Yes, I remember reading an interview with her not long before she died. I find these sort “remnants” of royalty fascinating for some reason.
Everybody’s related. When it happens to the common folk, it’s called “inbreeding”. When it happens to royalty, it’s called “pedigree collapse”.
One does not tell the Queen that her family tree is a bonsai.
Oh, MJH, why not tell her? Go on, I dare you.
I’m SURE she already knows…it isn’t a big secret…
Hell, even Queen Victoria talked about introducing new blood, which is why her daughters, Louise and Beatrice were married to the Duke of Argyll and the Prince Henry of Battenburg, respectively.
Hard to believe this thread has gone on this long without someone pointing out the work of the Master:
How can I become Prince of Wales?
Not true. He reigned from 9 April to 16 June 1483. Richard was “Protector” during the latter part of his reign (after Edward was kidnapped), but Edward was definitely King for a few weeks.
To say that Edward V never reigned or ruled is like saying that Trotsky never existed because Stalin had all references to him deleted from the official histories.
As much as this pains me…um…in the column, Cecil says that Anne isn’t invested with the title of Princess Royal.
However, she IS the Princess Royal, and has been since 1988 or '87.
Although perhaps Elizabeth waited too long: Anne could’ve become Princess Royal in the sixties, when her great aunt, Princess Mary died…
BTW, anyone know if the Duke titles the Sovereign gives his/her family are only allowed in the family and their descendents? (Such as York, Kent, Gloucester, Edinburgh, Clarence, Albany, Connaught, Sussex, Cumberland, Cambridge, etc etc…)
Of course, it WAS SD Classics, which mean it was probably an old column…I won’t get kicked out for pointing out an error in Cecil’s answer…will I?
I wouldn’t worry about it, Guinastasia. Though the online version doesn’t have a date, it’s clear from reading it that it was written before the birth of Prince William. That would also put it before Anne’s elevation to Princess Royal, by your dates.
Maybe this would make a good ‘update’ column, since things have changed so much. Cecil??
d’oh! I should’ve guessed silly me!
Gee, that MUST be an old column, then.
BTW, Lilibet hasn’t made Philip Prince Consort, has she?
(smart move on hre part-the man is an asshole).
If I recall correctly, William the Conqueror was a bastard (I might be wrong about this, but I seem to remember reading that.)
In any event, the royal Tudor line was descended of bastards. Henry VII descended from the Beaufort line, who descended from Katherine Swineford (sp?), the mistress of John of Gaunt. The Beaufort line was later legitimized by Richard II. Actually, if I’m not mistaken, both Henry VII’s father and mother were descended of bastards.
Re my previous post. Duh–William the Conqueror was mentioned as being a bastard IN THE OP (it was so long ago that I first read the OP, I’d forgotten).
Guinastasia–isn’t it true that the Romanov’s themselves don’t agree on who the actual rightful heir is? I recall reading–I think it was Massie’s latest book–that so called “morgantic” marriages have subjected the identity of the “rightful heir to the Romanov legacy” to considerable dispute.
I’m not sure, but I believe they are. They are known as “Royal Dukedoms” and by convention the holders do not attend the House of Lords. (Obviously, they don’t now, but they never did before the House of Lords Act).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by DRY *
**
True and possibly true. John of Gaunt married Katherine (his 3rd wife) and their children, born prior to the marriage, were legitimized – with the proviso that they had no claim to the crown.
Henry VII’s Tudor grandfather was the second wife of Queen Katherine, widow of Henry and formerly Katherine de Valois, princess of France (whose sister Isabella had been Richard II’s wife – cross-pollination in the family bonsai). As far as I can recall, Henry VII’s father (Owen Tudor?) was a legimitate child. However, the Tudors were a Welsh family, and among the Welsh (then and in earlier times) bastard children could inherit property etc., presumably in the absense of legitimate children or sometimes along with them, since the Welsh often divided an estate among several co-heirs, rather than passing it intact to a single heir.
Bastardy did not have the same stigma there as it did in more “civilized” lands.
Point being, the Tudors could have been illegitimate, but since H7’s claim to the crown was not based on his Tudor bloodline, it wouldn’t have mattered.
There is no list of titles which can only be used as royal peerages. The convention, however, is that titles formally used for royal titles should not be revived for someone who was not royal. It would be regarded as impertinant to want to be, let’s say, Duke of Windsor. New royal peerages can always be invented, as with the earldom of Wessex.
Royal dukes were entitled to attend the pre-reformed House of Lords and did do so. Prince Charles spoke in debate on a number of occasions. What they did avoid doing was speaking on party political matters and voting in divisions of the House.
DRY:
You’re exactly right. NO one can agree on who is the right claimant, although most look at Prince Nicholas of Russia, or even the mayor of Palm Beach Florida-Paul Ilyinsky, whose father was Grand Duke Dmitry, who participated in the murder of Rasputin.
Those who CALL themselves the heirs are full of shit.
“Grand Duchess” Marie and “Tsarevich” Georgi.
When the title was first created (IIRC, by Edward III), I do believe that the title was meant only for the royal family and their descendants. I may be mistaken, but I believe that this changed at some point. Henry VI (again IIRC) made the Earl of Suffolk a duke, though Suffolk was not royalty.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MJH *
**
The children were legitimized by Richard II (at least, the process of legitimization was started by him). Henry IV either completed the process of legitimizing them or otherwise gave his stamp of approval–with the proviso that **MJH ** mentions. Years later, it was debated whether Henry IV had the legal right to add such a proviso.
**
I am quite possibly wrong about this, but England never recognized the marriage of Owen(?) Tudor to Henry V’s widow.
It was considered scandalous for the widow of the great Warrior King of England to marry a lowly squire. There is little doubt that they had what would now be called a “common law” marriage, however.
**
This is undeniably true.
Guinastasia:
I am curious as to why you believe that Marie and Georgi are “full of shit”. I don’t necessarily disagree with you; I’m just curious. I pride myself on knowing more than a little about the last of the Romanov tsars, but I must admit that my knowledge is pitiable in comparison to yours. 
So I have a lot of respect for your opinion.
Also, if I may ask: how did you become so interested in the Romanovs. I might have guessed you were of Russian descent, but IIRC you mentioned in another thread that you were Hispanic. Or am I mistaken?
I hope you don’t think I’m out of line in asking. I myself got interested in the period because a friend who was a history major turned me on to the story of the last Romanovs. My other favorite historical periods, Medieval English and Ancient Roman, were derived from Shakespeare and a previous job, respectively.
Usually cross-pollination isn’t so, er, kinky…
The bastard children of John of Gaunt by his future third wife were legitimised by Pope Boniface IX in 1396 and by Richard II and Parliament the following year. Henry IV confirmed the decision in 1407 with the proviso ‘excepta dignitate regali’, although he did so without consulting Parliament. Henry’s view of the matter was, of course, hardly disinterested, as the Somersets might have sought to challenge his own disputed title to the throne. The validity of the Somerset claim could be and was argued either way. After 1509 the issue ceased to matter at all as Henry VIII had a legitimate descent from Edward III through his mother and with it an alternative claim to the throne.
Am I the only one who feels that this thread has now wandered off in several different directions from the OP?
Yes, I think we have wandered off the OP topic somewhat. On the other hand, no, not entirely; we are still engaged in a discussion about establishing who has what right to whichever throne, which is still generally on-topic.
Thanks for the fact-finding on the Somersets and Queen Katherine’s marriage.
Perhaps we might sum up on the “nth in line” theme as follows: if you want to move yourself up in the succession, you have to eliminate those ahead of you. If you want your children to move up in the succession, marry someone ahead of you. And then, perhaps, pass post-facto laws to clean up any nasty little legal issues you left.