Queen Elizabeth II Is Not The Rightful Heir To The Throne

Back to the OP. I watched the vid and found it quite interesting, and the "King" had his own linage worked up which seemed to overlap perfectly with Robinson's timeline - at least as far back as Hanover's own did.

He looked like a very happy man, and I'm sorry that his mother and wife weren't alive to get the news (his mom had died the year before, and would have been Queen of England if the OP holds any credence).

Now the King himself has died, in 2012, and the new King is named and identified (not mentioned on this thread as yet). If anyone has any more information about him, that would be interesting as well.

This from the source of the poster who informed the thread that the King had died in '012. Simon Abney-Hastings would be 39 now, if he still lives:

The new potential heir to the throne, Simon Abney-Hastings, the 15th Earl of Loudon, is a 37-year-old bachelor who works for a fabrics company in the town of Wangaratta, about 140 miles from Melbourne. He said he was aware he was "possibly" the rightful king but would prefer not to take the throne.

Maybe if an ATS'er lives near King Simon (or wants to be his Queen), or cares for a drive, we can have a personal interview with the King. Maybe he'd join ATS, with an appropriate moniker and avatar, and talk about his family history with us.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg

I am convinced that Charles is going to be a total disaster as king. He's a meddler.

He may well be well intentioned, (I'm not too sure of that but I'll give him the benefit of doubt for now), but he is an oaf and as far removed from the realities and concerns of the ordinary, everyday people of this country as anyone could possibly be.

Charles has tried to influence government policy on far too many occasions.
If Charles continues to try to unduly influence or shape government policy when he eventually comes to the throne I suspect it could prove the death knell to the monarchy.

Whilst I ignore the presence of the current monarch, and at some times even enjoy the pomp, ceremony, heritage and occasional excuse for excessive drinking I would actively oppose any attempt by her or any of her successors to try and rule or dictate to me.

reply to post by HUMBLEONE

yet they supported a Spanish Queen and rejected Ann Boleyn, one of their own?

First of all; that was nearly 500 years ago.

Secondly; you do understand the massive difference between a Queen ruling in her own right and a Queen who marries a ruling King don't you?

Maybe if an ATS'er lives near him, or cares for a drive, we can have a personal interview with the King. Maybe he'd join ATS, with an appropriate moniker and avatar, and talk about his family history with us.

reply to post by Aleister


That's a great idea, it would be very interesting to see what he thinks.

Someone on here mentioned that the Queen is monarch due to an act of Parliament. It sound's like they tried to cover their ass due to the fact they where never eligible for the throne in the first place. If they where not eligible then the so called Divine right of Kings and Queens went out the window which begs the question why did the British people allow this. I mean they could have chosen Mrs Smith from Peckham, what difference would it have made?

Freeborn

There was nothing secretive or underhand and the Royal Family certainly haven't tried to 'actively hide their identity'.

Maybe, but I can't find one single instance where the mainstream media has even mentioned their true names.

I live in Canada where the Queen's influence is strong, and neither me nor any of my friends or teachers in high school knew what their last names were and i had to actively search for myself on the internet to find it, and this was in the early 2000's, it's wasn't as simple as it sounds. That alone should raise the question, it's actually quite an entertaining discussion at the dinner table if you ever bring it up, it brings a shock to many Canadians at least.

My knowledge is a bit off because its been over 10 years since I have researched it, but i did get an A in Modern Western Civilizations

DrunkYogi
the so called Divine right of Kings and Queens went out the window which begs the question why did the British people allow this. I mean they could have chosen Mrs Smith from Peckham, what difference would it have made?

Yes, "divine right of kings" was the innovation, historically speaking.
In the days when kings were first being made, Mrs. Smith from Peckham would have stood a chance if she had shown any previous prowess in leading fighters into battle against the enemy.
Then passing it from father to son became convenient(less trouble than fighting over it every time), and eventually the existing monarchies dreamed up "divine right" to bolster the claims of the dynasties which were in power at the time.
As soon as you start talking "rightful heir", you are falling for a propaganda line.
Come on- if you think there is a "right", where exactly do you think it came from? Where is the source?

reply to post by DrunkYogi


King Simon (heehee) wasn't married in 2012, so if he's still single, wouldn't it be a hoot if Katie's sister ran off and married him, dragged him back to England, and had a royal feud over the throne. Ha!

reply to post by DrunkYogi

.....then the so called Divine right of Kings and Queens went out the window

We fought a little matter called The English Civil War to establish the authority of Parliament over the monarchy.

You do know the difference between a Constitutional Monarchy and an Absolute Monarchy don't you?

If not I'm amazed someone is trying to pass comment on something they so obviously know absolutely nothing about.

I mean they could have chosen Mrs Smith from Peckham, what difference would it have made?

Exactly my point - they are an irrelevance.

reply to post by Konduit

Maybe, but I can't find one single instance where the mainstream media has even mentioned their true names.

They are always called Windsor in UK media - that's because it is their 'true' name, that's been explained several times now.

Even the most simplest level of research / reading etc on their lineage will show they were once called Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, its never been supressed.
Maybe it hasn't been reported in Canada because its completely irrelevant to the here and now.

Mountain out of mole hill really springs to mind.

Freeborn

They are always called Windsor in UK media - that's because it is their 'true' names, that's been explained several times now.

House of Windsor

I guess i can make up any name i want for myself, at any time, and just consider it to be my 'true' name.

Hence forth, I shall be known as... Boo Boo Kitty Rainbow Force. All I got to do now is bribe the MSM to promote it and people will forget eventually...

Konduit
I guess i can make up any name i want for myself, at any time, and just consider it to be my 'true' name.

Yes, you can. There is a legal procedure which gives you that option.
The name-change to Windsor was similarly done in legal form, as a public announcement.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Maybe the Royal's should have took the title of the original House of Wettin that they belonged too... but they couldn't do that in Britain, now could they?

So just make a new one and people might believe they are actually British. Problem solved.

reply to post by Konduit

I guess i can make up any name i want for myself, at any time, and just consider it to be my 'true' name.

Don't know about Canada or anywhere else but you sure can here in the UK.
You can change your name by deed poll to anything and that then becomes your legal name - quite a few people do it.
I think there's a clause that it can't be anything offensive but anything goes.
I have a mate who is legally known as Jungle - on his credit cards, bills, voting card, everything official he is only named as that.

Think it must be the same elsewhere, how many 'celebrities' change their name....Prince was once legally known as some sort of sign wasn't he?

Its simply the Royal equivalent of that - and the reasoning behind the name change was always common knowledge, no suppression, no conspiracy.

reply to post by Freeborn


If Charlie Manson legally changed his name to Richard Geer, i'm pretty sure everyone would still know that he is in fact Charlie Manson. I guess you need to be Royalty for it to work on the public the way you intend it to.

reply to post by Konduit

So just make a new one and people might believe they are actually british.

As I said before.....Germans who have been here over 300 years aren't British but Mr Khan, Mr Singh and Mr Whateveryoucallhimovich down the road have only been here 1 generation but they are British?

How many Americans, Canadians etc changed their names over the years - lots!
But I guess that's different is it?

Like I said, mountain out of mole hill.

Konduit

Freeborn

There was nothing secretive or underhand and the Royal Family certainly haven't tried to 'actively hide their identity'.

Maybe, but I can't find one single instance where the mainstream media has even mentioned their true names.

I live in Canada where the Queen's influence is strong, and neither me nor any of my friends or teachers in high school knew what their last names were and i had to actively search for myself on the internet to find it, and this was in the early 2000's, it's wasn't as simple as it sounds. That alone should raise the question, it's actually quite an entertaining discussion at the dinner table if you ever bring it up, it brings a shock to many Canadians at least.

My knowledge is a bit off because its been over 10 years since I have researched it, but i did get an A in Modern Western Civilizations

edit on 12-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)

I've got to say then that it's your education that is off. I only did history at secondary school (this was in the early 80's, I can't comment on the current curriculum, and that is in England, no idea what the education system in Canada covers and to what depth) and I knew this then. The reasons for the name change are quite clear and make perfect sense.

I think your point might be more about 'pop culture' and how people don't take an interest in things, but then again, I'm not sure if that's such a big deal really - to say the current Royal Family is German is a joke - I was born and raised in England but had/have English, Polish and Irish grandparents - I'm still English.

reply to post by Freeborn


The difference is Mr Khan and Mr Singh from down the road didn't change their names to hide their origins. We clearly know that they aren't inherently British, and they aren't claiming to be. Now, if they changed their names, moved into a palace and began speaking with a british accent then people might start raising questions.

There's also a difference between being a regular citizen and being a monarch over an entire nation. Mr Khan isn't lording over you and influencing policy in your nation.

Hmmm interesting.
I didn't really need a family tree search to find the queen has no right to be a ruler. None of them do. I don't care who they are. I wouldn't be surprised if more of them are illegitimate. It's not uncommon for fathers to be misled. It's not like they had DNA testing done. Even if they did they wouldn't admit to it. They're just people. Nobody special. I wouldn't bow down to her. She can bow down to me. It's high time this outdated hierarchy was abolished. It belongs in children's books, fairy tales. I cannot believe it's been allowed to carry on this long. Or that people actually give a rats ass about their stupid weddings.

Konduit
reply to post by Freeborn

 

If Charlie Manson legally changed his name to Richard Geer, i'm pretty sure everyone would still know that he is in fact Charlie Manson. I guess you need to be Royalty for it to work on the public the way you intend it to.

edit on 12-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)

If Charles Manson changed his name to Richard Gere (I assume that's what you meant?), then yes, you would reasonably expect people to add 'formally known as Charles Manson' after his name for clarification so people don't assume a news report is about a film star rather than a murderer who has changed his name. As others have already pointed out though, most countries (I guess even Canada!) have the equivalent of a deed poll to change your name I don't see what the big deal is - and I'm not even sure of the relevance.

I can't remember one instance in particular where the monarch has been reported in press, literature or TV by their forename and surname apart from the obvious of birth, marriage or death. Typically it's Prince William, the Duke of Edinburgh, Queen Elizabeth II etc, so unless you have a particular interest it's not something you'd tend to think about too much.

Konduit
reply to post by Freeborn

 

The difference is Mr Khan and Mr Singh from down the road didn't change their names to hide their origins. We clearly know that they aren't inherently British, and they aren't claiming to be. Now, if they changed their names, moved into a palace and began speaking with a british accent then people might start raising questions.

Woah, now you are starting to show something - why are they not inherently British if in the example Freeborn gave, they were born in Britain? Why wouldn't they speak with a regional accent if they were born and raised in Britain? Why should they have a reason to change their names - they weren't the monarchy at a time when we were at war with the nation their family was historically associated with.

reply to post by Konduit


Many people change their names for various reasons - that the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha did so in order to show their allegiance to the UK rather than Germany is well known by nearly every single Briton who cares to look at such things.
Its never been hidden.
Why do you insist it is, or was, despite being informed by many that you are wrong?

Why is it such an issue to YOU?