A Plantagenet's genetic revenge?

I am sure that we are all fed up with Henry the Weasel and his kin (Welles and Pole) having hijacked Plantagenet DNA in the immediate aftermath of Bosworth.

Last century, a "Plantagenet" man married a "Tudor" woman. I can reveal this now that volume 14 of the Complete Peerage has provisionally accepted the marriage of Sir Thomas Lumley and Edward IV's daughter.

Sir Thomas' children included a daughter, Sibyl, who married Sir William Hilton. After several generations, Anne Challenor married Edward Lascelles, 1st Earl of Harewood.

Their descendants included the 6th Earl and, in about 1920, he married Mary Princess Royal, aunt to our present Queen.

The marriage of Mary, the Princess Royal, only daughter of George V, and the 6th Earl of Harewood (then Viscount Lascelles) took place on 28 February 1922. However, the descendants of this marriage are quite a way from the direct line of succession!

Ann

Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote:
I am sure that we are all fed up with Henry the Weasel and his kin (Welles and Pole) having hijacked Plantagenet DNA in the immediate aftermath of Bosworth.

Last century, a "Plantagenet" man married a "Tudor" woman. I can reveal this now that volume 14 of the Complete Peerage has provisionally accepted the marriage of Sir Thomas Lumley and Edward IV's daughter.

Sir Thomas' children included a daughter, Sibyl, who married Sir William Hilton. After several generations, Anne Challenor married Edward Lascelles, 1st Earl of Harewood.

Their descendants included the 6th Earl and, in about 1920, he married Mary Princess Royal, aunt to our present Queen.

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> The marriage of Mary, the Princess Royal, only daughter of George
V, and the 6th Earl of Harewood (then Viscount Lascelles) took place
on 28 February 1922. However, the descendants of this marriage are
quite a way from the direct line of succession!
>
> Ann
>
Yes, in the thirties, even before Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and and
any Linley or Chatto issue came along.

> Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote:
> I am sure that we are all fed up with Henry the Weasel
and his kin (Welles and Pole) having hijacked Plantagenet DNA in the
immediate aftermath of Bosworth.
>
> Last century, a "Plantagenet" man married a "Tudor" woman. I can
reveal this now that volume 14 of the Complete Peerage has
provisionally accepted the marriage of Sir Thomas Lumley and Edward
IV's daughter.
>
> Sir Thomas' children included a daughter, Sibyl, who married Sir
William Hilton. After several generations, Anne Challenor married
Edward Lascelles, 1st Earl of Harewood.
>
> Their descendants included the 6th Earl and, in about 1920, he
married Mary Princess Royal, aunt to our present Queen.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well its hardly a marriage of pure plantagenet descent with pure tudor
descent. Since Mary Saxe Coburg Gotha (or Wettin or Guelph or Windsor take
your pick) has not only her plantagenet descent through her ancestress
Elizabeth of York and even if you doubt on dubious evidence Edward IV's
legitimacy her descent still had a pretty strong Plantagenet line through
her grandmother Cecily Neville and her several lines through her mother
Elizabeth Wydeville. You'd be pretty hard pressed to find any 19th or 20th
Century royal who isn't descended from Elizabeth of York and Henry VII
through Margaret Tudor.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Lark" <smlark@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Ricghard III Society Forum] A Plantagenet's genetic revenge?


> --- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> The marriage of Mary, the Princess Royal, only daughter of George
> V, and the 6th Earl of Harewood (then Viscount Lascelles) took place
> on 28 February 1922. However, the descendants of this marriage are
> quite a way from the direct line of succession!
>>
>> Ann
>>
> Yes, in the thirties, even before Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and and
> any Linley or Chatto issue came along.
>
>> Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote:
>> I am sure that we are all fed up with Henry the Weasel
> and his kin (Welles and Pole) having hijacked Plantagenet DNA in the
> immediate aftermath of Bosworth.
>>
>> Last century, a "Plantagenet" man married a "Tudor" woman. I can
> reveal this now that volume 14 of the Complete Peerage has
> provisionally accepted the marriage of Sir Thomas Lumley and Edward
> IV's daughter.
>>
>> Sir Thomas' children included a daughter, Sibyl, who married Sir
> William Hilton. After several generations, Anne Challenor married
> Edward Lascelles, 1st Earl of Harewood.
>>
>> Their descendants included the 6th Earl and, in about 1920, he
> married Mary Princess Royal, aunt to our present Queen.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

But what is the true line of succession?

Prince Charles has repeatedly stated his intention of taking the
Coronation oath as Defender of the Faiths, with every faith included
in the ceremony.

Who the faiths will be defended against he doesn't say; presumably us
atheists, who will thus have another reason to be republicans.

The problem with all this is that by doing so he will invalidate his
own claim, as it rests entirely on his being the Protestant heir. If
Catholics are to be reconciled entirely it brings into consideration
the several hundred people excluded from the succession on the
grounds of their Catholicism, but who have a better hereditary claim
than Charlie Oldenburg (in the male line Charles is a descendant of
the Viking pirate dynasty who became Dukes of Oldenburg and Kings of
Denmark).


--- In , "tim dale"
<tmc_dale@...> wrote:
>
>
> Well its hardly a marriage of pure plantagenet descent with pure
tudor
> descent. Since Mary Saxe Coburg Gotha (or Wettin or Guelph or
Windsor take
> your pick) has not only her plantagenet descent through her
ancestress
> Elizabeth of York and even if you doubt on dubious evidence Edward
IV's
> legitimacy her descent still had a pretty strong Plantagenet line
through
> her grandmother Cecily Neville and her several lines through her
mother
> Elizabeth Wydeville. You'd be pretty hard pressed to find any 19th
or 20th
> Century royal who isn't descended from Elizabeth of York and Henry
VII
> through Margaret Tudor.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Lark" <smlark@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 9:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ricghard III Society Forum] A Plantagenet's genetic
revenge?
>
>
> > --- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The marriage of Mary, the Princess Royal, only daughter of George
> > V, and the 6th Earl of Harewood (then Viscount Lascelles) took
place
> > on 28 February 1922. However, the descendants of this marriage are
> > quite a way from the direct line of succession!
> >>
> >> Ann
> >>
> > Yes, in the thirties, even before Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and
and
> > any Linley or Chatto issue came along.
> >
> >> Stephen Lark <smlark@> wrote:
> >> I am sure that we are all fed up with Henry the Weasel
> > and his kin (Welles and Pole) having hijacked Plantagenet DNA in
the
> > immediate aftermath of Bosworth.
> >>
> >> Last century, a "Plantagenet" man married a "Tudor" woman. I can
> > reveal this now that volume 14 of the Complete Peerage has
> > provisionally accepted the marriage of Sir Thomas Lumley and
Edward
> > IV's daughter.
> >>
> >> Sir Thomas' children included a daughter, Sibyl, who married Sir
> > William Hilton. After several generations, Anne Challenor married
> > Edward Lascelles, 1st Earl of Harewood.
> >>
> >> Their descendants included the 6th Earl and, in about 1920, he
> > married Mary Princess Royal, aunt to our present Queen.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

i would think that charles's statement as defender of the faiths is to ensure that no matter your belief system...YOU have the right to it..aka a defender of the faiths.

this is the 21st century. while we can not ignore the past, we sure can learn from it. wars and disputes over which religion or belief system is "better" belong to the past.

despotic world leaders, religious and political *use* religion/belief to rally support as to why they should hold power over the majority of us. separation of church and state is vital to ensure peace and freedom on this planet.

we will be truely "civilised" when we can accept and tolerate our differences while accepting that essentially we are all the same...human beings.

screw organised religion(s)..they are useless tools implemented to manipulate the ignorant and tithe blood for the insane theory of "my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend."

to me, charles is a victim of middle class propaganda. he has behaved no differently than his ancestors. he and diana produced the heir and spare. diana just didn't comprehend the "rules" of the game. if she had, she'd still be alive, living a life of priviledge and descreet flings...while promoting humanitarian causes.

the monarchy is all about image and tradition. personally, i support it, and so do my canadian tax dollars.

i like knowing that if i have an issue with my government, i can keep on appealling all the way to the canadian governor general (gg) and beyond to the queen. i like knowing the gg can disolve the canadian parliament if mr. harper gets too cozy with mr. bushwhacko. we the people just have to massively request it.

the monarchy may be mostly a figure head position, but in a crunch it can still prove to be useful..at least here in the colonies. tax dollars well spent in a neocon fascist world. god save the queen/monarchy and all it stands for.

roslyn


theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
But what is the true line of succession?

Prince Charles has repeatedly stated his intention of taking the
Coronation oath as Defender of the Faiths, with every faith included
in the ceremony.

Who the faiths will be defended against he doesn't say; presumably us
atheists, who will thus have another reason to be republicans.

The problem with all this is that by doing so he will invalidate his
own claim, as it rests entirely on his being the Protestant heir. If
Catholics are to be reconciled entirely it brings into consideration
the several hundred people excluded from the succession on the
grounds of their Catholicism, but who have a better hereditary claim
than Charlie Oldenburg (in the male line Charles is a descendant of
the Viking pirate dynasty who became Dukes of Oldenburg and Kings of
Denmark).

--- In , "tim dale"
<tmc_dale@...> wrote:
>
>
> Well its hardly a marriage of pure plantagenet descent with pure
tudor
> descent. Since Mary Saxe Coburg Gotha (or Wettin or Guelph or
Windsor take
> your pick) has not only her plantagenet descent through her
ancestress
> Elizabeth of York and even if you doubt on dubious evidence Edward
IV's
> legitimacy her descent still had a pretty strong Plantagenet line
through
> her grandmother Cecily Neville and her several lines through her
mother
> Elizabeth Wydeville. You'd be pretty hard pressed to find any 19th
or 20th
> Century royal who isn't descended from Elizabeth of York and Henry
VII
> through Margaret Tudor.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Lark" <smlark@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 9:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ricghard III Society Forum] A Plantagenet's genetic
revenge?
>
>
> > --- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The marriage of Mary, the Princess Royal, only daughter of George
> > V, and the 6th Earl of Harewood (then Viscount Lascelles) took
place
> > on 28 February 1922. However, the descendants of this marriage are
> > quite a way from the direct line of succession!
> >>
> >> Ann
> >>
> > Yes, in the thirties, even before Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and
and
> > any Linley or Chatto issue came along.
> >
> >> Stephen Lark <smlark@> wrote:
> >> I am sure that we are all fed up with Henry the Weasel
> > and his kin (Welles and Pole) having hijacked Plantagenet DNA in
the
> > immediate aftermath of Bosworth.
> >>
> >> Last century, a "Plantagenet" man married a "Tudor" woman. I can
> > reveal this now that volume 14 of the Complete Peerage has
> > provisionally accepted the marriage of Sir Thomas Lumley and
Edward
> > IV's daughter.
> >>
> >> Sir Thomas' children included a daughter, Sibyl, who married Sir
> > William Hilton. After several generations, Anne Challenor married
> > Edward Lascelles, 1st Earl of Harewood.
> >>
> >> Their descendants included the 6th Earl and, in about 1920, he
> > married Mary Princess Royal, aunt to our present Queen.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@...> wrote:
>
> I am sure that we are all fed up with Henry the Weasel and his kin
(Welles and Pole) having hijacked Plantagenet DNA in the immediate
aftermath of Bosworth.
>
> Last century, a "Plantagenet" man married a "Tudor" woman. I can
reveal this now that volume 14 of the Complete Peerage has
provisionally accepted the marriage of Sir Thomas Lumley and Edward
IV's daughter.
>
> Sir Thomas' children included a daughter, Sibyl, who married Sir
William Hilton. After several generations, Anne Challenor married
Edward Lascelles, 1st Earl of Harewood.
>
> Their descendants included the 6th Earl and, in about 1920, he
married Mary Princess Royal, aunt to our present Queen.
>
>
>
>
Thanks to Anne for supplying an exact date for the marriage of Henry,
6th Earl, and Mary, Princess Royal.

Just in case the first sentence confused anyone, Margaret Beauchamp
married three times:
1)Sir Oliver St. John, by whom she had a daughter Edith, mother of
(Sir) Richard Pole;
2)John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, by whom she had a daughter
Margaret, mother of Henry VII;
3)Lionel, Baron Welles, by whom she had children including John,
Baron (Viscount) Welles.

In other words, Pole was already the Weasel's cousin before he
married Margaret of Salisbury. Welles was already his uncle before he
married Cecilia.

If you read the Act of Settlement 1701 the crucial points are that in order to succeed to the throne a person must be Protestant, and a communicant in the Church of England, and is required in the coronation oath to swear to 'maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant reformed religion established by law; and to maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England and the doctrine, worship, discipline and government thereof in England', (O. Hood Phillips: Constitutional & Administrative Law, 7th ed. p.255-56.

As I read it, this does not prevent the current Prince of Wales, or any other future monarch, following accession, from seeking to uphold freedom from religion for all, provided that he personally remains a communicant in the Church of England, and does nothing to alter the constitutional position of the Church of England (also he must not marry a Catholic, though he may marry a person of any other denomination or faith).

If Prince Charles were to cease to be a member of the Church of England, it would not destroy the current line of succession. Instead, the immediate right of succession - i.e. the position of heir apparent or immediate heir presumptive - would pass to the next person entitled who could fulfil the requirement - currently Prince William. Any further change would require repeal or amendment of the Act of Settlement, which for political reasons is likely to be difficult.

.Incidentall, the only amendment to the succession provisions of the Act of Settlement is His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, which was rushed through Parliament to give effect to Edward VIII's abdication and to exclude him and any children he might have from the succession.

Ann

theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
But what is the true line of succession?

Prince Charles has repeatedly stated his intention of taking the
Coronation oath as Defender of the Faiths, with every faith included
in the ceremony.

Who the faiths will be defended against he doesn't say; presumably us
atheists, who will thus have another reason to be republicans.

The problem with all this is that by doing so he will invalidate his
own claim, as it rests entirely on his being the Protestant heir. If
Catholics are to be reconciled entirely it brings into consideration
the several hundred people excluded from the succession on the
grounds of their Catholicism, but who have a better hereditary claim
than Charlie Oldenburg (in the male line Charles is a descendant of
the Viking pirate dynasty who became Dukes of Oldenburg and Kings of
Denmark).

--- In , "tim dale"
<tmc_dale@...> wrote:
>
>
> Well its hardly a marriage of pure plantagenet descent with pure
tudor
> descent. Since Mary Saxe Coburg Gotha (or Wettin or Guelph or
Windsor take
> your pick) has not only her plantagenet descent through her
ancestress
> Elizabeth of York and even if you doubt on dubious evidence Edward
IV's
> legitimacy her descent still had a pretty strong Plantagenet line
through
> her grandmother Cecily Neville and her several lines through her
mother
> Elizabeth Wydeville. You'd be pretty hard pressed to find any 19th
or 20th
> Century royal who isn't descended from Elizabeth of York and Henry
VII
> through Margaret Tudor.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Lark" <smlark@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 9:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ricghard III Society Forum] A Plantagenet's genetic
revenge?
>
>
> > --- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The marriage of Mary, the Princess Royal, only daughter of George
> > V, and the 6th Earl of Harewood (then Viscount Lascelles) took
place
> > on 28 February 1922. However, the descendants of this marriage are
> > quite a way from the direct line of succession!
> >>
> >> Ann
> >>
> > Yes, in the thirties, even before Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and
and
> > any Linley or Chatto issue came along.
> >
> >> Stephen Lark <smlark@> wrote:
> >> I am sure that we are all fed up with Henry the Weasel
> > and his kin (Welles and Pole) having hijacked Plantagenet DNA in
the
> > immediate aftermath of Bosworth.
> >>
> >> Last century, a "Plantagenet" man married a "Tudor" woman. I can
> > reveal this now that volume 14 of the Complete Peerage has
> > provisionally accepted the marriage of Sir Thomas Lumley and
Edward
> > IV's daughter.
> >>
> >> Sir Thomas' children included a daughter, Sibyl, who married Sir
> > William Hilton. After several generations, Anne Challenor married
> > Edward Lascelles, 1st Earl of Harewood.
> >>
> >> Their descendants included the 6th Earl and, in about 1920, he
> > married Mary Princess Royal, aunt to our present Queen.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>