Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Future Predictions
Ren's Predictions for the US: Beyond Time-Travel Now
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JasperMoon" data-source="post: 73251" data-attributes="member: 264"><p>May I add about English Ruler succession. I said I saw Harry usurping the throne one day and becoming king, too</p><p></p><p>In any kingly or queenly ruled country, there is always a chance for intrigue and or change of succession. What you are not told or haven't studied at school is that several kings of England were illegitimate rulers. Henry VIII was consider an illegitimate ruler because of his wrenching the throne from the rightful line. His daughter Mary "legitimately" succeeded him, but Elizabeth who came after was challenged and almost lost the throne to a Lady Jane Gray who touted better claim to the throne. Two young kings to be were mudered by Richard the III so he could become king. John usurped his brother's throne for a time until Richard was killed in the Crusades and ascended the throne "legitimately." It is said there were no other or male heirs to the throne when Victoria succeeded to the English throne. She comes from the Hapsburg dynasty. Then comes a glitch in the works and the "Winsors" take over. Their surnames are Mountbatten . Some believe they are not legitimate heirs. And George ,Elizabeth's dad, was not supposed to be king. His elder brother was, Edward, who abdicated the throne.</p><p>I don't know how old you are, but if you can remember when Diana was alive and the family was in search of a princess for Charles to marry, Diana's family comes from the Scottish line of St. Clair (if I can remember it correctly) who is purportedly the true heirs to the throne. It is said they married her to Charles to regain a true heir to the throne. But if you go along with the above tales, Charles is not a true, legitimate heir to the throne, according to the lineages. BUT William is, but only half. Harry, remember, was claimed to not be Charles's true son, but the son of a lover of Diana's who was reportedly of the St. Clair lineage as well--which makes Harry a true heir to the throne if true. The latest George in a long line of George's is from Charles' genes, only half a royal there, and supposedly Kate is a commoner, no royal blood there, but she has some royal connections being a distant cousin of the ruling family. Still, that makes little George part legit, part illegite, part commoner. Not a great combination to those who would wish to have a king or queen of true royal blood on the throne. But then, as I said, Harry has this mystique about him that could turn him against his broter and become king by usurpation. It's been done before. No reason why it won't or can't be done again. But then royal bloodlines are all but done anyway. No more kings or queens by the time the next century has rolled around.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JasperMoon, post: 73251, member: 264"] May I add about English Ruler succession. I said I saw Harry usurping the throne one day and becoming king, too In any kingly or queenly ruled country, there is always a chance for intrigue and or change of succession. What you are not told or haven't studied at school is that several kings of England were illegitimate rulers. Henry VIII was consider an illegitimate ruler because of his wrenching the throne from the rightful line. His daughter Mary "legitimately" succeeded him, but Elizabeth who came after was challenged and almost lost the throne to a Lady Jane Gray who touted better claim to the throne. Two young kings to be were mudered by Richard the III so he could become king. John usurped his brother's throne for a time until Richard was killed in the Crusades and ascended the throne "legitimately." It is said there were no other or male heirs to the throne when Victoria succeeded to the English throne. She comes from the Hapsburg dynasty. Then comes a glitch in the works and the "Winsors" take over. Their surnames are Mountbatten . Some believe they are not legitimate heirs. And George ,Elizabeth's dad, was not supposed to be king. His elder brother was, Edward, who abdicated the throne. I don't know how old you are, but if you can remember when Diana was alive and the family was in search of a princess for Charles to marry, Diana's family comes from the Scottish line of St. Clair (if I can remember it correctly) who is purportedly the true heirs to the throne. It is said they married her to Charles to regain a true heir to the throne. But if you go along with the above tales, Charles is not a true, legitimate heir to the throne, according to the lineages. BUT William is, but only half. Harry, remember, was claimed to not be Charles's true son, but the son of a lover of Diana's who was reportedly of the St. Clair lineage as well--which makes Harry a true heir to the throne if true. The latest George in a long line of George's is from Charles' genes, only half a royal there, and supposedly Kate is a commoner, no royal blood there, but she has some royal connections being a distant cousin of the ruling family. Still, that makes little George part legit, part illegite, part commoner. Not a great combination to those who would wish to have a king or queen of true royal blood on the throne. But then, as I said, Harry has this mystique about him that could turn him against his broter and become king by usurpation. It's been done before. No reason why it won't or can't be done again. But then royal bloodlines are all but done anyway. No more kings or queens by the time the next century has rolled around. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Future Predictions
Ren's Predictions for the US: Beyond Time-Travel Now
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top