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: 5
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


So why didn't they just assume the title of the House of Wettin that they originally belong to? Windsor is just a disguise, stop denying it.
edit on 12-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Back to the OP.

Simon Abney-Hastings has a stubby Wikipedia page (although its talk page has only one entry, which is a question about the coat of arms), unbecoming for his stature. But it is something. Doesn't say if he is presently married or not. It averages about 60 viewings a day:

en.wikipedia.org...


In 2004 Britain's Real Monarch—a documentary broadcast on Channel 4 in the United Kingdom—repeated the claim that the Earl's father, as the senior descendant of George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence, was the rightful King of England. This argument involves the disputed claim that Edward IV of England was illegitimate. The Earl, following his father's death, would become the rightful monarch of England under this alternative path of succession.


That last line is inaccurate, so the page probably hasn't been adequately updated since his dad died.
edit on 12-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by uncommitted
 


They shouldn't have a reason to change their name.

Unless they were hiding something of course.
edit on 12-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
For the OP claim to be true, King Edward IV would have to be shown to not be his father's son. Here is the Wikipedia page, go down to the "Controversy" section for more on the question:

en.wikipedia.org...


Edward was born on 28 April 1442. No contemporary evidence refers to him as being born prematurely. Accordingly, counting back nine months from birth would date his conception to late July 1441. A 2004 Channel 4 television documentary examined records in the archives of Rouen Cathedral, which indicated that from 14 July to 21 August 1441 Richard, Duke of York, was away on campaign at Pontoise, several days' march from Rouen (where Cecily of York was based), and that prayers were being offered at the cathedral for his safety.


But the page points out that his father never hinted that the boy wasn't his, and raised him as a future King. It also mentions that even if he were illegitimate he still had a claim to the throne via a right of conquest lineage.
edit on 12-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Konduit
reply to post by uncommitted
 


They shouldn't have a reason to change their name.

Unless they were hiding something of course.
edit on 12-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)


They were hiding the fact that they were first cousins with the evil Kaiser Wilhelm the country was at war with. Bad for morale, you know.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Konduit
reply to post by uncommitted
 


They shouldn't have a reason to change their name.

Unless they were hiding something of course.
edit on 12-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)


They were hiding the fact that they were first cousins with the evil Kaiser Wilhelm the country was at war with. Bad for morale, you know.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Konduit
reply to post by uncommitted
 


They shouldn't have a reason to change their name.

Unless they were hiding something of course.
edit on 12-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)


I really don't understand what you are driving at = please see the post from Freeborn at the end of page 4. The reason was quite clear as to why the name change took place and Windsor is as logical a name as any. Windsor is the longest occupied palace in Europe, kind of makes sense to me, but then I'm not looking for a conspiracy where there doesn't actually appear to be one for anyone who had at least an average level of education in England and took an interest in the history of the country they were born in.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   

DJW001

Konduit
reply to post by uncommitted
 


They shouldn't have a reason to change their name.

Unless they were hiding something of course.
edit on 12-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)


They were hiding the fact that they were first cousins with the evil Kaiser Wilhelm the country was at war with. Bad for morale, you know.


I don't think they were hiding it - do you think for some reason it was not known at the time? If anything it was a disassociation which is a completely and utterly different thing.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by uncommitted
 


I agree they did it in support for the British people, their own people. It wasn't done in secret it was well reported at the time and the British public liked that they did it.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

uncommitted

DJW001

Konduit
reply to post by uncommitted
 


They shouldn't have a reason to change their name.

Unless they were hiding something of course.
edit on 12-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)


They were hiding the fact that they were first cousins with the evil Kaiser Wilhelm the country was at war with. Bad for morale, you know.


I don't think they were hiding it - do you think for some reason it was not known at the time? If anything it was a disassociation which is a completely and utterly different thing.


I know; I'm just trying to put in terms that Konduit might understand.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 





reply to post by DrunkYogi .....then the so called Divine right of Kings and Queens went out the window

We fought a little matter called The English Civil War to establish the authority of Parliament over the monarchy. You do know the difference between a Constitutional Monarchy and an Absolute Monarchy don't you? If not I'm amazed someone is trying to pass comment on something they so obviously know absolutely nothing about.


Your missing the point mate. If there is no divine right for them what's the use of having any type of Monarchy? Fighting your civil war did next to jack #. Are they still there?

I am amazed some one on here really thinks that changing the name from an Absolute Monarchy to an Constitutional Monarchy makes that much of a difference, don't be so naive. Call it what you want they still have powers, they may look token but that's for fools (



)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

DJW001

uncommitted

DJW001

Konduit
reply to post by uncommitted
 


They shouldn't have a reason to change their name.

Unless they were hiding something of course.
edit on 12-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)


They were hiding the fact that they were first cousins with the evil Kaiser Wilhelm the country was at war with. Bad for morale, you know.


I don't think they were hiding it - do you think for some reason it was not known at the time? If anything it was a disassociation which is a completely and utterly different thing.


I know; I'm just trying to put it in terms that Konduit might understand.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

DJW001

uncommitted

DJW001

Konduit
reply to post by uncommitted
 


They shouldn't have a reason to change their name.

Unless they were hiding something of course.
edit on 12-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)


They were hiding the fact that they were first cousins with the evil Kaiser Wilhelm the country was at war with. Bad for morale, you know.


I don't think they were hiding it - do you think for some reason it was not known at the time? If anything it was a disassociation which is a completely and utterly different thing.


I know; I'm just trying to put it in terms that Konduit might understand.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

DJW001

uncommitted

DJW001

Konduit
reply to post by uncommitted
 


They shouldn't have a reason to change their name.

Unless they were hiding something of course.
edit on 12-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)


They were hiding the fact that they were first cousins with the evil Kaiser Wilhelm the country was at war with. Bad for morale, you know.


I don't think they were hiding it - do you think for some reason it was not known at the time? If anything it was a disassociation which is a completely and utterly different thing.


I know; I'm just trying to put it in terms that Konduit might understand.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   

DrunkYogi
Came across a wonderful Channel 4 documentary from a few years back with Tony Robinson claiming that the Queen is not the rightful heir to the throne. Not only do these muppets leach off of the rest of society but their so called divine right is a farce. All Royalty is a farce. Between the Vatican and the Royals we get played like a pinball machine. Wake Up Folks...............




Reposting the OP, for purposes of discussing the OP. Please see my last few posts. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I stopped reading as soon as you said it was on Channel 4. People at Channel 4 are still waiting for the day that scientists clone a gay mixed race disabled version of Karl Marx to rule over the world and make Channel 4 mandatory viewing.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 





They are always called Windsor in UK media - that's because it is their 'true' name, that's been explained several times now. Even the most simplest level of research / reading etc on their lineage will show they were once called Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, its never been supressed. Maybe it hasn't been reported in Canada because its completely irrelevant to the here and now.


That's what people probably thought when we went to war with Germany. Unfortunately at least one of them showed his true Nazi colours. Who knows what the rest of them where thinking. If there was another war with Germany could they be relied upon? You see it could be relevant, you just don't know do you?

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


I couldn't disagree with you less, so I'm begging to differ - the royals our slaves, they must be the wealthiest slaves in the world. Just how do you get that idea. If you look through history at the way the royals have treated the forces and workers of this country in the past its disgraceful. I would be interested to hear what the men pressganged into our forces in Victoria's time would make of your view not many shared it I am sure? After the Armada the sick and wounded sailors were just left to rot on the streets, but Lizzie slept peacefully in her bed and wouldn't cough up a penny for their welfare, even though she knew her father had destroyed the only institute, the Monasteries, that would have helped those men.

They pick and choose exactly what they wish to do. They even abdicate if they feel like it abnd still get money from the public purse. This idea that they cost us nothing is propaganda purely to protect and maintain their position in our society. the last royal wedding costs didn't go down that well with a lot of people. What the public don't see is the cost of royal excursions, especially the police and security bills. Prince Ann visited Totnes a few years ago with a Lady in Waiting. Apart from the shock that she was so short, she arrived in some black type of Range Rover with another 5 Range Rovers full of huge great men wearing very posh suits who milled around bored to the teeth, whilst she popped into a Charity Shop and had a cup of tea and natter. There were more security men than people who watched her. The cost of the luxury motor cavalcade must have been horrific and that's just one trip. Certainly they do a certain amount of work for charity, but what would they do, to qualify their existence in the public eye if they didn't?

Sure you personally might not like the lime-light and best seats at the theatre but that's all they have ever known. You might not wish to sit on a horse trooping the colour but you get to eat at all the best places, you simply have a private room. The normal strains that everyday folk live with are a complete unknown to a royal.

You also get a multitude of holidays and freebys simply because you have a little list for the wannabes to want to be on and they will do anything to get their gongs, titles etc lend you a boat, plane or whatever and you certain;ly never queue on the piste.

You get to commit adultery with the full knowledge of the press and hardly a word ever slips out because of the official line that we don't expose the seedier side of life to the British public, they couldn't take it, that is until Diana came along. My step father was a reporter for the New York Times based in London in the 1950's and early 60's and what he saw was unbelievable, our Duke of Edinburgh's behaviour abroad shocked even him and he was a man of the world.

They never have to face up to their actions because there is always a flunky to clear the mess. I think they are out of time and we should have a vote as to whether to get rid of them. However I do respect your view and how's your cat?



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   

SecretFace
I stopped reading as soon as you said it was on Channel 4. People at Channel 4 are still waiting for the day that scientists clone a gay mixed race disabled version of Karl Marx to rule over the world and make Channel 4 mandatory viewing.


Shame, you are missing out on a great Vid. Wee Tony Robinson brings forth some fine info and he's an entertaining wee guy!



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   

DrunkYogi
reply to post by Freeborn
 





They are always called Windsor in UK media - that's because it is their 'true' name, that's been explained several times now. Even the most simplest level of research / reading etc on their lineage will show they were once called Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, its never been supressed. Maybe it hasn't been reported in Canada because its completely irrelevant to the here and now.


That's what people probably thought when we went to war with Germany. Unfortunately at least one of them showed his true Nazi colours. Who knows what the rest of them where thinking. If there was another war with Germany could they be relied upon? You see it could be relevant, you just don't know do you?

news.bbc.co.uk...



No, I don't think you know. Edward VIII abdicated and more to the point, it's the Duchess of Windsor (an American, fancy that) who the FBI believed was passing information to Nazi Germany. Really not sure what the point of all this is and it's certainly way off the topic this started with, but then I know some people want to bash the Royals - that in itself is your business, but it would be really, really nice if you actually did some proper research to back it up.




top topics



 
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join