Royal Pretenders

[ramonmercado]

If only they had allowed Maggie to marry Townsie, everything would have worked out. Instead she becamer Gore Vidals drinking partner.

 

[OldTimeRadio]

If only they had allowed Maggie to marry Townsie, everything would have worked out.

That was certainly the general feeling over here as well.

 

[rynner2]

Queen Mother was daughter of French cook, biography claims
The Queen Mother was the daughter of her aristocratic family’s French cook, a new biography claims.
7:30AM BST 31 Mar 2012

The author Lady Colin Campbell claims cook Marguerite Rodiere gave birth to the future Queen Elizabeth in an arrangement described as “an early version of surrogacy”.
She alleges that the practice was not unusual among the upper classes at that time and came about because her own mother Cecilia, who already had eight children, was unable to have any more.

This explains the nickname “Cookie” given to the Queen Mother by the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, Lady Colin says.
It also suggests why the Queen Mother, born the Honourable Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes Lyon, was given a French middle name, it is claimed.

The theory is set out in Lady Colin's latest book - The Queen Mother, The untold story of Elizabeth Bowes Lyon, Who became Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother – which hits shelves next month.

She writes: “Royal and aristocratic circles had been alight for decades with the story that Elizabeth Bowes Lyon, while undoubtedly the daughter of the 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was not the child of his wife Cecilia, nor was her younger brother David, born nearly two years after her on 2nd May, 1902.

“The two Benjamins, as they were known in the Bowes Lyon family (in a Biblical allusion to the brother of Joseph, who was himself the product of a coupling between his father and his mother’s maid) were supposedly the children of Marguerite Rodiere, an attractive and pleasant Frenchwoman who had been the cook at St Paul’s Waldenbury and is meant to have provided Lord and Lady Glamis with the two children they so yearned for after Cecilia was forbidden by her doctors from producing any more progeny.

“Hence the nickname of Cookie, which the Duke and Duchess of Windsor took care to promulgate throughout international society once Elizabeth proved herself to be their most formidable enemy.”

The timing of its publication was yesterday condemned by royal experts as the Queen held a service of remembrance on Friday for her mother to mark the 10th anniversary of her death.
Hugo Vickers, an historian who has written a biography of the Queen Mother, told the Daily Mail: “I do not think it very nice at all to be promulgating these kind of theories at this time.
“Lady Colin Campbell has been pushing this bizarre theory for some time in conversations etc. and I have to say I think it is complete nonsense.”

Royal author Michael Thornton added: “I utterly disbelieve this claim on her part. It is bound to distress the Queen.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... laims.html

 

[ramonmercado]

Another cookie story. Maybe the Queen Mum was really an Alien Cookie Monster Overlady.

 

[Mythopoeika]

This might explain why the Queen Mum was not simply called 'The Queen'.

 

[rynner2]

This might explain why the Queen Mum was not simply called 'The Queen'.

But she was, until Liz became Queen. Then she needed a new title.

 

[ramonmercado]

This might explain why the Queen Mum was not simply called 'The Queen'.

But she was, until Liz became Queen. Then she needed a new title.

Indeed. They couldn't just call her Queenie, that sounds like a cooks name.

 

[Gwenar]

I've been reading a book series by Steve Robinson. They're mystery/thrillers about genealogy set in the UK. They're good mysteries, although the second book is a little depressing because it involves American soldiers and Catholic work/slave houses.

My question is, how much would it matter to you if you found out that there had been a Whig plot to put the House of Hanover on the throne? What if there was a present day viable House of Stuart heir descended from Anne?

The first Hanover, George I, was 52nd in line to the throne and didn't speak English. That seems crazy to me, especially at a time when many still believed in the divine right of kings. The majority populace must have been strongly anti-Catholic or at least pro-protestant, to accept the Act of Settlement. They certainly weren't anti-German. I know there were Jacobites, but it seems to me they were viewed as crazies who couldn't get with the times.

I can't imagine that anyone believes in the divine right of kings these days. Do you see the throne and it's various extended positions/titles, as inherited "jobs", and who cares what happened 300 years ago? They seem to be diplomatic and charitable positions, with some right of say-so in relatively unimportant state matters.

 

[Cochise]

There is no viable Stuart heir. My father's family is allegedly descended from one of the Stuart women - illegitimately, of course. I'd did research into it once, the family connection is at least physically possible, but I didn't record the genealogy and I've forgotten all the details. It's via some lady who ended up in Austria or Switzerland or some such.

The legitimate line effectively finished within, IIRC, a generation of Bonnie Prince Charlie.

Of course there is a nominal Stuart heir, but his blood connection is thinner than Elizabeth 2nd's with the Saxons.

 

[ramonmercado]

There is no viable Stuart heir. My father's family is allegedly descended from one of the Stuart women - illegitimately, of course. I'd did research into it once, the family connection is at least physically possible, but I didn't record the genealogy and I've forgotten all the details. It's via some lady who ended up in Austria or Switzerland or some such.

The legitimate line effectively finished within, IIRC, a generation of Bonnie Prince Charlie.

Of course there is a nominal Stuart heir, but his blood connection is thinner than Elizabeth 2nd's with the Saxons.

Raise the Stuart Standard! I'll raise an Irish Army to support you!

 

[Cochise]

I doubt I'd do any better than the Bonnie one himself

 

[ramonmercado]

I doubt I'd do any better than the Bonnie one himself

We'll nae stop at Derby!

 

[Gwenar]

So... still strong feelings then? :lol:

A major plot point of the book was that the scandal could sway public opinion in the cause to end the monarchy, rather than replace the Windsors with a Stuart.

I just don't know how people feel in general about the monarchy today, and whether old scandals, or sketchy blood-lines, would really matter. The monarchy seems to be a strong institution, and the Hanovers seemed to do a good enough job, however they came to power.

In the US, we have a strong class and caste system, but we don't like to admit it. We have a kind of under-table nobility - old families who protect and promote their own. They don't get a state sponsored title and income, but they do have undue influence and have been known to get away with all sorts of crimes, including murder.

So, I understand to a certain degree that love/hate relationship with the power caste, but i don't how you feel about an official state sponsored institution and it's right to exist. Or, maybe you can't really talk about it because that would be treason? :shock:

 

[Peripart]

So, I understand to a certain degree that love/hate relationship with the power caste, but i don't how you feel about an official state sponsored institution and it's right to exist. Or, maybe you can't really talk about it because that would be treason? :shock:

I don't think that opinions about the Royal Family (there, I've given them capital letters, which should count in my favour in any treason trial...) here in the UK are necessarily related to feelings about a class system.

Personally, I quite like the history - and even a bit of the pageantry - surrounding the royals, although some of the seemingly-compulsory sycophancy surrounding their doings can be a bit tiresome. I like having the Queen as a figurehead (let's face it, there are plenty of republics whose president is no more than that), and there are a sufficient number of her family who represent the UK in a decent way that I'm generally in favour of the monarchy.

However, as far as a class system goes, I don't think it's any more real than it is in the US. Yes, there are haves and have-nots, and who you know can sometimes be as important as what you know, but I bet that's true of almost anywhere in the world.

Sorry, veering off topic a bit...

 

[Gwenar]

Thanks, Peripart, that's what I was wondering. So, even if some old scandal came out, people would be like "Thanks, but we'll keep what we've got. Wouldn't mind skipping Charles... but we'll make do."

That's interesting about class status, too. So, aside from notoriety, a person wouldn't have much to gain these days by pretending to be of royal blood. The doors to privilege would just as easily opened if you pretended to be the love child of Simon Cowell.

 

[Cochise]

I think you'll find there is the whole range of views on the Monarchy from unquestioning loyalty to abolish them tomorrow. Most people are somewhere in the middle, not as sycophantic as the media would have you believe but basically in favour. We do like a bit of pageantry over here - you should see the popularity of the Lord Mayor's show.

Poor old Charlie boy (the Bonnie one, not jugears) could have had Scotland no problem, and probably Ireland. He had no chance of holding Protestant England even if his armourer had brought the right size cannonballs. One should know when to stop.

As a consequence of the supposed family connection, one of my middle names is Charles. I have of course passed this on to my son who may forgive me in a decade or so.

 

[Spookdaddy]

We'll nae stop at Derby!

No-one ever does.

To be honest, I'd have been happier with a Chiricahua Apache than another bloody Stuart.

And they weren't - despite what years of propaganda, and rose-tinted myopia, might seem to indicate - terribly popular in Scotland either.

 

[Cochise]

Oh I don't know - neither of the Pretenders had much problem raising an army. Whether they would still have been popular after say a decade in charge is entirely different.

I personally wouldn't give you tuppence for my alleged Scottish ancestry - I think the idea is based in the same romance you mention. I was quite surprised to find out there was even a possible line of descent, which of course cannot be confirmed. But I did at least have ancestors in approximately the right place, so I suppose there is a tiny possibility that I have a smidgeon of Royal blood in there somewhere. Not that I care except as a historical curiosity.

 

[Gwenar]

I was quite surprised to find out there was even a possible line of descent, which of course cannot be confirmed.

It seems like it all could be solved with DNA. How hard would it be to prove you're descended from a particular Stuart? (I'm not a DNA expert)

On that topic, have the Royal Family put their DNA on file? It seems like that would potentially cause more embarrassment than making their wills public. I would think Robert Brown could easily prove it now if he was actually the son of Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend.

 

[Spookdaddy]

Oh I don't know - neither of the Pretenders had much problem raising an army. Whether they would still have been popular after say a decade in charge is entirely different...

Yes, when I said they weren't 'terribly' popular in Scotland, I should probably have said 'universally'.

Having said that, the Old Pretender's support base was relatively limited - and what he did have fizzled away quite quickly. (He wasn't around for the start, and only actually made it onto Scottish soil once most of the real action was over.)

Granted, his son certainly caused more of a stir, but even his support was not pan-Scottish in the way the subject is often touted - the Highland army did not represent all Highland clans, and was roundly hated in the Scottish lowlands.

As I pointed out on another thread some while back, 'Jacobite' and 'Scottish' are not synonymous - despite hundreds of years of propaganda from certain partisan interests engineered to make them so.

To quote Galton and Simpson:

James Robertson Justice: How dare you speak to the Young Pretender like that?

Tony Hancock: Pretender..? He's a flippin' liar!

(Also worth quoting another exchange from the same show, which could probably be applied to a lot of contested royal claimants and their supporters:

Am I to believe McHancock that you don't accept this man as being a Charlie?

No - but I think we are if you let him get away with it.)

 

[Cochise]

I was quite surprised to find out there was even a possible line of descent, which of course cannot be confirmed.

It seems like it all could be solved with DNA. How hard would it be to prove you're descended from a particular Stuart? (I'm not a DNA expert)

On that topic, have the Royal Family put their DNA on file? It seems like that would potentially cause more embarrassment than making their wills public. I would think Robert Brown could easily prove it now if he was actually the son of Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend.

That would take all the romance out of it

Which is all it is , really, romantic nonsense. Robert Louis Stevenson had it about right in 'Kidnapped' and 'Catriona'. (In which the Protestant/Hanoverians are 'modern' practical people, and the Jacobites colourful throwbacks, sometimes heroic, but ultimately incompetent,)

In truth, much of the history of the UK that people 'know' is 18th/19th century invention. Druids, and bards, King Arthur, and loads of other stuff is all fantasy.

 

[Gwenar]

In truth, much of the history of the UK that people 'know' is 18th/19th century invention. Druids, and bards, King Arthur, and loads of other stuff is all fantasy.

I guess it's true. Everyone knows about Henry the VIII and Queen Elizabeth of course, but that's about it. I had to explain who Richard III was to a friend recently and was surprised she didn't know. It's a famous Shakespeare play, the hump, the whole princes in the tower conspiracy... I thought his story was pretty mainstream, but apparently not.

For an adult, the real history is so much more interesting than tales of dragons and wizards. I've been reading a history of Charlemagne, and really love that whole post-Roman empire period, so I was happy to find the The History of England podcast by David Crowther. He focuses on the royal houses starting with Cerdic. That's some real gangster stuff.

I like that he veers off if there's an interesting side story, like some of the more famous vikings or leaders like Offa. He's got a real humorous way of presenting each story, too.

Sorry. Really going off topic here. Ancestry DNA testing is big business in the US, for obvious reasons. Maybe it is more fun to enjoy the family mythology than to confirm the reality, but it's not a mindset I can really relate to.

 

[rynner2]

Robert Louis Stevenson had it about right in 'Kidnapped' and 'Catriona'. (In which the Protestant/Hanoverians are 'modern' practical people, and the Jacobites colourful throwbacks, sometimes heroic, but ultimately incompetent,)

A good day to mention RLS:

Robert Louis Stevenson statue unveiled by Ian Rankin

The first outdoor statue of Robert Louis Stevenson in the city of of his birth has been unveiled by fellow Edinburgh author Ian Rankin.
The bronze statue stands in a small garden at Colinton Parish Church, which is said to have inspired Stevenson's "A Child's Garden of Verses".

...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24685842

 

[Cochise]

Maybe it is more fun to enjoy the family mythology than to confirm the reality, but it's not a mindset I can really relate to.

Well, there would be problems. First where is a genuine Stuart to get DNA to compare? Second, how many 'family shame' incidents are there? In any case, what really would be the point? If I go far enough back I'm bound to be related to some royalty somewhere! I personally don't think DNA matters all that much, upbringing and family ties are far more important.

Certainly one of my distant cousins has got himself into all sorts of trouble because he has uncovered several - what shall we say - deceptions while investigating the genealogy of the Welsh side of our family. Young sisters who are actually daughters of older sisters, children born within days of marriage, etc. This sort of thing was very common - far more so than anyone likes to publicly admit. Even cases of husbands who would accept their wife's little slip and bring up the child as part of the family were not so uncommon - not all males are the hypocritical monsters the feminists make them out to be.

These deceptions were usually practised for humane motives - to drag it all out in the open can be devastating especially for older family members.

Unless you are going to do DNA tests of all family members all the way back to Adam, they don't actually tell you all that much historically about individual lines of descent - the person you are comparing to may themselves be a cuckoo in the nest. Here in the UK there are now so many multi-parent families that I think the inclination is generally to leave well alone except in the case of legal dispute.

All this is why the insistence on a legitimate line of descent when considering royalty - descent is fraught with enough problems in apparently legitimate births to put acknowledged illegitimates right out of the picture.

 

[ramonmercado]

Cochise

We've taken Dublin Port and await your arrival. CoI & RC Archbishops and Arch Druid here waiting to crown you as Rightful King.

 

[Gwenar]

Those are all good points. It would be too big of a generalization to say that everyone feels the same way, but I do think there's a cultural difference in the way that people in the US view their origins as individuals. I could go on and on, but it may come down to the idea that a Horatio Alger street urchin is supposed to be good in spite of his mother, while Oliver Twist seemed to inherit his goodness from his mother.

And I love that line "The cuckoo in the nest." So true! You do need something to compare the DNA to, and if that ancestor was unofficially adopted... The biggest DNA testing companies in the US rely on people being honest about their family trees.

I wonder how many kings and queens were accused of being illegitimate? Because they didn't have DNA testing, it seems like that would have been one of the first slurs lobbed at the throne - that the real pretender was the one with crown.

 

[Cochise]

Cochise

We've taken Dublin Port and await your arrival. CoI & RC Archbishops and Arch Druid here waiting to crown you as Rightful King.

Well done those men. Excellent work.

So its safe to take the dress off now then?

http://ladybudd.com/2013/05/24/the-woma ... e-charlie/

 

[ramonmercado]

Cochise

We've taken Dublin Port and await your arrival. CoI & RC Archbishops and Arch Druid here waiting to crown you as Rightful King.

Well done those men. Excellent work.

So its safe to take the dress off now then?

http://ladybudd.com/2013/05/24/the-woma ... e-charlie/

We could always crown you as Queen.

 

[rynner2]

I wonder how many kings and queens were accused of being illegitimate? Because they didn't have DNA testing, it seems like that would have been one of the first slurs lobbed at the throne - that the real pretender was the one with crown.

One thing they had at one time, apparently, was that all the courtiers would witness the first night of a king bedding his new Queen! (Frankly, that would put me off my stroke - but they must have been made of sterner stuff in those days.)

And then, to prove that the Queen had been a virgin at this encounter, the blood-stained bed sheet would be displayed to the populace, to general joy and celebration.

(I say the blood-stained bed sheet was displayed, but in a Middle Ages version of Photo Shop, it may have sometimes been a blood-stained bed sheet... )

 

[Pete Younger]

And the blood stained bed sheet was attained by the use of a small sponge soaked in pigs blood.