Would King Henry II’s children be considered legitimate

  • Thread starter Thread starter JacobHarrison
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
aussies love Harry,

Charlie is getting a bit of currency here too, he appeared on Master chef and did a tour of the place recently, remaining pleasant and polite in very hot weather. He also oversaw some public event, i can’t remember now which one that was. but it must have been significant to get royalty to over see it!
 
Charles is actually the only member of the family I’ve met, and I can’t say he seemed particularly impressed with the experience, but I’ve a lot of time for him. He does think, and he does try.
 
The act of settlement was made after parliament and William of Orange commited treachery overthrowing King James II. It barred Catholics from inheriting the throne. Soon after came the Jacobite cause supported by the Church to put the House of Stuart back on the throne.

However the Jacobite succession is one of the multiple alternate successions. For example, there is also the Yorkist succession, as well as an alternate succession I discovered, which depends on whether Henry II’s sons were legitimate which I am trying to figure out.

As for the House of Wessex, well the current English monarchs are descended from them as well as the House of Normandy, and remember that William the Conqueror rightfully gained his throne because of the sacred oath on holy relics that Harold Godwinson swore to support Williams claim to the throne. He thus got a Papal blessing for the invasion.
 
I propose that a secret organization infiltrates the US government, and then the US invades England to put the rightful heir on the throne.
 
Last edited:
Whether Wm I rightfully gained the throne is open to dispute. I suppose you’re not worried by his illegitimacy? And whatever oath Harold may have sworn (and this, too, is disputed) Harold had no right to dispose of the English throne: it was in the gift of the Witan, and after Hastings they chose Edgar, not Wm.
 
JacobHarrison said:
As for the House of Wessex, well the current English monarchs are descended from them as well as the House of Normandy.
Click to expand...
Indeed they are, through the daughter of St Margaret of Scotland — but only if Henry II’s sons were legitimate, so your problem is still there. Incidentally there is some evidence of a direct male heir to the House of Wessex somewhere in the North in the, I think, 13th Century. If I were you I’d look for him.
 
wait, you want usa to invade Uk and put on the heir that you believe is rightful?

what if that heir is very anti catholic
 
Roseeurekacross said:
wait, you want usa to invade Uk and put on the heir that you believe is rightful?

what if that heir is very anti catholic
Click to expand...
Perhaps the hope is he’ll follow Henry IV and say “Paris (as it were) is worth a mass” .

Although the other problem is I’m not sure the US is particularly keen on Catholic monarchies. Might be easier to infiltrate the UK government and hold a referendum. You can get a truly ridiculous result from a referendum, it seems.
 
maybe, for the OP the best way to usurp Betty Windsor would be an internal good old family usurping.

The scots are pretty quiet these days…and the Irish.
 
Yep, and there are plenty of Catholics in the Royal Family. Whether they’d be willing to take up arms I’m not sure.
 
PickyPicky said:
Yep, and there are plenty of Catholics in the Royal Family. Whether they’d be willing to take up arms I’m not sure.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. I think if the royals, regardless of religion, wanted to re-enact the War of the Roses in the 21st Century, the commoners would have them out on their royal keisters before tea time.

What skills do William and Harry and the rest have outside of being a royal? They need the gig, they aren’t going to risk it.
 
Your first paragraph is spot on.

Your second isn’t. I think we can be fairly sure the job they’ve been landed with is not one they would have sought (or that anyone with any sense would seek).

As to their employability, they’ve both proved that, Harry in some particularly dangerous circumstances.
 
The real rightful heir is this one:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Well his father did not have any other children, making him the Duke of Normandy. And yes while the Witan chose the King, Harold should have kept his oath, and instead of accepting the crown, should have promoted electing William.
 
Well since as I said in my previous comment, William rightfully gained his throne, the descent that matters is the line of primogeniture from William the Conqueror.
 
The true rightful heir lives in France so she is probably Catholic. The issue with infiltrating the U.K. government is that the Queen gives assent to laws, and she will never give assent to the changing of the monarchy.
 
Is the monarchy still there? Just send in th Australian liberal party
 
William only rightfully gained the throne if usurping the throne by conquest is rightful.

If usurping the throne by conquest is rightful, William III and Mary II rightfully gained the throne.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top