Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,421 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 955,073
Pageviews Today: 1,269,000Threads Today: 286Posts Today: 5,302
10:37 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.

 
Historian
User ID: 41153
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 07:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
Britain´s Real Monarch

This is the title of a TV documentary by Tony Robinson shown on Britain´s Channel 4 on January 3, 2004, and again on November 20, 2004. This documentary presented persuasive evidence that the present Queen of England does not have a valid claim to the throne that she has occupied since 1952.

A legitimate claimant to the English throne must be descended from Henry II (reigned 1154-1189) in an unbroken line of descent in which all members were born legitimately, that is, their parents were married at the time of their birth. If a line of descent passes through someone who was born out of wedlock then no descendant of that person has a legitimate claim to the throne of England.

Now let us examine the validity of the claim of the present Queen of England to the throne. This is most easily done by inspection of the family tree of Henry II given at [link to www.channel4.com] Here we see that Queen Elizabeth II traces her descent back through Victoria (reigned 1837-1901), James I (reigned 1603-1624) and Henry VIII (reigned 1509-1547) to Henry´s father Henry VII (reigned 1485-1509).

Henry VII was descended from John of Gaunt (lived 1340-1399) who was descended from Henry II. Unfortunately for the legitimacy of Henry VII´s claim to the throne, his descent from John of Gaunt was by way of the latter´s mistress (later wife) Katherine through her son John Beaufort. Since John Beaufort was born out of wedlock, this descent could not be used to legitimate Henry VII´s claim to the throne (though John and the other three children of John of Gaunt and Katherine, all born out of wedlock, were legitimized retrospectively by an act of parliament in 1397).

In order to support the claims of Henry VII´s future offspring and descendants (and for the purpose of ending the civil war between the Houses of York and Lancaster), in 1486 Henry married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, who claimed to be descended from Edward III (the father of John of Gaunt) and thus from Henry II. It is from the union of Henry VII and Elizabeth that all modern kings and queens of England are descended. But if Edward IV was illegitimate then none of his descendants (and thus none of Henry VII´s descendants) had or have a valid claim to the throne of England.

Edward IV´s mother, Cecily Neville (herself descended, via Katherine, from Edward III) was married to Richard, Duke of York. On the Channel 4 website we read:

According to Dominic Mancini, an Italian visitor to London in 1464, Cecily ´fell into a frenzy´ at news of the marriage of her eldest surviving son Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville and, in her rage, made the astounding accusation that he was a bastard, adding that she would be prepared to testify before a public enquiry that this was indeed the case.

At the time of Edward´s birth it was rumored that his natural father was an English archer. In fact Edward was tall and (unlike his younger brother Richard III) did not resemble his father in physical appearance.

Although later known for her piety as well as her pride, it is rumoured that, in the summer of 1441, she [Cecily] had an affair with an English archer named Blaybourne based in the Rouen garrison in Normandy while her husband was elsewhere in France fighting. The future Edward IV is said to have been the result of this liaison.

According to documents discovered by Dr Michael Jones in Rouen Cathedral there was a 5-week period when Richard was 100 miles away from his wife, leading a military campaign against the French, during which Henry was conceived, so Richard could not have been Henry´s father, and so Henry´s parents were not married at the time of his birth. Moreover, only one of Henry´s parents (Cecily) was descended from Edward III and Henry II, and that line of descent was illegitimate (it was again via the union of John of Gaunt with Katharine). Thus Henry IV had no legitimate claim to the English throne, and so none of his descendants, including the present Queen of England, have had either.

Tony Robinson asked the question: If the succession of kings and queens from Edward IV to Elizabeth II is illegitimate, is there an alternative, legitimate line of descent? And if so, has it persisted to the present day?

The answer to both questions is Yes. Again consulting [link to www.channel4.com] we see that after the birth of Edward there were two sons born to Cecily and Richard. The youngest, Richard, became King Richard III in 1483 but died childless in the Battle of Bosworth (1485). The second son was George, Duke of Clarence, who was executed in 1478. His daughter Margaret (lived 1473-1541) had five children and among her present-day descendants is Michael Hastings (born 1942), who emigrated to Australia in 1960, married, fathered five children, and currently lives in Jerilderie, New South Wales. Since the line of descent from Henry II to Michael Hastings is legitimate, and the line of descent from Henry II to Elizabeth II is not legitimate, it follows that Michael Hastings is Britain´s legitimate king, and the present occupant of Buckingham Palace has no valid claim to be Queen of England.
[link to www.serendipity.li]
---------------------------------------------
So you see, the belief of David Icke and others that the House of Windsor is an Illuminati royal bloodline is, historically speaking, utterly false. It assumes that the British Royal family is a legitimate, geneticially continuous descent from the earliest kings and queens. It is not. There are many people living today with just as many genes (if not more) inherited from the original King Henry II as Queen Elizabeth II has inherited. She has no right, based upon legitimate marriage (as it always was in royal bloodlines), to call herself ´queen.´ Her only claim comes as an accident of history. She has no more ´royal blood´ in her than thousands of private citizens living today, all of whom can trace back their families in just as direct a route (if not more so) to the original royal bloodline.

The family tree of Queen Elizabeth, showing how the House of Windsor (and therefore the Queen) comes from BASTARD ANCESTORS without any legal right to the British throne, can be seen at:

[link to www.channel4.com]

Look in the family tree for the crucial (that is, for the Windsor family!) union of Henry VII, descendant of John, the bastard son of John of Gaunt and his mistress, and Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV, bastard son of Cecily Neville and the archer Blaybourne. It is this marriage of two decendants of royal BASTARDS that the House of Windsor descends from, thus proving its illigitimacy.
Scholar
User ID: 41168
Germany
11/13/2005 08:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
England is still a republic. The "United Kingdom" is constitutionally null and void.

The 1660 Act of Restoration was illegal because only the second Long Parliament had the right to adjudicate on the restoration of the monarchy. The 1660 Convention Parliament had no legitimacy.

Constitutional "experts" and professors of law know this, but will never admit it in public.

The "UK" (the Crown British State) simply doesn´t exist. England is still an independent republic.
Historian
User ID: 41169
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 08:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
The family tree of Elizabeth II indicates that one of her bastard ancestors - Elizabeth, the daughter of Edward IV - had no royal blood at all because Edward IV was the bastard offspring of Ceciley Neville and an archer, both of whom were not royals. This means that his two brothers - Edward V and Richard - had no right to the throne as well. However, they were both male, and were nearer in line to the throne than their sister, Elizabeth. Was this the reason why Henry VII - or his friends - ordered the two boys to be inprisoned in the Tower of London and then murdered? He knew his right to the throne was illigitimate. But he wrongly thought that the two boys were legitimate grandsons of Richard, Duke of York, and therefore would contest his claim to the throne and prove that his claim was false. This was why they were murdered. What Henry VII didn´t know (as none of the kings and queens did up a couple of years ago) is that Edward IV was ALSO a bastard with no right to the throne! This means that ALL British kings and queens for the past 500 years have been illigitimate. Quite a thought!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 41169
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 08:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
I agree with that, Scholar. So neither in constitutional law nor in the natural law of inheritance is Queen Elizabeth II the true, legal monarch!
Scholar
User ID: 41168
Germany
11/13/2005 08:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
So neither in constitutional law nor in the natural law of inheritance is Queen Elizabeth II the true, legal monarch!
-----------

Yes, it´s amazing, but true.

England is a legally independent republic with an unconstitutional monarchy born of a bastard lineage.

lol
Historian
User ID: 41169
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 08:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
No wonder Henry Ford said: "History is bunk"! The more I learn about it, the more I discover how true this remark is.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 41159
United States
11/13/2005 08:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
QEII is an illegitimate butterfly. This is not good.
Scholar
User ID: 41168
Germany
11/13/2005 09:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
There are many reasons why the talking heads who are paid to waffle on the BBC and in the print media will never address this subject, not least of which can be summated thus:

Whereas the administrative entity referred to as the "United Kingdom" and all instruments of power therewith exercised by the British Crown are constitutionally invalid and illegal,

1. The entity "Britain" is invalid
2. The conceptual status "British subject" is invalid
3. The conceptual status "British citizen" is invalid
4. The British judiciary is illegal
5. The Inland Revenue is illegal
6. The British Constabulary is illegal
7. The British government is illegal
8. The British armed forces as constituted are illegal
9. The Bank of England derives from an illegal charter

a) The English are not subject to the British Crown
b) The English are free citizens of a still-existing republic
c) The English are not "British"
d) The English are not subject to the laws of the "United Kingdom"

No wonder this isn´t taught at school!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 41178
United States
11/13/2005 09:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
Damn! The Micks were right, son of a gun.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 41135
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 09:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
Where would a person stand in all of that if they naturalized to England and became a dual citizen?
Scholar
User ID: 41168
Germany
11/13/2005 09:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
Where would a person stand in all of that if they naturalized to England and became a dual citizen?
-----

That would be a matter for a reconvened Second Long Parliament to consider, as only it has the constitutional authority to legislate on matters of nationality.

However, since one was granted English citizenship in the republic "by birth or petition" I would think naturalised Englishmen and Englishwomen would have no problems in this respect. Petitioning procedures were uncomplicated under Cromwell and the Long Parliament, and I therefore see no reason why that should change once the "United Kingdom" expires.
Historian
User ID: 41169
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 09:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
As the monarchy is illegal and invalid on constitutional grounds of false inheritance, your dual citizenship is invalid because an illegal and invalid monarchy cannot appoint a legal government that can give you valid citizenship of the UK. Only a republic could now give you valid citizenship
KarlW.

User ID: 41182
United States
11/13/2005 09:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
.

The current pretenders to the throne
of England are

GERMAN JEWS !

House of Hanover of saxony.

Long line of jews

who climbed social ladders
and married titles with view
to take over Royal Houses of
Europe and have done so !

Elizabeths sons were circumsized
by a Moel at EIGHT DAYS at home
in ORTHODOX CEREMONY.



DIANA´S sons also were each
circumsized by a Moel at
home at EIGHT DAYS in
ORTHODOX CEREMONY !


This line of descent is doomed to
various dissipative genetic disorders.


The ANCIENT RULES demand certain
BLOOD in the Royal lines.

Both of these problems make it
necessary for the Brit Royals
to marry and reproduce with

GENTILE GENES

or sink into depravity

and be discharged from their
throne if the quantity of BLOOD
in their descents sinks below
the ANCIENT requirements.

This slow and insidious take over
by gods chosen
has been well planed and exexcuted
for thousands of years
so that it remains nearly
invisible to most.


Enquiring minds will research and expose.

And like ERNST ZUNDEL and GERMAR RUDOLF

and dozens more,

get grabbed and imprisioned.


" You are not allowed to question !"

[link to www.boardwebhost.com]

.
UNO WHO

User ID: 13705
United States
11/13/2005 09:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
What an incredible crock!

By your silly logic, Henry II himself wasn´t "legitimate" either, in that he was descended from an usurper named William the conqueror, who landed in England in 1066 and killed the One True King, Harald, at the battle of Hastings. Therefore, William and his progeny cannot be the True Kings because ...

Hey, wait a minute! Didn´t Harald´s ancestors wrest the kingdom from the Danes, who wrested it from the Romans, who wresteed it from the Celts, who wrested it from the original Britons?

Besides, why are you so bigoted against illigitimacy, anyway? Are you saying that a person has to go through a pre-sex religious ritual before their child can become a king or something?

Look at Anders! He´s one of the biggest bastards around, and no one´s trying to kick him off HIS throne or wherever it is he sits when he´s drunk, right?

Gimme a break!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 41178
United States
11/13/2005 09:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
Anders is an illegitimate butterfly chaser! Naw, you guys are making up stuff, again, aren´t you?
Historian
User ID: 41169
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 10:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
Genetic inheritance is not merely from a few generations back, when Queen Victoria married the German Albert. Genes are passed on through every generation. So it would be wrong to focus on what happened to an illigitimate royal household during a particular era, whatever conspiratorial consequances one wants to infer from it. I could not care one iota whether Jews or Germans bred into the Royal Family. Intermarriage between people of different countries has been happening in royal families for hundreds of years - the House of Windsor certainly did not start it. But I do care whether they are real members of a valid royal bloodline and I dislike being lied to that they are.
Hatfields vs McCoys
User ID: 41178
United States
11/13/2005 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
It was a marriage of England and Europe. It was supposed to have united the Major clans and brought about peace. Didn´t turn out that way. There is always as much back stabbing within the clan and there is between clans. Guess they overlooked that particular bit of truth.
Historian
User ID: 41169
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 10:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
UNO WHO, You are missing the point. The fact that King William took over from King Harold does not make the Royal Family illigitimate. What makes the claim of the Queen to be a legitimate monarch is what ALWAYS decided succession: was the claimant to the throne the offspring of a legally constituted marriage. If the claimant was a bastard, he or she had no right to succeed to the throne. This is what happened in the case of the British monarchy at the time of John of Gaunt (his son was illigitimate and therefore should not have become king) and at the time of Edward IV, who became king even though he was also an illigitimate child (kept secret at the time). As the House of Windsor descended from both of these people, the British royal line of succession has been illigitimate for the past 500 years.
IE
User ID: 40275
Puerto Rico
11/13/2005 10:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
The real heirs are Milners now living in salt lake city as mormons ...

Glen milner being the father to "Chyrien@ but the guy is not prepared in any way to be a king ... so nostradamus is screwd on that one ... Eurolpe will burn wile the choosen one remains a fucking wimp ..

sheep
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 40274
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 10:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
At what stage in history does one becomes legitimate is a matter of ambivalancy and history is littered with monarchs that are illegitimate. William the conqueror killed the true king of england Harold and then become king himself so he and his descendants are therefore not legit.

Catherine the Great of Russia may have married a Russain monarch but she was a German princess by blood, how can someone of from a different country become a monarch of another country, legit?, but not in a certain sense of national origin. No difference as with in the US, a president must be an american born.

So, whether if Elizabeth II is legit doesn´t really matter because she is the queen, history is full of illegit claims to manarchs anyway.
Historian
User ID: 41169
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 10:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
The lawful claimant to the British throne is Michael I (Michael Hastings (1942-), 14th earl of Loudoun).

Son of Barbara Hastings, 13th countess of Loudoun and Captain Walter Strickland Lord, Michael is the present earl of Loudoun and – in the alternative royal line – the rightful king of England. However, in 1960, when the present occupant of Buckingham Palace was in the first decade of her reign, the 17-year-old Michael (who then had the title Lord Mauchline) set sail for Australia.

He eventually joined Dennys, Lascelles Ltd (now Dennys Strachan Mercantile Ltd), a stocking station agency that bought and sold properties, sheep, cattle and so on. In 1966, they sent him to Jerilderie, New South Wales, population 1100, where he has lived ever since. However, today he works at the Australian Rice Research Institute, where he is engaged in an ongoing quest to find varieties of rice suitable for an arid landscape, to feed Australia and south-east Asia.

In 1969, he married the red-headed Noelene McCormick, and together they had five children, who in turn have given them five grandchildren (Noelene has since died). When Michael´s mother died in October 2000, he inherited the earldom (if not the British throne). His heir is his eldest son Simon, the present Lord Mauchline.

When Tony Robinson told Michael that, according to the research, he should be the king of England, he accepted the news calmly, then said: ´I believe that Australia should be a republic. I´m not a mad monarchist.´
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 41196
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 10:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
Do you think the ravens will be leaving the Tower of London at any point soon?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1326
Japan
11/13/2005 10:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
She`s only the Queen if you believe she is. To me she`s just another human being, no more, no less.
Historian
User ID: 41169
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 10:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
ID.13083: "William the conqueror killed the true king of england Harold and then become king himself so he and his descendants are therefore not legit."

No, the fact that William took over the English throne does not make his succession illegitimate. This is because all the kings and queens have descended from him, not from Harold´s family. And it SHOULD matter to British people at least whether their queen is constitutionally legitimate.
Historian
User ID: 41169
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 10:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
ID.5548: the queen is just another person to me as well. Unfortunately, however, she is not so for the majority of British people, who don´t know that the royal bloodline is totally bogus.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 40274
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 10:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
That is my point Historian, william the conq´ was not legit but there goes history, things had elvolved around what he had done so therefore you cannot erase a massive chunk of history to rectify the present. The queen of england is the Queen, no point trying to backstep eons of centuries because what would that do, can you find a replacement for the queen?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 41178
United States
11/13/2005 10:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
Sounds to me like the Royal line has been tampered with and willfully manipulated...but by whom? Who are the real Powers that Be in Britain?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 41196
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 10:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
"Sounds to me like the Royal line has been tampered with and willfully manipulated...but by whom? Who are the real Powers that Be in Britain?"

Let´s see, could it be The Rothschilds, The Rothschilds, or The Rothschilds?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 41178
United States
11/13/2005 11:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
lol, perhaps I should have said pruned, not "Tampered ".
Historian
User ID: 41169
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 11:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
ID13083, with respect, William the Conqueror´s reign WAS legitimate, from a legal point of view - which is what I am focussing on. The fact that he won the kingdom in battle (as did several other kings afterwards) is irrelevant. His fourth son became Henry I, who started the dynastery.
Historian
User ID: 41169
United Kingdom
11/13/2005 11:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
And I am not arguing for the overthrow of the monarchy, either. I merely wish to point out as a historian that we live in a cultural matrix of make-believe in which historical lies appear as truths. Also to discredit the myth that that Queen Elizabeth II is more ´royal´ than thousands of other people walking the streets of Great Britain.

News