if they start out merely human or what they invite in, with their ceremonies and actions.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   

robbeh
At least ther only german and not reptilian like that nutcase icke thinks....



More than German?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Vlad Tepes, "Vlad the Implailer" Prince of Wallachia, is said to be related to the family.
edit on 11-2-2014 by dreamingawake because: corrections

edit on 11-2-2014 by dreamingawake because: corrections



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by steaming
 


I don't know steaming but that is possible.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Has someone noticed a strange likeness?




posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Arken
Has someone noticed a strange likeness?



The Queen=Obama=Ahkenaten=Osama.................gets helluva fkn confusing doesn't it.




top topics



 
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join