• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Royal Pretenders

Those difficult decisions in full:

"If the King says brown is red, who are we to disagree?"

"I fear the happy event will be delayed again." :(
 
Queen intervenes to settle title feud opening way to title pretenders
The Queen has intervened to settle a feud between two families over the inheritence of a prestigious title
By Gregory Walton
5:25PM BST 11 Oct 2015

DNA evidence could be used for the first time to resolve a feud over a hereditary title after the Queen personally intervened in the case.
The dispute was triggered when an amateur genealogist revealed that a distinguished baronet came from a different bloodline to his relatives, suggesting there may have been an illegitimate child in a previous generation.
The two rival branches of the family have since spent thousands of pounds on a legal battle to prove which is the true line.

Peerage authorities have been called upon to determine if genetic material could be used to determine who should inherit the Pringle of Stichill baronetcy.

The Queen herself referred the case to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The little-known court of top judges will rule on whether DNA evidence can lawfully be used to settle the issue of the hereditary title.
If approved, the use of DNA evidence in cases relating to hereditary titles could have far reaching consequences if 'pretenders' with genetic evidence of their birth right begin to emerge.

It would set an important precedent meaning that any similar cases of claims to titles could be resolved with DNA testing.
Charles Kidd, editor of Debrett’s Peerage and Baronetage, told the Mail on Sunday: "I think it’s inevitable that DNA will become a factor in these sorts of disputes."
One peer has already warned that the case could open "a can of worms".
It is not clear what other ongoing cases could ultimately be resolved in this way.

The Pringle of Stichill baronetcy dates back to 1683.
The most recent baronet, Sir Steuart Pringle, was the Commandant General of the Royal Marines during the Falklands War and survived an IRA car bomb.
On his death in 2013, it was expected his eldest son Simon, 56 an insurer from Sussex would become the 11th baronet.
But Murray Pringle, 74, an accountant from High Wycombe hasd claimed that he is the true heir.

DNA samples he provided for a Clan Pringle project revealed the 10th baronet was not genetically related to his cousins and the wider Pringle family, but that Murray is descended from a legitimate branch of the family.

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...tle-feud-opening-way-to-title-pretenders.html
 
Won't that put the Queen's own position as regent in jeopardy?
 
Mythopoeika said:
Won't that put the Queen's own position as regent in jeopardy?
Click to expand...
Don't understand your question. Most online dictionaries agree with Wiki in defining Regent thusly:

A regent (from the Latin regens,[1] "[one] ruling"[2]) is "a person appointed to administer a state because the monarch is a minor, is absent or is incapacitated."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent

But the Queen is the Monarch - she's not a stand-in or placeholder for someone else.
 
rynner2 said:
Don't understand your question. Most online dictionaries agree with Wiki in defining Regent thusly:

A regent (from the Latin regens,[1] "[one] ruling"[2]) is "a person appointed to administer a state because the monarch is a minor, is absent or is incapacitated."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent

But the Queen is the Monarch - she's not a stand-in or placeholder for someone else.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I was appalled at Myth's slight to HM.
 
Tsk!
If you look at Royal lineage, there may be other people who have more of a claim to the throne.
I believe there's somebody in Australia who may be a candidate for that.
Sorry, perhaps I used the wrong word - 'monarch' would have been better.
 
Swifty said:
I agree although he does have smashing teeth and is a good dancer ... I'll see how this one pans out ..
Click to expand...
I did that 'Huh?' because your reply was a bit of a non-sequitur. You might care to explain what you meant...

By the way, I have 'OK' teeth and I'm crap at dancing. :D
 
Mythopoeika said:
I did that 'Huh?' because your reply was a bit of a non-sequitur. You might care to explain what you meant...

By the way, I have 'OK' teeth and I'm crap at dancing. :D
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation :) ... I've got partly crap teeth at the moment but I can still dance. A bit.

edit: I don know who HM is so if I've said something crap then ignore it ...
 
Last edited:

  1. This judgment was handed down in open court


    Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division :
  2. [2017] EWHC 494 (Fam). This application is dated 20 March 2017 and was received by the court on 23 March 2017.

  3. This application, like the previous one, seeks "To apply to unseal the will of the late Princess Margaret." The only difference is that, on this occasion, the application which, like the previous one, I am invited to deal with "without a hearing" is accompanied by a closely-spaced one page statement by the applicant dated 20 March 2017 and a copy of a death certificate of a woman, who was born in 1904 and died in 1997 and who, according to the applicant, was "my late Aunt."

  4. I do not propose to set out the entire contents of the applicant's statement. Its flavour can be judged by the opening part (again I set it out as written):


    "I MISS MALIKA BENMUSA, am the last child of the late princess Margret … I was born in Scotland. My mother married my father a year before I was born, then separated, but never divorced. I do not wish to give out my father id as he is a very well know. […] My mother was very frightened of her so called family, and felt I needed protection. I am the heir to the throne of England. This is why so much trouble has been taken to cover up my identity. I believe between the age of three years old I was raised by my mother older sister, not known to the public, due to my grandparents' not been married, and because of the war at the time. When I was three years old I believe my mother was frightened by her own family member to give me up for adoption, my mother did not consent to this. They frightened her saying that she was a drunk and my father was a drug addict. And my mother was told to remove me from the care of her older sister who real name was [name as on death certificate] […] Last address was before she passed [address as on death certificate]. The Kings Georges oldest daughter."
    In charity to the applicant I quote no more.
  5. The application is self-evidently complete nonsense It is a matter of public record, of which I can take judicial notice, that the father of her late Royal Highness Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, was his late Majesty King George VI, who was born on 14 December 1895, and that her mother was her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, who was born on 4 August 1900. They married on 26 April 1923. Quite obviously a woman born in 1904 could not have been, as the applicant asserts, her mother's elder sister if, as she also asserts, her mother was HRH Princess Margaret. I have no hesitation in concluding that I should strike out the applicant's claim, as I do. It is a farrago of delusional nonsense.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/785.html
 
ramonmercado said:

  1. This judgment was handed down in open court


    Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division :
  2. [2017] EWHC 494 (Fam). This application is dated 20 March 2017 and was received by the court on 23 March 2017.

  3. This application, like the previous one, seeks "To apply to unseal the will of the late Princess Margaret." The only difference is that, on this occasion, the application which, like the previous one, I am invited to deal with "without a hearing" is accompanied by a closely-spaced one page statement by the applicant dated 20 March 2017 and a copy of a death certificate of a woman, who was born in 1904 and died in 1997 and who, according to the applicant, was "my late Aunt."

  4. I do not propose to set out the entire contents of the applicant's statement. Its flavour can be judged by the opening part (again I set it out as written):


    "I MISS MALIKA BENMUSA, am the last child of the late princess Margret … I was born in Scotland. My mother married my father a year before I was born, then separated, but never divorced. I do not wish to give out my father id as he is a very well know. […] My mother was very frightened of her so called family, and felt I needed protection. I am the heir to the throne of England. This is why so much trouble has been taken to cover up my identity. I believe between the age of three years old I was raised by my mother older sister, not known to the public, due to my grandparents' not been married, and because of the war at the time. When I was three years old I believe my mother was frightened by her own family member to give me up for adoption, my mother did not consent to this. They frightened her saying that she was a drunk and my father was a drug addict. And my mother was told to remove me from the care of her older sister who real name was [name as on death certificate] […] Last address was before she passed [address as on death certificate]. The Kings Georges oldest daughter."
    In charity to the applicant I quote no more.
  5. The application is self-evidently complete nonsense It is a matter of public record, of which I can take judicial notice, that the father of her late Royal Highness Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, was his late Majesty King George VI, who was born on 14 December 1895, and that her mother was her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, who was born on 4 August 1900. They married on 26 April 1923. Quite obviously a woman born in 1904 could not have been, as the applicant asserts, her mother's elder sister if, as she also asserts, her mother was HRH Princess Margaret. I have no hesitation in concluding that I should strike out the applicant's claim, as I do. It is a farrago of delusional nonsense.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/785.html
Click to expand...
Just to remind everybody, dick head Danny Dyer is actually connected to the Royal blood line .. just sayin' .. geeza .. so is also entitled ..

DANNY-DYER-facebook.jpg
 
What did Charlie look like? Nae as bonnie as we thought.

The new look of Charles Edward Stuart as a young man is based on forensic studies of his death masks.

We see a 3D bust of a pale man with strawberry blond hair. The bust is in a museum.

The latest reconstruction of the face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is based on analyses of his death masks and forensic techniques. (Image credit: Barbora Veselá/University of Dundee)

Scientists have reconstructed the face of "Bonnie Prince Charlie" — the disinherited pretender to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland who in 1745 led an ill-fated rebellion of Scots and other supporters against the united British crown.

Stories of the prince, whose real name was Charles Edward Stuart, have become legendary, especially in Scotland, and he's a major character in the time-traveling TV series "Outlander."

Now, a three-dimensional model of how the prince looked during the rebellion has been unveiled at the University of Dundee in Scotland. It's based on the work of Barbora Veselá, a master's student at the university's Centre for Anatomy and Human Identification, who analyzed the prince's facial structure from his death masks.


The latest depiction may be slightly at odds with depictions of the "bonnie" prince — a Scottish appellation meaning "handsome" — who looked dashing and regal in contemporary portraits.

Those portrayals may have been intentionally flattering; in contrast, the intent of the reconstruction was to show Bonnie Prince Charlie "as a person, stripping off the layers of royalty and leaving him plain, showing him as a human being," Veselá told Live Science.

However, it's curious that the new reconstruction doesn't look much like those portraits, which tended to resemble one another, historians told Live Science.

The reconstruction is intended to show Bonnie Prince Charlie as he looked at the time of the Jacobite Uprising in 1745, when he was about 25 years old.


The reconstruction is intended to show Bonnie Prince Charlie as he looked at the time of the Jacobite Uprising in 1745, when he was about 25 years old. (Image credit: Barbora Veselá/University of Dundee)

https://www.livescience.com/archaeo...ttish-clan-uprising-against-the-british-crown

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top