The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 11-12-2005, 05:26 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,401
Lost and found section

Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Mary I
Thank you for all the info! I once found a great site on the Jacobites but my computer crashed over the summer and I haven't been able to find it again. :(
Consider it found:

http://www.jacobite.ca/

W
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 11-12-2005, 05:37 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
Mmm..I don't think that is correct. She is not QEII in Scotland.
Actually, she is.

http://www.lawscot.org.uk/whatis/case8.html

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/90427-15.htm

'Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Despite his very interesting essay on Scottish jurisprudence and the interpretation of the Act of Union, I think I am right in saying that Her Majesty the Queen is still styled Queen Elizabeth the Second in Scotland and to that extent the case must have been lost.


'Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, but I do not think it was lost on that point.'
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 11-12-2005, 05:47 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Mary I
Thank you very much for the explanation! I just love the way the title rolls off the tongue -

Mary, Queen Of Scots, Robert King Of Scots, Elizabeth Queen Of Scots!

I have read all the books I could find on Mary I-I must have missed that part about Queen Mary I in my eagerness!

...
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/brit...tyles.htm#1553

Mary Tudor's regnal style was 'the most high, most puissant, and most excellent Princess Mary the First...'
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 11-12-2005, 06:02 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Mary I
Mary, Queen Of Scots, Robert King Of Scots, Elizabeth Queen Of Scots!
Kings in general were referred to at one time that way. Edward II was called King of the English in documents. The old Danish coins were imprinted with 'Rex Danae' King of the Danes. The diplomatic controversy during Edward's and Robert's time was whether Robert was actually called King of Scots. The pope held off for a long time. Philip, Edward's father-in-law played both sides of the coin. In letters to Edward II he referred to Robert as Scotlands regent but when he wrote to Robert himself, he addressed him as King of Scots. Edward found out and was furious.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 11-12-2005, 06:08 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
ysbel, several monarchs were considered to govern peoples rather than some (ill-defined) territories then. In the 19th Century this usage was revived in several countries; for example, Albert II is the King of the Belgians, not the King of Belgium.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 11-12-2005, 06:17 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mapple
ysbel, several monarchs were considered to govern peoples rather than some (ill-defined) territories then. In the 19th Century this usage was revived in several countries; for example, Albert II is the King of the Belgians, not the King of Belgium.
I didn't know that was the reason but it makes sense. Thanks Mapple. :)

Queen Mary I, I'm still mad at Mel Gibson for making Robert look so bad in that movie.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 11-12-2005, 11:14 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
Hi Everyone,

Thank you so far for your posts. We somehow have veered the bus we are all riding on in this thread towards Scotland and the correct titles of the current Queen and past monarchs.

Trivia question:

Which five dukedoms, NOT ROYAL ONES, can lay claim to throne of England, had they been legitimate children born in wedlock to certain sovereigns, or the children of soveregns?

One duke even gave Queen Victoria a real shake when he presented documentation proving his descendent was legitimate and therefore he should be king.....she thanked him kindly and when he left, burned the proof in her fireplace.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 11-12-2005, 11:55 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 422
Well, three that I seem to remember something about are:

Northumberland

Norfolk and

Leinster
__________________
Thy choicest gifts in store, on her be pleased to pour, long may she reign. May she defend our laws, and ever give us cause, to sing with heart and voice, GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 11-12-2005, 11:59 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
Hmm.....any other guesses?

I'll give you one..

Henry Fitzroy, 1st Duke of Grafton, was the 2nd illegitimate son of King Charles II by Barbara Villers, Duchess of Cleveland. Born in 1663, Henry was created Baron Sudbury, Viscount Ipswich, and Earl of Euston in 1672 (ripe old age of 8-1/2). Henry was created Duke of Grafton in 1675, just before his 12th birthday.

This explains the Coat of Arms held by the Dukes of Grafton. The Royal Arms of Charles II debruised by a baton sinister showing that the 1st Duke was related by blood to the Sovereign but unable to succeed to the Throne because of being born out of wedlock.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 11-13-2005, 03:42 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
...

Trivia question:

Which five dukedoms, NOT ROYAL ONES, can lay claim to throne of England, had they been legitimate children born in wedlock to certain sovereigns, or the children of soveregns?

One duke even gave Queen Victoria a real shake when he presented documentation proving his descendent was legitimate and therefore he should be king.....she thanked him kindly and when he left, burned the proof in her fireplace.
Beaufort, Buccleuch, Richmond & Gordon, Grafton and St Albans.

It was the Duke of Beaufort with whom this legend is concerned.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 11-13-2005, 04:15 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 422
IN that case, I must have been confusing my three with those Dukedoms into which members or Royal houses have married.
__________________
Thy choicest gifts in store, on her be pleased to pour, long may she reign. May she defend our laws, and ever give us cause, to sing with heart and voice, GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 11-13-2005, 07:26 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
Good job Mapple!! :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 11-14-2005, 03:33 AM
Queen Mary I's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
I didn't know that was the reason but it makes sense. Thanks Mapple. :)

Queen Mary I, I'm still mad at Mel Gibson for making Robert look so bad in that movie.
Robert looked good at the end though. Leading the final battle at Banachburn. (I KNOW I am spelling that wrong!)

I read in a book that HM Queen Elizabeth II can reign today because she has a certain percentage of Stuart blood ( forget how much but it seemed a minute amount!).

Because of my interest in the Tudor reign I have tried to figure out what her relationship is to Henry VIII? Cousins? I know that in his will he removed his elder sister Margaret, Queen Of Scots' heirs from the succession ( I think that Old King Hal the hypocrite was annoyed that his sister had divorced ) anyway in his will he left his younger Mary's heirs next in the succession after his children-but Margaret's heirs must have been restored at some point since James I and IV followed Elizabeth I to the throne. So what I am trying to figure out is what are the Tudors to the today's Windsors? Cousins? Great aunts and uncles 16 generations back? I live for Trivia!
__________________
Happy New Year-Here's to Peace On Earth
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 11-14-2005, 06:33 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Mary I
Robert looked good at the end though. Leading the final battle at Banachburn. (I KNOW I am spelling that wrong!)

I read in a book that HM Queen Elizabeth II can reign today because she has a certain percentage of Stuart blood ( forget how much but it seemed a minute amount!).

Because of my interest in the Tudor reign I have tried to figure out what her relationship is to Henry VIII? Cousins? I know that in his will he removed his elder sister Margaret, Queen Of Scots' heirs from the succession ( I think that Old King Hal the hypocrite was annoyed that his sister had divorced ) anyway in his will he left his younger Mary's heirs next in the succession after his children-but Margaret's heirs must have been restored at some point since James I and IV followed Elizabeth I to the throne. So what I am trying to figure out is what are the Tudors to the today's Windsors? Cousins? Great aunts and uncles 16 generations back? I live for Trivia!

The present British Royal Family are direct descendents of Henry VII through James the VI and I.

When the last of the Tudors died she named James as her heir (he was the next legitimate heir if one ignores Henry VIII's decision over his sister. James VI and I's daughter married into Europe and her daughter (James' granddaughter) was Sophia of Hanover.

In 1714 the throne past to Sophia's son George I (James' great-grandson). From there the line is relatively easy - George II -Frederick Prince of Wales (predeceased his father) - George III - Edward, Duke of Kent - Queen Victoria - Edward VII - George V - George VI - Elizabeth.

It always annoys me when people claim that Diana brought the true Stuart blood back into the Royal Family when it has been all the time through legitimate descent from James VI and I.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 11-14-2005, 11:26 AM
Iain's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Au contraire, my good Iain, the Countess of Buchan herself crowned Robert the Bruce when she was just a child. It was de rigeur for the representatives of the most distinguised nobility to crown the King of Scots and the young Countess scandalized the medieval world by running away from her husband to take her brother's place in the ancient ceremonies.

Edward I paid her back though. On a mission to cut through Scotland, his forces captured her and he ordered that she be put in a wicker cage on the outside rampants of his castle open to the gaze of all who walked there. She was thus imprisoned for two years.
Yes, I Know that Robert I was crowned but what I meant was that I don't think he would be too bothered that the coronation service was abolished. Unlike the English the Scots have always regarded themselves as European and many visitors, especially those from England, remark how "different" Scotland is from England and how European it feels. So King Robert would have no problem with the country falling into line with other European countries.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 11-14-2005, 11:31 AM
Iain's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mapple
Actually, she is.

http://www.lawscot.org.uk/whatis/case8.html

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/90427-15.htm

'Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Despite his very interesting essay on Scottish jurisprudence and the interpretation of the Act of Union, I think I am right in saying that Her Majesty the Queen is still styled Queen Elizabeth the Second in Scotland and to that extent the case must have been lost.


'Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, but I do not think it was lost on that point.'
It doesn't matter what the courts say, the Scots people will NEVER accept Elizabeth as the second. Unlike England where Sovereignty rests with parliament, in Scotland it rests with the people and the people have spoken!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 11-14-2005, 11:48 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrissy57
The present British Royal Family are direct descendents of Henry VII through James the VI and I.

When the last of the Tudors died she named James as her heir (he was the next legitimate heir if one ignores Henry VIII's decision over his sister. James VI and I's daughter married into Europe and her daughter (James' granddaughter) was Sophia of Hanover.

In 1714 the throne past to Sophia's son George I (James' great-grandson). From there the line is relatively easy - George II -Frederick Prince of Wales (predeceased his father) - George III - Edward, Duke of Kent - Queen Victoria - Edward VII - George V - George VI - Elizabeth.

It always annoys me when people claim that Diana brought the true Stuart blood back into the Royal Family when it has been all the time through legitimate descent from James VI and I.
Its interesting that the British Royal House claims it lineage to the old dynasties through two elder daughters: Margaret Tudor, eldest daughter of Henry VII and Mary Stuart, eldest daughter of James I. As fascinating as the history of Henry VIII, Mary I, Elizabeth I, Charles I and Charles II is, they didn't pass down their bloodlines to the present monarch. However, Margaret and Mary did. Having lots of children and grandchildren is sometimes the best revenge.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 11-14-2005, 11:56 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain
Yes, I Know that Robert I was crowned but what I meant was that I don't think he would be too bothered that the coronation service was abolished. Unlike the English the Scots have always regarded themselves as European and many visitors, especially those from England, remark how "different" Scotland is from England and how European it feels. So King Robert would have no problem with the country falling into line with other European countries.
Robert was definitely close to the Scandanavian monarchies. His sister married the King of Norway and this was the original royal house - not the cadet branch of the Glucksborgs that is on the throne today. Still I don't see any medieval king giving up the crowning; people back then didn't accept a king unless he was crowned.

That's the reason that Edward I was so incensed against the Countess of Buchan for crowning Robert - it gave Robert a legitimacy among other monarchs that he otherwise would not have had.

Incidentally, the Stuarts trace their lineage back to Robert the Bruce through his eldest daughter, Marjorie who married Walter Stewart. The Stewarts were originally the High Stewards of the Kings Household.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 11-14-2005, 03:15 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain
It doesn't matter what the courts say, the Scots people will NEVER accept Elizabeth as the second. Unlike England where Sovereignty rests with parliament, in Scotland it rests with the people and the people have spoken!
The sovereign in Scotland, as well as in England, is the Queen. The Queen has spoken.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 11-14-2005, 04:08 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
I agree with Iain.

I thought she was not the QEII in Scotland with focus on the numerical part of her title.

I have heard many respected British historians speak on this manner in favor of the Scottish side.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
act of settlement, catholicism, line of succession, succession


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:31 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]