Richard the Fourth?

What are the odds of the new Royal sprog being named in honour of the King recently unearthed?

Or perhaps, given his ancestry, Ludwig, Franz or Hermann would be more appropriate.

Over on a CBC (Canada) News, here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/07/22/royal-baby-born.html

"humanoid" wrote in the comments, "I hope they name it Richard."

I wish they would. But they won't.

le sigh,
~Weds

--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> What are the odds of the new Royal sprog being named in honour of the King recently unearthed?
>
> Or perhaps, given his ancestry, Ludwig, Franz or Hermann would be more appropriate.
>

David, I think you'll find this baby has almost no German ancestry.  I'm not sad enough to work it out but no more than about 1/16 at most surely?


From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 22 July 2013, 23:53
Subject: Richard the Fourth?

 
What are the odds of the new Royal sprog being named in honour of the King recently unearthed?

Or perhaps, given his ancestry, Ludwig, Franz or Hermann would be more appropriate.


Oh

But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.



________________________________
From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 22 July 2013, 23:53
Subject: Richard the Fourth?

 

What are the odds of the new Royal sprog being named in honour of the King recently unearthed?

Or perhaps, given his ancestry, Ludwig, Franz or Hermann would be more appropriate.

Wasn't there that programme that showed that most of the European monarchies in the last 150 years have predominantly Danish roots because the children of Christian X married into most royal houses. So Philip, although Greek by nationality, has common ancestry with the Queen (Queen Alexandra was Danish)?   



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 9:50
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?


 

David, I think you'll find this baby has almost no German ancestry.  I'm not sad enough to work it out but no more than about 1/16 at most surely?

From: davidarayner <mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 22 July 2013, 23:53
Subject: Richard the Fourth?

 
What are the odds of the new Royal sprog being named in honour of the King recently unearthed?

Or perhaps, given his ancestry, Ludwig, Franz or Hermann would be more appropriate.

Oh

Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect.  I think Philip would be good.


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 
But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.

________________________________
From: davidarayner <mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 22 July 2013, 23:53
Subject: Richard the Fourth?

 

What are the odds of the new Royal sprog being named in honour of the King recently unearthed?

Or perhaps, given his ancestry, Ludwig, Franz or Hermann would be more appropriate.

Sound about right but obviously there's a fair bit of German too and Queen Victoria's umpteen children were all over Europe.


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:25
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 
Wasn't there that programme that showed that most of the European monarchies in the last 150 years have predominantly Danish roots because the children of Christian X married into most royal houses. So Philip, although Greek by nationality, has common ancestry with the Queen (Queen Alexandra was Danish)?   

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 9:50
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?


 

David, I think you'll find this baby has almost no German ancestry.  I'm not sad enough to work it out but no more than about 1/16 at most surely?

From: davidarayner <mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 22 July 2013, 23:53
Subject: Richard the Fourth?

 
What are the odds of the new Royal sprog being named in honour of the King recently unearthed?

Or perhaps, given his ancestry, Ludwig, Franz or Hermann would be more appropriate.

Oh

Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of the Armada connection but I hope they're not.



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?


 

Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect.  I think Philip would be good.

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 
But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.

________________________________
From: davidarayner <mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 22 July 2013, 23:53
Subject: Richard the Fourth?

 

What are the odds of the new Royal sprog being named in honour of the King recently unearthed?

Or perhaps, given his ancestry, Ludwig, Franz or Hermann would be more appropriate.

Yep they married some of Christian's, like Aleaxndra and the Russian royal house - the last Tzar's mother was Danish. And I agree with you, few of us have a pure pedigree; in fact that's what makes us more interesting.



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:31
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?


 

Sound about right but obviously there's a fair bit of German too and Queen Victoria's umpteen children were all over Europe.

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:25
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 
Wasn't there that programme that showed that most of the European monarchies in the last 150 years have predominantly Danish roots because the children of Christian X married into most royal houses. So Philip, although Greek by nationality, has common ancestry with the Queen (Queen Alexandra was Danish)?   

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 9:50
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 

David, I think you'll find this baby has almost no German ancestry.  I'm not sad enough to work it out but no more than about 1/16 at most surely?

From: davidarayner <mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 22 July 2013, 23:53
Subject: Richard the Fourth?

 
What are the odds of the new Royal sprog being named in honour of the King recently unearthed?

Or perhaps, given his ancestry, Ludwig, Franz or Hermann would be more appropriate.

Oh

I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip.  Mind you most people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 
Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of the Armada connection but I hope they're not.

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?


 

Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect.  I think Philip would be good.

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 
But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.

________________________________

True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though isn't Charles going to take the name George?



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?


 

I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip.  Mind you most people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 
Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of the Armada connection but I hope they're not.

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 

Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect.  I think Philip would be good.

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 
But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.

________________________________

I've heard other people say it but don't know where that comes from =- that he'd take George.  I can't see he'd use  anything but his own name.  It's not like the old days when they used their first name as king but were known by one of their other names within the family (ie Ed VIII was  called David, George VI was Bertie). 

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:48
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 
True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though isn't Charles going to take the name George?

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?


 

I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip.  Mind you most people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 
Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of the Armada connection but I hope they're not.

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 

Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect.  I think Philip would be good.

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 
But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.

________________________________

Yes, the first given name is no guide to the "regnal" title adopted;

The Queen's father was actually called Albert; but that was considered too German so he became "George VI", despite having a brother George, Duke of Kent.

Before becoming Edward VIII his elder brother was universally called "Dive" by the family.

Strictly speaking Charles III/George VII/whatever will be the first monarch of the House of Oldenburg, that being his paternal line; but he evidently intends to keep the bogus "Windsor" handle, adopted by George V during the First World War to disguise his German ancestry. Its also said that he intends to become "Defender of Faiths" (presumably aginst us atheists), the problem being that this would annihilate his own claim to the throne through the act of succession.

Richard is probably considered unlucky, as the three King Richards so far all died violently leaving no legitimate children.

Since the BBC tells us that they're now the "People's" Monarchy (whatever that means) don't rule out Tyler and Dillon.

Incidentally, despite PG's excessive emphasis of the "Tudor" name, that family itself rarely used it as they were all too aware of the lowly, foreign and illegitimate origins of their own paternal inheritance.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though isn't Charles going to take the name George?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>
>  
>
> I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip.  Mind you most people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....
>
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
> Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of the Armada connection but I hope they're not.
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
>
> Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect.  I think Philip would be good.
>
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
> But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

George VI's first name was Albert. George was one of his middle names.

Alison


In a message dated 23/07/2013 11:58:22 GMT Summer Time,
ferrymansdaughter@... writes:




I've heard other people say it but don't know where that comes from =- that
he'd take George. I can't see he'd use anything but his own name. It's
not like the old days when they used their first name as king but were
known by one of their other names within the family (ie Ed VIII was called
David, George VI was Bertie).

From: Hilary Jones <_hjnatdat@..._ (mailto:hjnatdat@...) >
To: "__
(mailto:) " <__
(mailto:) >
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:48
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard the Fourth?


True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though
isn't Charles going to take the name George?

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?



I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip. Mind you most
people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?


Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of
the Armada connection but I hope they're not.

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?



Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect. I think Philip
would be good.

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?


But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the
Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them.
Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert
though, always liked the dashing Prince.

________________________________

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bertie was short for Albert! 



________________________________
From: "PRATERAE@..." <PRATERAE@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:49
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 

George VI's first name was Albert. George was one of his middle names.

Alison


In a message dated 23/07/2013 11:58:22 GMT Summer Time,
ferrymansdaughter@... writes:

I've heard other people say it but don't know where that comes from =- that
he'd take George. I can't see he'd use anything but his own name. It's
not like the old days when they used their first name as king but were
known by one of their other names within the family (ie Ed VIII was called
David, George VI was Bertie).

From: Hilary Jones <_hjnatdat@..._ (mailto:hjnatdat@...) >
To: "__
(mailto:) " <__
(mailto:) >
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:48
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard the Fourth?

True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though
isn't Charles going to take the name George?

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip. Mind you most
people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of
the Armada connection but I hope they're not.

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect. I think Philip
would be good.

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the
Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them.
Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert
though, always liked the dashing Prince.

________________________________

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes but he took the name George when he became king, rather than becoming
King Albert.


In a message dated 23/07/2013 12:58:22 GMT Summer Time, hjnatdat@...
writes:




Bertie was short for Albert!

________________________________
From: "_PRATERAE@..._ (mailto:PRATERAE@...) " <_PRATERAE@..._
(mailto:PRATERAE@...) >
To: __
(mailto:)
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:49
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard the Fourth?



George VI's first name was Albert. George was one of his middle names.

Alison

In a message dated 23/07/2013 11:58:22 GMT Summer Time,
_ferrymansdaughter@..._
(mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...) writes:

I've heard other people say it but don't know where that comes from =-
that
he'd take George. I can't see he'd use anything but his own name. It's
not like the old days when they used their first name as king but were
known by one of their other names within the family (ie Ed VIII was called
David, George VI was Bertie).

From: Hilary Jones <__hjnatdat@..._ (mailto:_hjnatdat@...) _
(mailto:_hjnatdat@..._ (mailto:hjnatdat@...) ) >
To: "___
(mailto:_) _
(mailto:__
(mailto:) ) " <___
(mailto:_) _
(mailto:__
(mailto:) ) >
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:48
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard the Fourth?

True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though
isn't Charles going to take the name George?

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip. Mind you most
people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of
the Armada connection but I hope they're not.

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect. I think Philip
would be good.

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the
Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived
by them.
Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert
though, always liked the dashing Prince.

________________________________

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Love your last sentence, and if Anne shrieks she's the Kingmaker's daughter one more time I'll throw a book at the set. Isn't Philip Glucksburg-something?



________________________________
From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:04
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 

Yes, the first given name is no guide to the "regnal" title adopted;

The Queen's father was actually called Albert; but that was considered too German so he became "George VI", despite having a brother George, Duke of Kent.

Before becoming Edward VIII his elder brother was universally called "Dive" by the family.

Strictly speaking Charles III/George VII/whatever will be the first monarch of the House of Oldenburg, that being his paternal line; but he evidently intends to keep the bogus "Windsor" handle, adopted by George V during the First World War to disguise his German ancestry. Its also said that he intends to become "Defender of Faiths" (presumably aginst us atheists), the problem being that this would annihilate his own claim to the throne through the act of succession.

Richard is probably considered unlucky, as the three King Richards so far all died violently leaving no legitimate children.

Since the BBC tells us that they're now the "People's" Monarchy (whatever that means) don't rule out Tyler and Dillon.

Incidentally, despite PG's excessive emphasis of the "Tudor" name, that family itself rarely used it as they were all too aware of the lowly, foreign and illegitimate origins of their own paternal inheritance.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though isn't Charles going to take the name George?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>
>  
>
> I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip.  Mind you most people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....
>
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
> Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of the Armada connection but I hope they're not.
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
>
> Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect.  I think Philip would be good.
>
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
> But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

For continuity to remind one of a good reign. One could hardly have another Edward or a German Albert. As Liz says, he had a brother George.



________________________________
From: "PRATERAE@..." <PRATERAE@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:59
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 

Yes but he took the name George when he became king, rather than becoming
King Albert.


In a message dated 23/07/2013 12:58:22 GMT Summer Time, hjnatdat@...
writes:

Bertie was short for Albert!

________________________________
From: "_PRATERAE@..._ (mailto:PRATERAE@...) " <_PRATERAE@..._
(mailto:PRATERAE@...) >
To: __
(mailto:)
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:49
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard the Fourth?

George VI's first name was Albert. George was one of his middle names.

Alison

In a message dated 23/07/2013 11:58:22 GMT Summer Time,
_ferrymansdaughter@..._
(mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...) writes:

I've heard other people say it but don't know where that comes from =-
that
he'd take George. I can't see he'd use anything but his own name. It's
not like the old days when they used their first name as king but were
known by one of their other names within the family (ie Ed VIII was called
David, George VI was Bertie).

From: Hilary Jones <__hjnatdat@..._ (mailto:_hjnatdat@...) _
(mailto:_hjnatdat@..._ (mailto:hjnatdat@...) ) >
To: "___
(mailto:_) _
(mailto:__
(mailto:) ) " <___
(mailto:_) _
(mailto:__
(mailto:) ) >
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:48
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard the Fourth?

True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though
isn't Charles going to take the name George?

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip. Mind you most
people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of
the Armada connection but I hope they're not.

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect. I think Philip
would be good.

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the
Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived
by them.
Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert
though, always liked the dashing Prince.

________________________________

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

David

Sad fate of Charles I! A stupid, proud, pig-headed man whose words could not be trusted and therefore left Parliament with no alternative and in the process turned himself into a martyr. He broke every promise because he believed he was entitled due to ruling through divine right and therefore was accountable to no one regardless of what it did to the country and its people. He would not have stopped even if he had been forced to abdicate. He was also ungrateful to those who supported him.

All the Stuarts were bad rulers, some worse than others. Just carrying on the Tudor tradition from whom they were descended.
Elaine





--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Love your last sentence, and if Anne shrieks she's the Kingmaker's daughter one more time I'll throw a book at the set. Isn't Philip Glucksburg-something?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:04
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
>
> Yes, the first given name is no guide to the "regnal" title adopted;
>
> The Queen's father was actually called Albert; but that was considered too German so he became "George VI", despite having a brother George, Duke of Kent.
>
> Before becoming Edward VIII his elder brother was universally called "Dive" by the family.
>
> Strictly speaking Charles III/George VII/whatever will be the first monarch of the House of Oldenburg, that being his paternal line; but he evidently intends to keep the bogus "Windsor" handle, adopted by George V during the First World War to disguise his German ancestry. Its also said that he intends to become "Defender of Faiths" (presumably aginst us atheists), the problem being that this would annihilate his own claim to the throne through the act of succession.
>
> Richard is probably considered unlucky, as the three King Richards so far all died violently leaving no legitimate children.
>
> Since the BBC tells us that they're now the "People's" Monarchy (whatever that means) don't rule out Tyler and Dillon.
>
> Incidentally, despite PG's excessive emphasis of the "Tudor" name, that family itself rarely used it as they were all too aware of the lowly, foreign and illegitimate origins of their own paternal inheritance.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though isn't Charles going to take the name George?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip.  Mind you most people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> >  
> > Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of the Armada connection but I hope they're not.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> >  
> >
> > Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect.  I think Philip would be good.
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> >  
> > But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Twas I who said sad fate! I was being ironic. One of the people I admire is Oliver Cromwell, who was not the prig many make him to be. I await the howls of protest. H



________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 15:31
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 

David

Sad fate of Charles I! A stupid, proud, pig-headed man whose words could not be trusted and therefore left Parliament with no alternative and in the process turned himself into a martyr. He broke every promise because he believed he was entitled due to ruling through divine right and therefore was accountable to no one regardless of what it did to the country and its people. He would not have stopped even if he had been forced to abdicate. He was also ungrateful to those who supported him.

All the Stuarts were bad rulers, some worse than others. Just carrying on the Tudor tradition from whom they were descended.
Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Love your last sentence, and if Anne shrieks she's the Kingmaker's daughter one more time I'll throw a book at the set. Isn't Philip Glucksburg-something?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:04
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
>
> Yes, the first given name is no guide to the "regnal" title adopted;
>
> The Queen's father was actually called Albert; but that was considered too German so he became "George VI", despite having a brother George, Duke of Kent.
>
> Before becoming Edward VIII his elder brother was universally called "Dive" by the family.
>
> Strictly speaking Charles III/George VII/whatever will be the first monarch of the House of Oldenburg, that being his paternal line; but he evidently intends to keep the bogus "Windsor" handle, adopted by George V during the First World War to disguise his German ancestry. Its also said that he intends to become "Defender of Faiths" (presumably aginst us atheists), the problem being that this would annihilate his own claim to the throne through the act of succession.
>
> Richard is probably considered unlucky, as the three King Richards so far all died violently leaving no legitimate children.
>
> Since the BBC tells us that they're now the "People's" Monarchy (whatever that means) don't rule out Tyler and Dillon.
>
> Incidentally, despite PG's excessive emphasis of the "Tudor" name, that family itself rarely used it as they were all too aware of the lowly, foreign and illegitimate origins of their own paternal inheritance.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though isn't Charles going to take the name George?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip.à Mind you most people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> > à
> > Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of the Armada connection but I hope they're not.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> > à
> >
> > Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect.à I think Philip would be good.
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> > à
> > But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Apologies to David, we must be on the same wavelength. Cromwell gets a very bad press from the ruling establishment even though his statue stands proudly outside the Houses of Parliament. What short memories they have. I have a lot of time for Fairfax also.
Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Twas I who said sad fate! I was being ironic. One of the people I admire is Oliver Cromwell, who was not the prig many make him to be. I await the howls of protest. H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 15:31
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
>
> David
>
> Sad fate of Charles I! A stupid, proud, pig-headed man whose words could not be trusted and therefore left Parliament with no alternative and in the process turned himself into a martyr. He broke every promise because he believed he was entitled due to ruling through divine right and therefore was accountable to no one regardless of what it did to the country and its people. He would not have stopped even if he had been forced to abdicate. He was also ungrateful to those who supported him.
>
> All the Stuarts were bad rulers, some worse than others. Just carrying on the Tudor tradition from whom they were descended.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Love your last sentence, and if Anne shrieks she's the Kingmaker's daughter one more time I'll throw a book at the set. Isn't Philip Glucksburg-something?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:04
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> >  
> >
> > Yes, the first given name is no guide to the "regnal" title adopted;
> >
> > The Queen's father was actually called Albert; but that was considered too German so he became "George VI", despite having a brother George, Duke of Kent.
> >
> > Before becoming Edward VIII his elder brother was universally called "Dive" by the family.
> >
> > Strictly speaking Charles III/George VII/whatever will be the first monarch of the House of Oldenburg, that being his paternal line; but he evidently intends to keep the bogus "Windsor" handle, adopted by George V during the First World War to disguise his German ancestry. Its also said that he intends to become "Defender of Faiths" (presumably aginst us atheists), the problem being that this would annihilate his own claim to the throne through the act of succession.
> >
> > Richard is probably considered unlucky, as the three King Richards so far all died violently leaving no legitimate children.
> >
> > Since the BBC tells us that they're now the "People's" Monarchy (whatever that means) don't rule out Tyler and Dillon.
> >
> > Incidentally, despite PG's excessive emphasis of the "Tudor" name, that family itself rarely used it as they were all too aware of the lowly, foreign and illegitimate origins of their own paternal inheritance.
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though isn't Charles going to take the name George?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > To: "" <>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
> > > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip.  Mind you most people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
> > > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> > >
> > >  
> > > Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of the Armada connection but I hope they're not.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
> > > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect.  I think Philip would be good.
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
> > > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> > >
> > >  
> > > But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Indeed. It takes an awful lot of courage to do what you believe - and to turn down the Crown. Yes and I admire Fairfax also. It's not really OT; it's about doing what you believe and Richard was ever good at that.



________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 16:00
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 

Apologies to David, we must be on the same wavelength. Cromwell gets a very bad press from the ruling establishment even though his statue stands proudly outside the Houses of Parliament. What short memories they have. I have a lot of time for Fairfax also.
Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Twas I who said sad fate! I was being ironic. One of the people I admire is Oliver Cromwell, who was not the prig many make him to be. I await the howls of protest. H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 15:31
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
>
> David
>
> Sad fate of Charles I! A stupid, proud, pig-headed man whose words could not be trusted and therefore left Parliament with no alternative and in the process turned himself into a martyr. He broke every promise because he believed he was entitled due to ruling through divine right and therefore was accountable to no one regardless of what it did to the country and its people. He would not have stopped even if he had been forced to abdicate. He was also ungrateful to those who supported him.
>
> All the Stuarts were bad rulers, some worse than others. Just carrying on the Tudor tradition from whom they were descended.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Love your last sentence, and if Anne shrieks she's the Kingmaker's daughter one more time I'll throw a book at the set. Isn't Philip Glucksburg-something?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:04
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> > à
> >
> > Yes, the first given name is no guide to the "regnal" title adopted;
> >
> > The Queen's father was actually called Albert; but that was considered too German so he became "George VI", despite having a brother George, Duke of Kent.
> >
> > Before becoming Edward VIII his elder brother was universally called "Dive" by the family.
> >
> > Strictly speaking Charles III/George VII/whatever will be the first monarch of the House of Oldenburg, that being his paternal line; but he evidently intends to keep the bogus "Windsor" handle, adopted by George V during the First World War to disguise his German ancestry. Its also said that he intends to become "Defender of Faiths" (presumably aginst us atheists), the problem being that this would annihilate his own claim to the throne through the act of succession.
> >
> > Richard is probably considered unlucky, as the three King Richards so far all died violently leaving no legitimate children.
> >
> > Since the BBC tells us that they're now the "People's" Monarchy (whatever that means) don't rule out Tyler and Dillon.
> >
> > Incidentally, despite PG's excessive emphasis of the "Tudor" name, that family itself rarely used it as they were all too aware of the lowly, foreign and illegitimate origins of their own paternal inheritance.
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though isn't Charles going to take the name George?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > To: "" <>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
> > > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip.Ã’â¬aà Mind you most people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
> > > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of the Armada connection but I hope they're not.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
> > > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect.Ã’â¬aà I think Philip would be good.
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
> > > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Albert was considered too "German"?  I'd have said French possibly  depending on the pronounciation but I always think it's a very English  working class name - although "Bertie" of course, is upper class..
 
As for "defender of" any faith, that title was given to not-so slim Henry by the Pope and then he then left that church so does anyone really care?
 
I think Philp was Schleswig/Holstein/Glucksburg before he changed it to Mountbatten.  (And who can blame him?)
 
 

From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:04
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 
Yes, the first given name is no guide to the "regnal" title adopted;

The Queen's father was actually called Albert; but that was considered too German so he became "George VI", despite having a brother George, Duke of Kent.

Before becoming Edward VIII his elder brother was universally called "Dive" by the family.

Strictly speaking Charles III/George VII/whatever will be the first monarch of the House of Oldenburg, that being his paternal line; but he evidently intends to keep the bogus "Windsor" handle, adopted by George V during the First World War to disguise his German ancestry. Its also said that he intends to become "Defender of Faiths" (presumably aginst us atheists), the problem being that this would annihilate his own claim to the throne through the act of succession.

Richard is probably considered unlucky, as the three King Richards so far all died violently leaving no legitimate children.

Since the BBC tells us that they're now the "People's" Monarchy (whatever that means) don't rule out Tyler and Dillon.

Incidentally, despite PG's excessive emphasis of the "Tudor" name, that family itself rarely used it as they were all too aware of the lowly, foreign and illegitimate origins of their own paternal inheritance.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though isn't Charles going to take the name George?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>
>  
>
> I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip.  Mind you most people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....
>
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
> Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of the Armada connection but I hope they're not.
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
>
> Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect.  I think Philip would be good.
>
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
> But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, definitely. It's about following your principles and believing in the greater good not about self aggrandisement. Richard understood that.
Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Indeed. It takes an awful lot of courage to do what you believe - and to turn down the Crown. Yes and I admire Fairfax also. It's not really OT; it's about doing what you believe and Richard was ever good at that.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 16:00
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
>
> Apologies to David, we must be on the same wavelength. Cromwell gets a very bad press from the ruling establishment even though his statue stands proudly outside the Houses of Parliament. What short memories they have. I have a lot of time for Fairfax also.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Twas I who said sad fate! I was being ironic. One of the people I admire is Oliver Cromwell, who was not the prig many make him to be. I await the howls of protest. H
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 15:31
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> >  
> >
> > David
> >
> > Sad fate of Charles I! A stupid, proud, pig-headed man whose words could not be trusted and therefore left Parliament with no alternative and in the process turned himself into a martyr. He broke every promise because he believed he was entitled due to ruling through divine right and therefore was accountable to no one regardless of what it did to the country and its people. He would not have stopped even if he had been forced to abdicate. He was also ungrateful to those who supported him.
> >
> > All the Stuarts were bad rulers, some worse than others. Just carrying on the Tudor tradition from whom they were descended.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Love your last sentence, and if Anne shrieks she's the Kingmaker's daughter one more time I'll throw a book at the set. Isn't Philip Glucksburg-something?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:04
> > > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Yes, the first given name is no guide to the "regnal" title adopted;
> > >
> > > The Queen's father was actually called Albert; but that was considered too German so he became "George VI", despite having a brother George, Duke of Kent.
> > >
> > > Before becoming Edward VIII his elder brother was universally called "Dive" by the family.
> > >
> > > Strictly speaking Charles III/George VII/whatever will be the first monarch of the House of Oldenburg, that being his paternal line; but he evidently intends to keep the bogus "Windsor" handle, adopted by George V during the First World War to disguise his German ancestry. Its also said that he intends to become "Defender of Faiths" (presumably aginst us atheists), the problem being that this would annihilate his own claim to the throne through the act of succession.
> > >
> > > Richard is probably considered unlucky, as the three King Richards so far all died violently leaving no legitimate children.
> > >
> > > Since the BBC tells us that they're now the "People's" Monarchy (whatever that means) don't rule out Tyler and Dillon.
> > >
> > > Incidentally, despite PG's excessive emphasis of the "Tudor" name, that family itself rarely used it as they were all too aware of the lowly, foreign and illegitimate origins of their own paternal inheritance.
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though isn't Charles going to take the name George?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > To: "" <>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > >
> > > > I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip.ÃÆ'‚  Mind you most people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....
> > > >
> > > > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of the Armada connection but I hope they're not.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > >
> > > > Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect.ÃÆ'‚  I think Philip would be good.
> > > >
> > > > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

So it's time we had an Alfred like my dad. He always used to talk about burning the cakes - they taught them history (or what passed as history) in those days.
 
Schleswig-Holstein belonged to - Denmark! So back to the Vikings.


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 16:08
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?


 

Albert was considered too "German"?  I'd have said French possibly  depending on the pronounciation but I always think it's a very English  working class name - although "Bertie" of course, is upper class..
 
As for "defender of" any faith, that title was given to not-so slim Henry by the Pope and then he then left that church so does anyone really care?
 
I think Philp was Schleswig/Holstein/Glucksburg before he changed it to Mountbatten.  (And who can blame him?)
 
 

From: davidarayner <mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:04
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

 
Yes, the first given name is no guide to the "regnal" title adopted;

The Queen's father was actually called Albert; but that was considered too German so he became "George VI", despite having a brother George, Duke of Kent.

Before becoming Edward VIII his elder brother was universally called "Dive" by the family.

Strictly speaking Charles III/George VII/whatever will be the first monarch of the House of Oldenburg, that being his paternal line; but he evidently intends to keep the bogus "Windsor" handle, adopted by George V during the First World War to disguise his German ancestry. Its also said that he intends to become "Defender of Faiths" (presumably aginst us atheists), the problem being that this would annihilate his own claim to the throne through the act of succession.

Richard is probably considered unlucky, as the three King Richards so far all died violently leaving no legitimate children.

Since the BBC tells us that they're now the "People's" Monarchy (whatever that means) don't rule out Tyler and Dillon.

Incidentally, despite PG's excessive emphasis of the "Tudor" name, that family itself rarely used it as they were all too aware of the lowly, foreign and illegitimate origins of their own paternal inheritance.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though isn't Charles going to take the name George?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>
>  
>
> I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip.  Mind you most people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....
>
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
> Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of the Armada connection but I hope they're not.
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
>
> Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect.  I think Philip would be good.
>
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
>  
> But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ah, the hereditary heads of state - the monarchs in disguise, whose investiture was so similar to a coronation. At least he gave his son a good name.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?



Twas I who said sad fate! I was being ironic. One of the people I admire is Oliver Cromwell, who was not the prig many make him to be. I await the howls of protest. H

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 15:31
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?



David

Sad fate of Charles I! A stupid, proud, pig-headed man whose words could not be trusted and therefore left Parliament with no alternative and in the process turned himself into a martyr. He broke every promise because he believed he was entitled due to ruling through divine right and therefore was accountable to no one regardless of what it did to the country and its people. He would not have stopped even if he had been forced to abdicate. He was also ungrateful to those who supported him.

All the Stuarts were bad rulers, some worse than others. Just carrying on the Tudor tradition from whom they were descended.
Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Love your last sentence, and if Anne shrieks she's the Kingmaker's daughter one more time I'll throw a book at the set. Isn't Philip Glucksburg-something?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:04
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
> Â
>
> Yes, the first given name is no guide to the "regnal" title adopted;
>
> The Queen's father was actually called Albert; but that was considered too German so he became "George VI", despite having a brother George, Duke of Kent.
>
> Before becoming Edward VIII his elder brother was universally called "Dive" by the family.
>
> Strictly speaking Charles III/George VII/whatever will be the first monarch of the House of Oldenburg, that being his paternal line; but he evidently intends to keep the bogus "Windsor" handle, adopted by George V during the First World War to disguise his German ancestry. Its also said that he intends to become "Defender of Faiths" (presumably aginst us atheists), the problem being that this would annihilate his own claim to the throne through the act of succession.
>
> Richard is probably considered unlucky, as the three King Richards so far all died violently leaving no legitimate children.
>
> Since the BBC tells us that they're now the "People's" Monarchy (whatever that means) don't rule out Tyler and Dillon.
>
> Incidentally, despite PG's excessive emphasis of the "Tudor" name, that family itself rarely used it as they were all too aware of the lowly, foreign and illegitimate origins of their own paternal inheritance.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though isn't Charles going to take the name George?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip.ÃÂ Mind you most people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of the Armada connection but I hope they're not.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect.ÃÂ I think Philip would be good.
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Howl number one :)



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 16:45
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?


 

Ah, the hereditary heads of state - the monarchs in disguise, whose investiture was so similar to a coronation. At least he gave his son a good name.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

Twas I who said sad fate! I was being ironic. One of the people I admire is Oliver Cromwell, who was not the prig many make him to be. I await the howls of protest. H

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 15:31
Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?

David

Sad fate of Charles I! A stupid, proud, pig-headed man whose words could not be trusted and therefore left Parliament with no alternative and in the process turned himself into a martyr. He broke every promise because he believed he was entitled due to ruling through divine right and therefore was accountable to no one regardless of what it did to the country and its people. He would not have stopped even if he had been forced to abdicate. He was also ungrateful to those who supported him.

All the Stuarts were bad rulers, some worse than others. Just carrying on the Tudor tradition from whom they were descended.
Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Love your last sentence, and if Anne shrieks she's the Kingmaker's daughter one more time I'll throw a book at the set. Isn't Philip Glucksburg-something?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:04
> Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
>
> Â
>
> Yes, the first given name is no guide to the "regnal" title adopted;
>
> The Queen's father was actually called Albert; but that was considered too German so he became "George VI", despite having a brother George, Duke of Kent.
>
> Before becoming Edward VIII his elder brother was universally called "Dive" by the family.
>
> Strictly speaking Charles III/George VII/whatever will be the first monarch of the House of Oldenburg, that being his paternal line; but he evidently intends to keep the bogus "Windsor" handle, adopted by George V during the First World War to disguise his German ancestry. Its also said that he intends to become "Defender of Faiths" (presumably aginst us atheists), the problem being that this would annihilate his own claim to the throne through the act of succession.
>
> Richard is probably considered unlucky, as the three King Richards so far all died violently leaving no legitimate children.
>
> Since the BBC tells us that they're now the "People's" Monarchy (whatever that means) don't rule out Tyler and Dillon.
>
> Incidentally, despite PG's excessive emphasis of the "Tudor" name, that family itself rarely used it as they were all too aware of the lowly, foreign and illegitimate origins of their own paternal inheritance.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > True - and they allowed Charles after the sad fate of one of them. Though isn't Charles going to take the name George?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:43
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > I never even thought of that, just about Prince Philip.ÃÂ Mind you most people these days probably don't even know what the Armada was ....
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:35
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Loved 'The Stranger Prince'. They might be frightened of Philip because of the Armada connection but I hope they're not.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:30
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Rupert would be good but far too flamboyant I expect.ÃÂ I think Philip would be good.
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 10:07
> > Subject: Re: Richard the Fourth?
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > But we could by default get George - as we know popular before the Hanoverians, went into decline for a couple of hundred years, and revived by them. Odds on George, Philip or Albert - sadly no Richard. Wouldn't mind Rupert though, always liked the dashing Prince.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> What are the odds of the new Royal sprog being named in honour of the King recently unearthed?
>
> Or perhaps, given his ancestry, Ludwig, Franz or Hermann would be more appropriate.
>
surely it has to be wayne or becks . jim