New with a question

Hello, I recently joined your group and have enjoyed learning from each new mail and am starting to look through the previous discussions. I understand that this might be off topic or was discussed before but I would like to ask a fast question. Today I reread, in more detail, about the burial of Richard III and one thing that I was wondering if any of you might know : Is there a reason why the Royal family made no claim to his remains?
Yes, I understand the DNA story and people speculating about that, but personally for me, I don't believe that that would be the reason for not claiming him. I did read someplace that as technically as he already had a burial at the time of his death then there would be no need to 'claim him' again.
Do any of you know?

There were many issues raised by the exhumation and reburial of King Richard's remains, including the one you mention, and there is still division of opinion whether or not right was done.
I remember reading very early on that the Queen had been advised by a high-ranking cleric to stay out of it. (I(want to say the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that may well be wrong since this was before I started saving material & I have not found it again).
There seems to be a widespread assumption that if the Queen had desired a different outcome, she could have changed it.
A J

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:49 PM, ms.paussin@... [] <> wrote:
 

Hello, I recently joined your group and have enjoyed learning from each new mail and am starting to look through the previous discussions. I understand that this might be off topic or was discussed before but I would like to ask a fast question. Today I reread, in more detail, about the burial of Richard III and one thing that I was wondering if any of you might know : Is there a reason why the Royal family made no claim to his remains?
Yes, I understand the DNA story and people speculating about that, but personally for me, I don't believe that that would be the reason for not claiming him. I did read someplace that as technically as he already had a burial at the time of his death then there would be no need to 'claim him' again.
Do any of you know?

I also think the current royal family would have had to dodge a lot of questions about their relationship to the House of York that could have queried their legitimacy. Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 22 déc. 2017 à 15:13, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> a écrit :

There were many issues raised by the exhumation and reburial of King Richard's remains, including the one you mention, and there is still division of opinion whether or not right was done.
I remember reading very early on that the Queen had been advised by a high-ranking cleric to stay out of it. (I(want to say the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that may well be wrong since this was before I started saving material & I have not found it again).
There seems to be a widespread assumption that if the Queen had desired a different outcome, she could have changed it.
A J

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:49 PM, ms.paussin@... [] <> wrote:

Hello, I recently joined your group and have enjoyed learning from each new mail and am starting to look through the previous discussions. I understand that this might be off topic or was discussed before but I would like to ask a fast question. Today I reread, in more detail, about the burial of Richard III and one thing that I was wondering if any of you might know : Is there a reason why the Royal family made no claim to his remains?
Yes, I understand the DNA story and people speculating about that, but personally for me, I don't believe that that would be the reason for not claiming him. I did read someplace that as technically as he already had a burial at the time of his death then there would be no need to 'claim him' again.
Do any of you know?

ÿ Welcome, Ms. Paussin! I remember being new - and the happiness of finding I'd fallen in with a bunch of really serious historians at every level. You may not to be able to keep up in a completely timely manner with some of the discussions because of personal scheduling (I'm in Los Angeles and the greater number are in the UK) but belonging to this group really is it's own form of grand adventure. And you've asked a question that, despite having been amazingly lucky to have gotten to Leicester for March 26 (which happens also to be my youngest brother's birthday), this is one question that I never did think to ask, nor have I been present during a thoughtful discussion, so I'm looking forward to finding out. Thanks for asking. Happy Holidays to everyone! Here's hoping 2018 is a great improvement on the previous 365 days. Best - N Meet Auntie N!
www.NanceCrawford.com ----- Original Message ----- From: ms.paussin@... [] To: Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 10:49 AM Subject: New with a question

Hello, I recently joined your group and have enjoyed learning from each new mail and am starting to look through the previous discussions. I understand that this might be off topic or was discussed before but I would like to ask a fast question. Today I reread, in more detail, about the burial of Richard III and one thing that I was wondering if any of you might know : Is there a reason why the Royal family made no claim to his remains?
Yes, I understand the DNA story and people speculating about that, but personally for me, I don't believe that that would be the reason for not claiming him. I did read someplace that as technically as he already had a burial at the time of his death then there would be no need to 'claim him' again.
Do any of you know?

Just lovely Miss Nance. And the sentiments of the season to everyone!
On Dec 22, 2017, at 4:11 PM, 'Nance Crawford' Nance@... [] <> wrote:

ÿ

Welcome, Ms. Paussin! I remember being new - and the happiness of finding I'd fallen in with a bunch of really serious historians at every level. You may not to be able to keep up in a completely timely manner with some of the discussions because of personal scheduling (I'm in Los Angeles and the greater number are in the UK) but belonging to this group really is it's own form of grand adventure. And you've asked a question that, despite having been amazingly lucky to have gotten to Leicester for March 26 (which happens also to be my youngest brother's birthday), this is one question that I never did think to ask, nor have I been present during a thoughtful discussion, so I'm looking forward to finding out. Thanks for asking. Happy Holidays to everyone! Here's hoping 2018 is a great improvement on the previous 365 days. Best - N Meet Auntie N!
www.NanceCrawford.com ----- Original Message ----- From: ms.paussin@... [] To: Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 10:49 AM Subject: New with a question

Hello, I recently joined your group and have enjoyed learning from each new mail and am starting to look through the previous discussions. I understand that this might be off topic or was discussed before but I would like to ask a fast question. Today I reread, in more detail, about the burial of Richard III and one thing that I was wondering if any of you might know : Is there a reason why the Royal family made no claim to his remains?
Yes, I understand the DNA story and people speculating about that, but personally for me, I don't believe that that would be the reason for not claiming him. I did read someplace that as technically as he already had a burial at the time of his death then there would be no need to 'claim him' again.
Do any of you know?

Paul and AJ, First off, Paul, in regards to legitimacy, has there been any legitimate monarch since the Mortimers were passed over? There certainly hasn't since George I ascended the throne after Queen Anne died in 1714. My understanding was that, strictly going by direct descent, some Bavarian Duke is the legitimate heir and that there were more than one hundred others between him and the Queen. As to your point AJ, if, as you remember, it was the Archbishop of Canterbury who gave that advice to the Queen, couldn't it have been because, while she is the civil head of the CoE, the site had long ceased to actually have any ecclesiastical connections? Any objections based on Richard having been an ancestor, would have been remote. Nor could she trace her ancestry, even with a couple of jumps and turns, back to Richard; only, at best, to his sister. I have read, and can't remember where either, that the Queen is generally against disinterring bodies to settle historical questions. My personal opinion, FWTW, is that she holds that view from her religious convictions. Doug (Who hopes it's not too cheeky (correct term?) for someone from over the pond to butt in!) Paul wrote: I also think the current royal family would have had to dodge a lot of questions about their relationship to the House of York that could have queried their legitimacy.
AJ wrote: There were many issues raised by the exhumation and reburial of King Richard's remains, including the one you mention, and there is still division of opinion whether or not right was done. I remember reading very early on that the Queen had been advised by a high-ranking cleric to stay out of it. (I(want to say the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that may well be wrong since this was before I started saving material & I have not found it again). There seems to be a widespread assumption that if the Queen had desired a different outcome, she could have changed it.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

   She is quite elderly and probably does not have much energy for these things. Any advance knowledge on what Prince Charles might do regarding the famous bones in the Tower?    Also, to the admins. What is that picture in the group's homepage? 
On Dec 24, 2017 1:36 PM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:
 

    Paul and AJ, First off, Paul, in regards to legitimacy, has there been any legitimate monarch since the Mortimers were passed over? There certainly hasn't since George I ascended the throne after Queen Anne died in 1714. My understanding was that, strictly going by direct descent, some Bavarian Duke is the legitimate heir and that there were more than one hundred others between him and the Queen. As to your point AJ, if, as you remember, it was the Archbishop of Canterbury who gave that advice to the Queen, couldn't it have been because, while she is the civil head of the CoE, the site had long ceased to actually have any ecclesiastical connections? Any objections based on Richard having been an ancestor, would have been remote. Nor could she trace her ancestry, even with a couple of jumps and turns, back to Richard; only, at best, to his sister. I have read, and can't remember where either, that the Queen is generally against disinterring bodies to settle historical questions. My personal opinion, FWTW, is that she holds that view from her religious convictions. Doug (Who hopes it's not too cheeky (correct term?) for someone from over the pond to butt in!)   Paul wrote: I also think the current royal family would have had to dodge a lot of questions about their relationship to the House of York that could have queried their legitimacy.
AJ wrote: There were many issues raised by the exhumation and reburial of King Richard's remains, including the one you mention, and there is still division of opinion whether or not right was done. I remember reading very early on that the Queen had been advised by a high-ranking cleric to stay out of it. (I(want to say the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that may well be wrong since this was before I started saving material & I have not found it again). There seems to be a widespread assumption that if the Queen had desired a different outcome, she could have changed it.  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug, there is also a descendant of Edward IV in Australia if I recall the tv programme correctly, so digging into the legitimacy of the House of Windsor could have opened a huge can of worms. I also recall it being pointed out at the time of her marriage to Charles that Diana had more royal blood in her veins than he does, being descended from Charles II in some manner, I imagine via one of his mistresses.Btw Which Mortimer were you referring to? Yes she has rejected all attempts to open the vase in the Abbey and re-examine the pigs bones, sorry, the remains found in the Tower in the 1670s and deemed to be the sons of Edward IV, which of course they aren't, previous examinations not even sexing them, and with no access to dna, or carbon dating, they could be two Roman girls. Digging up anybody for historical reasons is not something she's interested in, though she might do it if horses were involved! Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 23 déc. 2017 à 17:49, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Paul and AJ, First off, Paul, in regards to legitimacy, has there been any legitimate monarch since the Mortimers were passed over? There certainly hasn't since George I ascended the throne after Queen Anne died in 1714. My understanding was that, strictly going by direct descent, some Bavarian Duke is the legitimate heir and that there were more than one hundred others between him and the Queen. As to your point AJ, if, as you remember, it was the Archbishop of Canterbury who gave that advice to the Queen, couldn't it have been because, while she is the civil head of the CoE, the site had long ceased to actually have any ecclesiastical connections? Any objections based on Richard having been an ancestor, would have been remote. Nor could she trace her ancestry, even with a couple of jumps and turns, back to Richard; only, at best, to his sister. I have read, and can't remember where either, that the Queen is generally against disinterring bodies to settle historical questions. My personal opinion, FWTW, is that she holds that view from her religious convictions. Doug (Who hopes it's not too cheeky (correct term?) for someone from over the pond to butt in!) Paul wrote: I also think the current royal family would have had to dodge a lot of questions about their relationship to the House of York that could have queried their legitimacy.
AJ wrote: There were many issues raised by the exhumation and reburial of King Richard's remains, including the one you mention, and there is still division of opinion whether or not right was done. I remember reading very early on that the Queen had been advised by a high-ranking cleric to stay out of it. (I(want to say the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that may well be wrong since this was before I started saving material & I have not found it again). There seems to be a widespread assumption that if the Queen had desired a different outcome, she could have changed it.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Surely the Queen is too far distant in relationship to Richard iii, regardless of her legitimate claim to the throne?
There are a number of collateral descendants of Richard iii but no direct ones and as we know one group did try to claim him for burial in York.
The legal status of his remains caused enough problems, but didn't the licence say something about reburial in Leicester, the nearest appropriate place, following normal archaeology and exhumation procedure and customs? There was no need to ask any relatives as he had died more than 100 years ago, but the relatives who provided DNA were more than happy for his reburial in Leicester.
I would assume that the Queen was advised to keep out of the argument given the public debate and court hearings which followed. Besides what exactly would she do with his remains? There is no room in Westminster Abbey. Saint George 's Chapel in Windsor would be appropriate with his brother being close by and other relatives. However, personally I am pleased he was buried close to the site of his original burial spot, I am pleased with his tomb and have visited it a few times. I am also pleased that the original site is to be preserved in full from redevelopment. It was very unfortunate that such a row blew up over his remains. Members of the public discussions on social media, (the polite ones) were one thing but arguments in court made it all very distasteful. I believe common sense prevailed. After all Richard had been in the Friary site for 530 years and it made sense, given everywhere else associated with his last days are close by, for ease of access and this was the nearest holy ground. Yes, ideally Richard should have been granted a Catholic burial in a Catholic Church, but a good compromise was reached. In the end Richard was given a good send off and modern people got to experience some of the pomp and ceremony from a Medieval funeral. This is only my personal opinion, but I really am glad the Queen didn't claim him, nor do I honestly think she had any right to. There are certainly many more people with true Plantagenet blood, even if the Act of Settlement has removed their rights to the throne. It would have caused too much controversy and poor Richard had enough controversial nonsense laid at his door in life, without more being caused by the distant relatives of the man who stole his crown. I too think the Queen was well advised to remain neutral and leave the care of his remains to those involved in his discovery.

Yes, he is a descendent of Ursula Pole.
The Queen won't allow the re examination of whatever bones are buried in the urn in the Westminster Abbey because she feels it is disrespectful. However, more likely the royal family are afraid of the truth, that the bones are not those of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York.
I also agree that any involvement in the identification or the reburial of King Richard iii would have left too many questions to be answered by the current Queen and her family.

I would agree...... best not even try and make those connections.
On Jan 14, 2018, at 7:39 PM, poohlandeva <[email protected]> wrote:

Surely the Queen is too far distant in relationship to Richard iii, regardless of her legitimate claim to the throne?

There are a number of collateral descendants of Richard iii but no direct ones and as we know one group did try to claim him for burial in York.
The legal status of his remains caused enough problems, but didn't the licence say something about reburial in Leicester, the nearest appropriate place, following normal archaeology and exhumation procedure and customs? There was no need to ask any relatives as he had died more than 100 years ago, but the relatives who provided DNA were more than happy for his reburial in Leicester.
I would assume that the Queen was advised to keep out of the argument given the public debate and court hearings which followed. Besides what exactly would she do with his remains? There is no room in Westminster Abbey. Saint George 's Chapel in Windsor would be appropriate with his brother being close by and other relatives. However, personally I am pleased he was buried close to the site of his original burial spot, I am pleased with his tomb and have visited it a few times. I am also pleased that the original site is to be preserved in full from redevelopment. It was very unfortunate that such a row blew up over his remains. Members of the public discussions on social media, (the polite ones) were one thing but arguments in court made it all very distasteful. I believe common sense prevailed. After all Richard had been in the Friary site for 530 years and it made sense, given everywhere else associated with his last days are close by, for ease of access and this was the nearest holy ground. Yes, ideally Richard should have been granted a Catholic burial in a Catholic Church, but a good compromise was reached. In the end Richard was given a good send off and modern people got to experience some of the pomp and ceremony from a Medieval funeral. This is only my personal opinion, but I really am glad the Queen didn't claim him, nor do I honestly think she had any right to. There are certainly many more people with true Plantagenet blood, even if the Act of Settlement has removed their rights to the throne. It would have caused too much controversy and poor Richard had enough controversial nonsense laid at his door in life, without more being caused by the distant relatives of the man who stole his crown. I too think the Queen was well advised to remain neutral and leave the care of his remains to those involved in his discovery.

Which of course they aren't !
Paul


Envoyé de mon iPad

> Le 15 janv. 2018 à 02:46, poohlandeva <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> more likely the royal family are afraid of the truth, that the bones are not those of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York.

I remember reading somewhere that Diana had wanted to name her eldest Richard or Stephen was the idea was vetoed by the queen, the scrutiny those previous monarchs with either of those names would have come under would not have shown the house of Windsor in a particularly legitimate light! :-)Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 15 janv. 2018 à 03:56, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <> a écrit :

I would agree...... best not even try and make those connections.
On Jan 14, 2018, at 7:39 PM, poohlandeva <[email protected]> wrote:

Surely the Queen is too far distant in relationship to Richard iii, regardless of her legitimate claim to the throne?

There are a number of collateral descendants of Richard iii but no direct ones and as we know one group did try to claim him for burial in York.
The legal status of his remains caused enough problems, but didn't the licence say something about reburial in Leicester, the nearest appropriate place, following normal archaeology and exhumation procedure and customs? There was no need to ask any relatives as he had died more than 100 years ago, but the relatives who provided DNA were more than happy for his reburial in Leicester.
I would assume that the Queen was advised to keep out of the argument given the public debate and court hearings which followed. Besides what exactly would she do with his remains? There is no room in Westminster Abbey. Saint George 's Chapel in Windsor would be appropriate with his brother being close by and other relatives. However, personally I am pleased he was buried close to the site of his original burial spot, I am pleased with his tomb and have visited it a few times. I am also pleased that the original site is to be preserved in full from redevelopment. It was very unfortunate that such a row blew up over his remains. Members of the public discussions on social media, (the polite ones) were one thing but arguments in court made it all very distasteful. I believe common sense prevailed. After all Richard had been in the Friary site for 530 years and it made sense, given everywhere else associated with his last days are close by, for ease of access and this was the nearest holy ground. Yes, ideally Richard should have been granted a Catholic burial in a Catholic Church, but a good compromise was reached. In the end Richard was given a good send off and modern people got to experience some of the pomp and ceremony from a Medieval funeral. This is only my personal opinion, but I really am glad the Queen didn't claim him, nor do I honestly think she had any right to. There are certainly many more people with true Plantagenet blood, even if the Act of Settlement has removed their rights to the throne. It would have caused too much controversy and poor Richard had enough controversial nonsense laid at his door in life, without more being caused by the distant relatives of the man who stole his crown. I too think the Queen was well advised to remain neutral and leave the care of his remains to those involved in his discovery.

The Queen has exactly the same relationship to Richard III as those who created Plantagenet Alliance - ie she is a direct descendent of one of Richard's siblings, Edward IV.
Poohlever wrote:







Surely the Queen is too far distant in relationship to Richard iii, regardless of her legitimate claim to the throne?
There are a number of collateral descendants of Richard iii but no direct ones and as we know one group did try to claim him for burial in York.
The legal status of his remains caused enough problems, but didn't the licence say something about reburial in Leicester, the nearest appropriate place, following normal archaeology and exhumation procedure and customs? There was no need to ask any relatives as he had died more than 100 years ago, but the relatives who provided DNA were more than happy for his reburial in Leicester.
I would assume that the Queen was advised to keep out of the argument given the public debate and court hearings which followed. Besides what exactly would she do with his remains? There is no room in Westminster Abbey. Saint George 's Cha
pel in Windsor would be appropriate with his brother being close by and other relatives. However, personally I am pleased he was buried close to the site of his original burial spot, I am pleased with his tomb and have visited it a few times. I am also pleased that the original site is to be preserved in full from redevelopment. It was very unfortunate that such a row blew up over his remains. Members of the public discussions on social media, (the polite ones) were one thing but arguments in court made it all very distasteful. I believe common sense prevailed. After all Richard had been in the Friary site for 530 years and it made sense, given everywhere else associated with his last days are close by, for ease of access and this was the nearest holy ground. Yes, ideally Richard should have been granted a Catholic burial in a Catholic Church, but a good compromise was reached. In the end Richard was given a good send off and modern peo
ple got to experience some of the pomp and ceremony from a Medieval funeral. This is only my personal opinion, but I really am glad the Queen didn't claim him, nor do I honestly think she had any right to. There are certainly many more people with true Plantagenet blood, even if the Act of Settlement has removed their rights to the throne. It would have caused too much controversy and poor Richard had enough controversial nonsense laid at his door in life, without more being caused by the distant relatives of the man who stole his crown. I too think the Queen was well advised to remain neutral and leave the care of his remains to those involved in his discovery.

Paul, Strictly as an outsider looking in, it appears to me that in the naming of Royal offspring, particularly heirs, a lot has depended on when the heir has arrived. The present Queen wasn't expected to ascend the throne and, seemingly, was named for her mother. That her mother also had the same name as the country's second-most famous Queen likely didn't hurt either. The same thing happened with her father. His first name was Albert, but he adopted George when his brother abdicated. Edward VIII was most likely named after his grandfather, Edward VII who was named Albert Edward, after his father and maternal grandfather, but chose to reign as Edward (and, no, I'm not going there). The full list of names for the current heir is: Charles Phillip Arthur George. I presume Phillip represents his father and George his grandfather, but have no idea where that Arthur came from, although it has popped up in the names of various royal sons over the years. Prince William's list of names is: William Arthur Phillip Louis with, perhaps, that Arthur representing his father. I imagine that Louis comes from Charles' uncle, Lord Mountbatten. Prince William's son, Prince George's list of names is: George Alexander Louis, with that second name being the masculine variant of Victoria's first name, Alexandrina. Back at square one! I can see why Princess Diana might have wanted break the circle, so to speak but, apparently, tradition won out... Doug Paul wrote: I remember reading somewhere that Diana had wanted to name her eldest Richard or Stephen was the idea was vetoed by the queen, the "scrutiny those previous monarchs with either of those names would have come under would not have shown the house of Windsor in a particularly legitimate light! :-)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

As a young woman I thought being a princess would be so wonderful. Now I am thinking being just a regular gal is not so shabby. I cannot imagine having to live in a fishbowl, and be told what to wear, where to go, and so much more  not to mention what to name your children&&& Diana was certainly a rebel. I have read that she and Princess Margaret were close, and I can understand that!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 11:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: New with a question

Paul,

Strictly as an outsider looking in, it appears to me that in the naming of Royal offspring, particularly heirs, a lot has depended on when the heir has arrived.

The present Queen wasn't expected to ascend the throne and, seemingly, was named for her mother. That her mother also had the same name as the country's second-most famous Queen likely didn't hurt either. The same thing happened with her father. His first name was Albert, but he adopted George when his brother abdicated. Edward VIII was most likely named after his grandfather, Edward VII who was named Albert Edward, after his father and maternal grandfather, but chose to reign as Edward (and, no, I'm not going there).

The full list of names for the current heir is: Charles Phillip Arthur George. I presume Phillip represents his father and George his grandfather, but have no idea where that Arthur came from, although it has popped up in the names of various royal sons over the years. Prince William's list of names is: William Arthur Phillip Louis with, perhaps, that Arthur representing his father. I imagine that Louis comes from Charles' uncle, Lord Mountbatten. Prince William's son, Prince George's list of names is: George Alexander Louis, with that second name being the masculine variant of Victoria's first name, Alexandrina. Back at square one!

I can see why Princess Diana might have wanted break the circle, so to speak but, apparently, tradition won out...

Doug

Paul wrote:

I remember reading somewhere that Diana had wanted to name her eldest Richard or Stephen was the idea was vetoed by the queen, the "scrutiny those previous monarchs with either of those names would have come under would not have shown the house of Windsor in a particularly legitimate light! :-)

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Edward VIII was always called David in the family. Arthur doubtless comes from the same need to feel legitimate that Henry VII had when naming his eldest! I can just see Diana telling the queen « King Richard IV would be nice, ma'am » !Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 15 janv. 2018 à 18:44, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Paul, Strictly as an outsider looking in, it appears to me that in the naming of Royal offspring, particularly heirs, a lot has depended on when the heir has arrived. The present Queen wasn't expected to ascend the throne and, seemingly, was named for her mother. That her mother also had the same name as the country's second-most famous Queen likely didn't hurt either. The same thing happened with her father. His first name was Albert, but he adopted George when his brother abdicated. Edward VIII was most likely named after his grandfather, Edward VII who was named Albert Edward, after his father and maternal grandfather, but chose to reign as Edward (and, no, I'm not going there). The full list of names for the current heir is: Charles Phillip Arthur George. I presume Phillip represents his father and George his grandfather, but have no idea where that Arthur came from, although it has popped up in the names of various royal sons over the years. Prince William's list of names is: William Arthur Phillip Louis with, perhaps, that Arthur representing his father. I imagine that Louis comes from Charles' uncle, Lord Mountbatten. Prince William's son, Prince George's list of names is: George Alexander Louis, with that second name being the masculine variant of Victoria's first name, Alexandrina. Back at square one! I can see why Princess Diana might have wanted break the circle, so to speak but, apparently, tradition won out... Doug Paul wrote: I remember reading somewhere that Diana had wanted to name her eldest Richard or Stephen was the idea was vetoed by the queen, the "scrutiny those previous monarchs with either of those names would have come under would not have shown the house of Windsor in a particularly legitimate light! :-)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

The first Arthur in the modern Royal Family was Queen Victoria's son who was named after his Godfather, the Duke of Wellington.
----Original message----
From :
Date : 15/01/2018 - 19:15 (GMTST)
Paul wrote:







Edward VIII was always called David in the family. Arthur doubtless comes from the same need to feel legitimate that Henry VII had when naming his eldest!
I can just see Diana telling the queen « King Richard IV would be nice, ma'am » !
Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 15 janv. 2018 à 18:44, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :







Paul,
Strictly
as an outsider looking in, it appears to me that in the naming of Royal
offspring, particularly heirs, a lot has depended on when the heir has
arrived.
The
present Queen wasn't expected to ascend the throne and, seemingly, was named for
her mother. That her mother also had the same name as the country's second-most
famous Queen likely didn't hurt either. The same thing happened with her father.
His first name was Albert, but he adopted George when his brother
abdicated. Edward VIII was most likely named after his grandfather, Edward VII
who was named Albert Edward, after his father and maternal grandfather, but
chose to reign as Edward (and, no, I'm not going there).

The
full list of names for the current heir is: Charles Phillip Arthur George. I
presume Phillip represents his father and George his grandfather, but have
no idea where that Arthur came from, although it has popped up in the names of
various royal sons over the years. Prince William's list of names is: William
Arthur Phillip Louis with, perhaps, that Arthur representing his
father. I imagine that Louis comes from Charles' uncle, Lord Mountbatten.
Prince William's son, Prince George's list of names is: George Alexander Louis,
with that second name being the masculine variant of Victoria's first
name, Alexandrina. Back at square one!
I
can see why Princess Diana might have wanted break the circle, so to speak but,
apparently, tradition won out...
Doug


Paul
wrote:
I
remember reading somewhere that Diana had wanted to name her eldest Richard or
Stephen was the idea was vetoed by the queen, the "scrutiny those previous
monarchs with either of those names would have come under would not have shown
the house of Windsor in a particularly legitimate light! :-)


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Paul, For some reason I hadn't looked up Edward VIII's list of names  wow! Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David! Edward for his grandfather, Albert for his great-grandfather (Victoria was still alive when he was and I think including Albert was a requirement), Christian was for his maternal grandfather, and the four remaining names are the patron Saints of, respectively, England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Why the family chose to call him David, I have no idea. Having seen snippets from the present Queen's BBC interview, her expression when at rest, so to speak, looks quite intimidating (to me, anyway). I shudder what it would have been had Princess Diana actually made such a suggestion! Doug'' Who still wouldn't want to be in Her Majesty's place! Paul wrote: Edward VIII was always called David in the family. Arthur doubtless comes from the same need to feel legitimate that Henry VII had when naming his eldest! I can just see Diana telling the queen « King Richard IV would be nice, ma'am » !
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Pamela,
It's exactly that fishbowl part I'd hate! Apparently, I'm in good company.
Doug

Pamela wrote:
As a young woman I thought being a princess would be so wonderful. Now I am thinking being just a regular gal is not so shabby. I cannot imagine having to live in a fishbowl, and be told what to wear, where to go, and so much more  not to mention what to name your children&&& Diana was certainly a rebel. I have read that she and Princess Margaret were close, and I can understand that!



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Pamela wrote:
"The first Arthur in the modern Royal Family was Queen Victoria's son who
was named after his Godfather, the Duke of Wellington."

Doug here:
Well, duh!
(Says the guy with that two-volume biography of the Duke on his shelves!)



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I am pleased to be on your side!
On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:50 AM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Pamela,
It's exactly that fishbowl part I'd hate! Apparently, I'm in good company.
Doug

Pamela wrote:
As a young woman I thought being a princess would be so wonderful. Now I am thinking being just a regular gal is not so shabby. I cannot imagine having to live in a fishbowl, and be told what to wear, where to go, and so much more  not to mention what to name your children&&& Diana was certainly a rebel. I have read that she and Princess Margaret were close, and I can understand that!

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I think the Queen has learned to develop the 'Paddington stare' Doug :) BTW it has been suggested for some time that Charles, when king, may take the regnal name George! H
On Tuesday, 16 January 2018, 13:34:21 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Paul, For some reason I hadn't looked up Edward VIII's list of names  wow! Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David! Edward for his grandfather, Albert for his great-grandfather (Victoria was still alive when he was and I think including Albert was a requirement), Christian was for his maternal grandfather, and the four remaining names are the patron Saints of, respectively, England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Why the family chose to call him David, I have no idea. Having seen snippets from the present Queen's BBC interview, her expression when at rest, so to speak, looks quite intimidating (to me, anyway). I shudder what it would have been had Princess Diana actually made such a suggestion! Doug'' Who still wouldn't want to be in Her Majesty's place! Paul wrote: Edward VIII was always called David in the family. Arthur doubtless comes from the same need to feel legitimate that Henry VII had when naming his eldest! I can just see Diana telling the queen « King Richard IV would be nice, ma'am » !
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I am pleased to be on your side! Outside looking in, of course! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote:
I think the Queen has learned to develop the 'Paddington stare' Doug :) BTW it has been suggested for some time that Charles, when king, may take the regnal name George!
I'm definitely going to have to see that movie!
Well, while I was so looking forward to Charles III, I guess I can manage a George VII...
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Charles, always waiting........ whatever his regnal name, will have been in the wings for seventy years plus, if Elizabeth II lives as long as her mother. I assume there is no protocol for retirement, just less strenuous schedule with many duties passed along to the younger family.
On Jan 16, 2018, at 10:16 AM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:
I think the Queen has learned to develop the 'Paddington stare' Doug :) BTW it has been suggested for some time that Charles, when king, may take the regnal name George!
I'm definitely going to have to see that movie!
Well, while I was so looking forward to Charles III, I guess I can manage a George VII...
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Yes, in spite of the sweet old lady act she's as tough as old boots and is surrounded by die hard monarchists and dodgy dealers out to do everything they can to protect and uphold the firm!Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 16 janv. 2018 à 14:33, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Paul, For some reason I hadn't looked up Edward VIII's list of names  wow! Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David! Edward for his grandfather, Albert for his great-grandfather (Victoria was still alive when he was and I think including Albert was a requirement), Christian was for his maternal grandfather, and the four remaining names are the patron Saints of, respectively, England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Why the family chose to call him David, I have no idea. Having seen snippets from the present Queen's BBC interview, her expression when at rest, so to speak, looks quite intimidating (to me, anyway). I shudder what it would have been had Princess Diana actually made such a suggestion! Doug'' Who still wouldn't want to be in Her Majesty's place! Paul wrote: Edward VIII was always called David in the family. Arthur doubtless comes from the same need to feel legitimate that Henry VII had when naming his eldest! I can just see Diana telling the queen « King Richard IV would be nice, ma'am » !
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Poohlandevra [sorry, I've forgotten your name] wrote:

"Yes, he is a descendent of Ursula Pole."

Carol responds:

Who is?

Poohlandevra wrote:

"I also agree that any involvement in the identification or the reburial of King Richard iii would have left too many questions to be answered by the current Queen and her family."

Carol responds:

I've found two articles which state that the queen wrote a tribute to Richard to be presented at his reburial:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/archaeology/11488562/Richard-IIIIs-reputation-restored-as-Queen-gives-royal-seal-of-approval.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/archaeology/11488562/Richard-IIIIs-reputation-restored-as-Queen-gives-royal-seal-of-approval.html

and

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/565552/The-Queens-pays-tribute-Richard-III-burial-heartfelt-eulogy-evil-monarch https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/565552/The-Queens-pays-tribute-Richard-III-burial-heartfelt-eulogy-evil-monarch

Both state that the queen was represented by her daughter-in-law, the Countess of Wessex (Prince Edward's wife). And, of course, Prince Richard Duke of Gloucester, patron of the Richard III Society, was there. If I recall correctly, he's Queen Elizabeth's first cousin once removed. He's also senior male in direct line of descent from Victoria, Edward VII and George V, which makes him pretty important as a representative of the royal family.

Carol

Carol wrote: ..Both state that the queen was represented by her daughter-in- law, the Countess of Wessex (Prince Edward's wife). And, of course, Prince Richard Duke of Gloucester, patron of the Richard III Society, was there. If I recall correctly, he's Queen Elizabeth' s first cousin once removed. He's also senior male in direct line of descent from Victoria, Edward VII and George V, which makes him pretty important as a representative of the royal family>> The Duke of Gloucester is The Queen's first cousin as their fathers were both sons of George V: George VI>Elizabeth and Henry Duke of Gloucester>Richard Duke of Gloucester.

Laura


The thing that's cool about music is how unnecessary it is.
Of all things, music is the most frivolous and the most useless.
You can't eat it, you can't drive it, you can't live in it, you can't wear it.
But your life wouldn't be worth much without it".

"He will never break His promise
tho' the stars should break faith with the sky".

Rich Mullins 1955-1997