Anyone believe the conspiracy theory about Victoria's parentage?
After watching The Young Victoria with Emily Blunt a while back, I read somewhere that some believe Conroy was her real father.
Whatever you are, be a good one.
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Victoria (2017) Discussion > Anyone believe the conspiracy theory abo...
She was the only child of Prince Edward. It was a strong, albeit unwritten, rule of the aristocracy that no fooling around was allowed until you produced a male heir, in fact you were to produce "an heir and a spare" first. So, no, I don't believe it.
shareThere have been rumors about Royals "Real" Parentage since the beginning of time till even today. Prince Harry has been the center of the rumor mill since he's a Ginger, unlike everyone else in the Royal family. It's been proposed that his father was a military aide to Princess Diana, who happens to be Ginger, but that theory goes out the window, since that guy didn't join her staff until after Harry was born. The only known paternal genetic "Break" in the royal line occurs around Richard III. I forget if it the break was Richard III or his brother Edward IV. I just know that's where the paternal genetic break is at.
shareWell Delta, Harry does look an awful lot like James Hewitt, and Hewitt's employment status after Harry's birth doesn't preclude a relationship with Diana before it.
shareNo, there are plenty of Gingers in the Royals bloodline and plenty of photographs of Harry's ancestors in the generations before that bear a strong resemblance to him.
Besides, I don't care where he came from; it's just nice to see a Royal that possesses such raw sexual charisma.
No, there isn't a break or else NONE of the royals to follow would be legitimate.
The argument is that Edward IV, who was son of Richard of York, was illegitimate. He was the older brother of Richard III and father of Elizabeth of York. She married Henry VII (Henry Tudor) and hence Edward IV was great-grandfather of Henry VIII. Every royal SINCE could be traced back to Henry VII and Elizabeth. So the argument is that if Edward IV was illegitimate than so would everyone to follow.
However, this issue was only raised when Richard Neville, the Earl of Warwick (the Kingmaker) had a following out with Edward. He brought it up and it was reinforced by Edward's brother George, as a way for HIM to get the throne.
There are other points: first, even if Edward IV was illegitimate, he could in any case claim the crown from Henry VI by right of conquest. Second Edward's mother was Cecily Neville, who was a great-granddaughter of Edward III through John of Gaunt and his illegitimate daughter (Cecily's mother) Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland. Although this claim is via an illegitimate line, it is the same as the claim that allowed Henry Tudor to become King.
The Beauforts were 'legitimised' when John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster married his mistress Katherine Swynford, who was the mother of the Beauforts.
So no, there is now "known break" in the royal line.
One thing also to remember is that this stuff was taken seriously, and a break would simply NOT be allowed. The English fought civil wars over such matters.
When Queen Anne died the British had to go to the Hanover branch of the family to find a Protestant over a Catholic. In fact, there were more than 50 Roman Catholics who bore closer blood relationships to Anne, but the Act of Settlement 1701 prohibited Catholics from inheriting the British throne; so George was Anne's closest living Protestant relative.
Victoria is technically the last of the Hanover rulers. She was the granddaughter of George III, who was great grandson of George I. George II's son died and the throne passed from grandfather to grandson.
The point is that there is no "broken" state in royal succession.
Not looking like either parent doesn't mean much. I look like my paternal grandmother so much so that if I didn't know better I'd say photos of her as a 9 year old were me taken at one of those booths where you can dress up in old-fashioned clothes.
William belongs to Charles.
Harry belongs to Charles.
Victoria belongs to Edward.
Dr Jason Bull: Don't give up on people, they're all we've got.
Peter, the "Break" I spoke of was recently discovered by scientist after they discovered Richard III's body in that Car Park (aka Parking Lot). As I stated before, I'm unsure if it was before him, him, or after him. Anyways, it doesn't matter, because Parliament chooses who the rightful Monarch anyways. Usually they do this by acknowledging the rights of the Heir, but in some cases, like in the Glorious Revolution, they simply vote in a new monarch and unseat the old monarch.
shareI'm absolutely confused - so can you clarify what this has to do with Richard III? Richard III was son of Richard, Duke of York - a descendent of Edward III.
Richard III was the younger brother of Edward IV, the eldest son of Richard, Duke of York. Richard essentially took the throne from his nephew Edward V, who disappeared in the Tower of London. This story is told in the Starz series "The White Queen."
There is no break. Yes, Richard III's body was discovered, but there has been no evidence that he wasn't Richard of York's son. So I'm not seeing the break?
And you're not exactly right about how Parliament chooses the rightful Monarch. They did NOT vote in a new monarch. As I explained already the throne passed to George I because he was a protestant.
So you're not right that Parliament can choose the next monarch. Already there is a clear line of succession. It is Charles, William, George - father to son to grandson. After William it is Prince Harry, who has no sons. Next is Charles' brothers and their children, etc.
In other words, Parliament does NOT choose the monarch.
As noted:
Under common law, the crown is inherited by an individual's children and by a childless individual's nearest collateral line. The Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, both of them as amended in March 2015, restrict the succession to the legitimate Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover that are in "communion with the Church of England"[
George's sister, Charlotte, is in succession before William's brother, Henry. Henry will be displaced further down the line as William's family grows.
The succession is:
(1) Charles, Prince of Wales (b. 1948)
(2) Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (b. 1982)
(3) Prince George of Cambridge (b. 2013)
(4) Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (b. 2015)
(5) Prince Henry of Wales (Prince Harry) (b. 1984)
(6) Prince Andrew, Duke of York (b. 1960)
Yes, I forgot about Princess Charlotte. Thank you.
Still, my point is that there is an absolute line of succession and that parliament doesn't vote in the next king and NEVER has.
Hence, the UK has a constitutional monarchy as opposed to an elective monarchy such as Malaysia, Cambodia, and The Holy See.
However, election may occasionally be used to fill a vacant throne in a hereditary monarchy. For example, the royal family may become extinct; depending on how precisely the succession to the throne is defined in law, several candidates with equally, or almost equally, strong claims could emerge, with an election being held to choose from among them. This differs from a formally elective monarchy in that it is an extraordinary measure, and with the new monarch the succession again becomes hereditary.
John of England, chosen by a council of nobles and royal advisors at the death of his brother, Richard I because the heir by strict primogeniture, Arthur of Brittany, was a child at that time.
Henry IV of England, chosen by Parliament to replace Richard II. Richard was childless, and the Earl of March, the next in line to the throne, was a young child at the time, so Parliament bypassed him in favor of Henry, who had led the revolt against Richard.
William III and Mary II of England, chosen by Parliament to replace James II. While Mary was James' daughter, and William and Mary were succeeded by Mary's younger sister Anne, the male descendants of James II were explicitly bypassed in the orders of succession of the late 17th and early 18th centuries.
Officially at least, the only "break" was between Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror. All the subsequent generations can be traced back to William, although sometimes different branches of the family would fight over the throne. Has the royal family DNA ever been tested?
The movie BRAVEHEART insinuated that Edward III was illegitimate, but that may have been part of the melodrama.
Impugning the legitimacy of an heir to the throne was a favorite trick for justifying a rebellion. (In fact that is a central plot point of GAME OF THRONES) But I don't think any of these slanders have been proved in real history.
Queen Victoria had heavy eyelids, reminiscent of her Grandfather King George III.
share