If Prince Harry's kids more royal blooded then Williams

CallYourBluff

DISRAELI
reply to post by LUXUS

 

Do you actually KNOW the origins of the royal families of Europe?
All of them, without exception, "rose from out of the ranks" at some earlier phase in history. None of them were "royal" to begin with.

And that means their position should never be challenged?

The entire monarchy should be challenged. Just because some guy beat up another guy and won, robbed the people of their money no doubt, in some self appointed ceremony announcing himself as ruler of the land, centuries ago, shouldn't still stand as acceptable. The monarchy should be abolished. I don't know who they all think they are really.

Nobody stood up to them because it was off with your head. Yeah really nice people.

reply to post by violet


You are calling Diana a whore and your future King a cockhold. He's Charles'. He does too look like him. Are you blind ?
Diana had lovers after she and Charles separated but not before. Do you really think she was a nasty girl ?

reply to post by LUXUS


Diana's family was awarded the earldom they were not royals. They were landed gentry but not royal. That was the beef the queen had with her. Camilla was royal but was divorced and virginity and purity were essential to the future monarchy.
Which is why Charles couldn't marry her even though that is where his heart was and is. Sad for Diana really. To know from day one you are not your husband's choice.

DISRAELI
reply to post by CallYourBluff

 

But the whole point of the OP is that Prince William's marriage was outside royal circles.
Anyway, taking history as a whole, the phenomenon of "royals only marrying other royals" was a very temporary phase. It wasn't working like that in medieval times.

Didn't you ever hear of the war of the roses. Two royal houses battling it out for the future of England. That was in the 1400's.

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by violet

 

You are calling Diana a whore and your future King a cockhold. He's Charles'. He does too look like him. Are you blind ?
Diana had lovers after she and Charles separated but not before. Do you really think she was a nasty girl ?

I did not call Diana a whore! Or say cockhold.
Do not put words in my mouth

That is your interpretation of a who're. Not mine thank you

No I am not blind or naive. Are you that naive?
By the way I'm sure Charles knows.

reply to post by violet


If you are saying that Harry is not Charles,son that is exactly what you are saying. She and Charles were married when Harry was born so you are calling Diana a whore for cheating on her husband and Charles a cockhold for allowing it to happen. Perhaps you should learn what those words mean.

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by violet

 

If you are saying that Harry is not Charles,son that is exactly what you are saying. She and Charles were married when Harry was born so you are calling Diana a whore for cheating on her husband and Charles a cockhold for allowing it to happen. Perhaps you should learn what those words mean.

I know what the words mean.
They are just not words I would personally use to describe what I said about him not being Charles' biological son.

Look I don't care if Diana cheated. If she did I would not call her a whore. I'm sure she was a wonderful person. I loved Diana and don't appreciate you twisting my words into me calling people such derogatory names like that .

YOU are using these words to describe certain behaviour.
That's how you feel it is to be described to the perceived situation I alluded to.


For all you know I might have thought she got raped. Would that make her a who're as well?

reply to post by AutumnWitch657


You know I've never in my life used the word cockhold.
It's a word you seem to like saying for some reason. It sounds common.

I corrected you once but you seem to like repeating it.

Whatever royalty has become it was once a claim to be a blood relation to one of the demigod who were hybrid humans, larger, stronger and smarter then average humans. Many of the ancient Greek royals traced their genealogy back to Hercules who was a demigod (half human half god). In ancient times they tried to preserve this genetic and would even resort to inbreeding if they could not find another person of royal blood.

Atlas according to Plato was a demigod, the son of Poseidon and the progenitor of the titans otherwise known as the Atlanteans.

Below Poseidon on back of royal carriage


Below map from Vatican library showing Poseidon saving a Royal refugee from the flood so that the bloodline could be continued after the flood.

reply to post by violet


It merely means a man who has been cheated on. Sounds common? Then why didn't you know the word? Not so common but known to us who read.

reply to post by AutumnWitch657

I said that "the phenomenon of royals only marrying other royals" did not hold true in the middle ages.
You reply that during the Wars of the Roses two "royal houses" were battling for the throne.
How is this any kind of argument against my comment? How does the fact that they were battling it out show that they were only marrying into other "royal houses"?

The way to settle this is to look at the appropriate genealogical tables and look at the women they were marrying.
I get out my trusty copy of the Cambridge Medieval History and advise you to do the same.

One of the "royal houses" in the Wars of the Roses was the house of York.
Let's take that one, and work backwards.
Richard III married Anne, daughter of the Earl of Warwick. Who was not a royal.
His brother Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville. Who was not a royal.
Their father, Richard Duke of York, was not a king, but he was a descendant of Edward III and representative of the house of York claiming the throne, which makes him a member of the "royal house" as far as your argument is concerned. He married Cicely Nevill. Who was not a royal.
His father Richard, Earl of Cambridge, married Anne, the grand-daughter of his own uncle. Since she was another descendant of Edward III, I suppose we can mark her as "royal".
His father, Edmund Duke of York, and son of Edward III, had two wives. One was the daughter of the king of Castille. But the other was daughter of the Earl of Kent. Not a royal.
While Edward III himself married Philippa, daughter of William of Hainualt. Who was only a Count. Not royal.

What we see in the genealogies of the Middle Ages is that the aristocracy were marrying among themselves, while the kings were participating in this marriage market as slightly elevated members of the aristocracy. If you try to narrow it down to "royals only marrying royals", the rebuttal is in the facts of history.

The idea of royals only marrying other royals really begins with the French monarchy, and especially with Louis XIV. Even then the English and British monarchs never really bought the idea. Henry VIII notoriously had six wives, and only one was of royal blood. In fact, now I come to think of it, I can challenge you to identify even one British ruler since George I who married a member of a royal family. As far as my memory tells me, they have spent the last three centuries marrying members of the German or British aristocracy.

So "the aristocracy have been marrying among themselves" is a much sounder proposition, historically, then "royal families have only been marrying each other".

reply to post by violet


See it doesn't matter what you would call her I wouldn't call her that either but you don't change the meanings of the words just because you wouldn't personally say them . They mean what they mean and exactly describe the behavior you are talking about .
You just have an issue with the labels but not the behaviour. Oh well.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Actually it was only the middle ages part I was talking about. Obviously the rest illustrates exactly what you are saying and I completely agree with you.