- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
How royal are the royals?
Collapse
X
-
How royal are the royals?
9Not alot22.22%2More German than British33.33%3AndyW is Prince George's dad - and he brainier than Prince William anyway44.44%4 -
-
Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
What the DNA shows is that the Tudors might not have had a genuine claim to the throne, and if people had realised that at the time, Henry might not have been able to raise an army to defeat Richard III. Even then, though, his "claim" was disputed because the Yorkist claim was always stronger. The Tudors came to power by force and marriage.
The current royal family have a direct line from the Georgians, who were Protestant and close enough to Elizabeth I to have a claim on the throne - there were many more legitimate claimants but they were Catholic so ruled out. At that stage, though, the monarchy wasn't strictly hereditary - Mary I was chosen by her brother, and she chose Elizabeth on condition that she rules as a Catholic (which she obviously didn't do).
No-one has every really disputed that Richard had a stronger claim to the throne than Henry, but he lost the Battle of Bosworth, died and Henry took the throne.Comment
-
Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post=
No-one has every really disputed that Richard had a stronger claim to the throne than Henry, but he lost the Battle of Bosworth, died and Henry took the throne."You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JRComment
-
Originally posted by TheFaQQer View PostNo it doesn't.
What the DNA shows is that the Tudors might not have had a genuine claim to the throne, and if people had realised that at the time, Henry might not have been able to raise an army to defeat Richard III. Even then, though, his "claim" was disputed because the Yorkist claim was always stronger. The Tudors came to power by force and marriage.
The current royal family have a direct line from the Georgians, who were Protestant and close enough to Elizabeth I to have a claim on the throne - there were many more legitimate claimants but they were Catholic so ruled out. At that stage, though, the monarchy wasn't strictly hereditary - Mary I was chosen by her brother, and she chose Elizabeth on condition that she rules as a Catholic (which she obviously didn't do).
No-one has every really disputed that Richard had a stronger claim to the throne than Henry, but he lost the Battle of Bosworth, died and Henry took the throne."A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George OrwellComment
-
Comment
-
Accident of birth is totally anachronistic 👑I was an IPSE Consultative Council Member, until the BoD abolished it. I am not an IPSE Member, since they have no longer have any relevance to me, as an IT Contractor. Read my lips...I recommend QDOS for ALL your Insurance requirements (Contact me for a referral code).Comment
-
Originally posted by Cliphead View PostRoyals, why?
An anachronism and time the parasites were gone."You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JRComment
-
The Royals were always just the leaders of the biggest local gang, just time and expansions of territory made it an institution. Conquest shifted the crown about loads of times in history so the genetics are interesting, not important.
Personally I prefer a monarch to the alternative, if we had a President position we would have that lying scum B'liar (and his cronies and colleagues) in the position at some point.Comment
-
If all these nobles got what they own by force, can I punch the Duke of Northumberland on the sneck and claim Alnwick castle as my new abode?I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. [Christopher Hitchens]Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment