British Royal Historical Scandals


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
A lot of german royals were surely members of the Nazi party, but I wonder how many of them were really supporters of the Nazi ideology; I'm quite sure that a lot of them became members of the Nazi party only for mere opportunism, hoping to get back what Weimar Republic had stripped them.
 
That's true. Many people joined the Nazi party not because they agreed with the ideology, but because they pretty much had no other choice.
 
:previous:
yes Furienna, like i had said, a great many was conforming to the political mores of the day.....although some was more involved than others it would seem, for at present am reading a book about the matter : Royals and the Reich, written by Jonathan Petropoulous. am thinking about starting a thread concerning the subject, as i feel this is not the correct place for further discussion.....

PS
or could any fellow members point me the right direction, if there is a thread up and running please !
 
Last edited:
The whole Charles/Diana mess. Edward VII also got into a bit of trouble in his day. Then there's Henry VIII, changing his country's religion to divorce his wife marry another woman and then cutting off her head. I'd imagine after the Anne of Cleves situation people just stopped being shocked by him.

Hahahaha about Henry VIII! I agree. What a jerk - there was an article that just came out claiming that Anne really did have an affair with her brother - The Daily Mail in London published it. I already pasted it somewhere on here - I think in the Henry VIII thread in British History - anyway, here is another link to it - Poem provides evidence that Anne Boleyn had numerous affairs - Telegraph

You've got to be kidding me right? If you read what I wrote in the Henry VIII thread - let me know, but anyway, he neglected Katherine and let her die in a most horrible state only to "marry" Anne Boleyn. I think when she didn't produce a son Henry gave up. By that time he had had enough with Anne. She was too outspoken for her time. I think once he got a taste of power - saw that he could do what he wanted without consequences or a conscience... here comes Jane Seymour "bound to serve and obey" - she seemed more appealing maybe? After all the trouble he went through to marry Anne, I think the lust was gone. Especially when she miscarried his son. I just love the irony though - after all the time he spent worrying about The Tudors succession... wanting a boy, he really could have been preparing his daughters a little better. Ok, so women weren't meant to be Queen's, rulers of that time. Also, he thought that Edward would survive most likely, but eventually Elizabeth ends up being the "last Tudor" of Henry VIII to claim the throne. What makes it ironic is the fact that the line then passes through his older sister's child James V of Scotland and eventually her great-grandchild takes the title of King of Scotland and England - James I. Way to go Henry!! :lol:
 
Guys, just a reminder that this thread is in the British Royal History subforum and is not the place for 'recent' events such as Sarah Ferguson's fall from grace.

thanks,
Warren
 
The best scandel ever (that I've heard of) are claims that William Shakespeare is actually the son of Elizabeth I and Thomas Seymour. There's a book called Oxford: The son of Elizabeth I by Paul Steitz which got everyone stirred up here. I've not been able to read it (silly bookshops) but I'm eager to track it down) Apparently there's lots of evidence in it to back these claims, and claims of other illigitamate children born to Dudley.

Aside from those basically the whole tudor/elizabethan age was full of drama and scandel.
 
I have heard a lot of rumors about William Shakespeare (such as his real identity) but I never heard the rumor that Elizabeth I was his mother!
 
Yeah me too!
Unsurprisingly it didn't go down too well here, which has made it hard for me to actually read it! Although I got a link to it online today :whistling:
I wouldn't be surprised though, we all know us Brits love the idea of a Virgin Queen but I doubt she was, given her upbringing and love of men. Naturally there would have been children, but scandel was easily covered - especially for a Royal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think they could hide it as well. Russo is currently watching Elizabeth Regina with that wonderful Glenda Jackson in it and the people who were constantly around her and Mary, especially when Mary had her hysterical pregnancy--it would be difficult to get away with something like this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not to mention hiding that "baby bump" oops, forgot there was plenty of material covering those bodies back then. :)
 
The royals have been involved with a lot of scandals and history usually repeats itself. I'm not even sure if some rumors about illegitimate children of royals are still unbelievable.For me, illegitimate children are fortunate because they have less possibility of suffering from diseases due to inbreeding.
 
That's true, but instead, they suffered from being illegitimate, which wasn't easy back in the day.
 
That's true, but instead, they suffered from being illegitimate, which wasn't easy back in the day.

I am not so sure they suffered unduly for being illegitimate, at least not more than any other illegitimate child. Royals were expected to engage in behavior which would not have been as accepted by commoners and these royal bastards were given honors and privileges in recognition of their parentage.

Hey, my 300th POST! :D
 
Goodness if we didn't have illegtimacy with the British Royals we wouldn't have half the British aristocracy.

And how crazy is it that the new PM is descended from William IV and Dorothy Jordan!
 
Goodness if we didn't have illegtimacy with the British Royals we wouldn't have half the British aristocracy.
That's true; and if we didn't illegitimacy with the British aristocracy we wouldn't have thousends of commoners...

And how crazy is it that the new PM is descended from William IV and Dorothy Jordan!
Also is wife is a descendant of a British King, Charles II.
 
Who isn't descended from Charles II?!
 
Was Fergie, the recently disgraced one, also a descendant of Charles II or was that Diana, or Camilla? Like Russophile, I unfortunately not a descendant (I think) unless the Bucklands of Wiltshire or the Bateses of Surrey were descended from him.
 
I think all three are descended from Charles II but wikipedia doesn't reference Camilla.

Diana

Sarah is a descendant of King Charles II of England via two of his illegitimate sons, Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond, and James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth.
 

Camilla is descended from Charles II through Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond and Lennox (son of Louise de Kéroualle).

His daughter, Anne Lennox, married Willem Anne van Keppel, 2nd Earl of Albemarle. They are Camilla's ancestors through the Earls of Albemarle.

Camilla's maternal great-grandfather was Lt. Colonel the Honourable George Keppel, 3rd and youngest son of the 7th Earl. George Keppel's wife, Alice Keppel (nee Edmondstone) was the most famous of Edward VII's mistresses.
 
See, everyone is a descendant of Charles II except for me and Russophile!
 
and me! So we are in good company.

I think Charles II and one of the Edwards (maybe also the II) had tons of illegitimate kids...and a majority of the aristocracy and as a result some of the everyday Englishman (and odd American or two) are descended from them.
 
...There was a sister of King George III, Caroline Mathilde of Denmark who was married to the King of Denmark and had an affair, right under her husbands nose and had a daughter with her lover...
Truely. The daughter, Louise Augusta, was official known to be the daughter of the king, Christian VII. The king was suffering from having paranoia, self-mutilation and hallucinations.
 
It would be an interesting thought to have a movie or tv movie about Caroline Mathilde...what an interesting life.
 
Thanks for the info. I have never heard of those.
 
I am not so sure they suffered unduly for being illegitimate, at least not more than any other illegitimate child. Royals were expected to engage in behavior which would not have been as accepted by commoners and these royal bastards were given honors and privileges in recognition of their parentage.

Hey, my 300th POST! :D
Hmmm, that's true. Royal "bastards" still had some privileges.
 
Calling royal bastards

Calling Royal Bastards! I am conducting research into Royal bastards, their origins, their lives and their psychological hangups. If you or one of your ancestors was a royal bastard, preferably in the 19th or 20th centuries,please respond to this posting! (I am less concerned with earlier centuries for the purpose of this study, although I am always interested,of course). Generally the position of royal bastards deteriorated over this period and continued to do so for royals, who had to show a squeaky-clean image, even if the rest of society were rioting in the permissive society. There appear to be 5-6 royal bastards alive today. It would be good to hear their perspective.

Abbot
 
According to the Danish movie company, Zentropa, a movie about Caroline Mathilde (UK title: A royal affair), expected premier: late 2011. Read more here: Link me
 
Back
Top Bottom