The Sick Moon Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 cant understand the mentality of people who get upset about 2 people they don't know conceiving a child. Baffling. They're a convenient vehicle for bitter people with a chip on their shoulder, who feel they have been dealt a bum deal in life, to let off a little jealous steam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 I can't understand the mentality of people who get overjoyed about two people they don't know conceiving a child. Truly baffling! But we do know them. They're Kate and William of the House of Windsor (formerly the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha). William's family has been ruling Britain for a thousand years and their roots go back to at least the time of Charlemagne. So I think we do know the family by now! They're not just some random people. Also, they're likeable people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Not for 1000 years - wasn't it mad King George who was the first of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 They're part of a selective breeding programme to breed out those wing nut ears and big noses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Kissing cousins more like, they never marry outside the lineage. Look at the queen and phil, first cousins its all about the bloody line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Not for 1000 years - wasn't it mad King George who was the first of them? Queen Elizabeth II is indeed a DIRECT descendant of William I (AKA William the Conqueror) who reigned from 1066. You have to factor in sons and daughters who didn't inherit the throne who then had descendants who did inherit the throne, etc, etc. It's a direct line of biological descent, not a direct line of succession, if you catch my drift. Regarding "Mad King George" (George III), it did not begin with him at all. George I was the first of the House of Hanover. And, although German, he was the great-grandson (via his mother) of King James I (James VI of Scotland). George III (the mad one) was George I's grandson, and he in turn was the grandfather of Queen Victoria. Queen Victoria was Saxe-Coburg via her mother. It was Prince Albert who was Sax-Coburg Gotha, which is the proper name of the current House of Windsor. They changed it during the First World War as it was deemed too Germanic. Now, working backward from George I -- his great-grandfather, James I, was the son of Mary Queen of Scots, who was descended from the House of York, who were descended via one of Edward I's sons from the House of Plantagenet; then it connects back to William I via Henry II, via his mother, Queen Matilda, who was the daughter of Henry I, who was in turn the son of William I. So, contrary to popular belief, the Royal Family are as BRITISH as the hills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 I can't say I am overly bothered either way. I am sure as parents they are delighted and so will their family be. I heard Prince William on the news yesterday saying that he felt it was important for people to remain focused on the big issues of today and not get side tracked by the pregnancy. I was impressed with that as he came across as genuinely caring about his family but also making it clear that the world should have other priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 I was impressed with that as he came across as genuinely caring about his family but also making it clear that the world should have other priorities. Just a word of advice...if you're that easily impressed...keep away from anything shiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Not for 1000 years - wasn't it mad King George who was the first of them? Queen Elizabeth II is indeed a DIRECT descendant of William I (AKA William the Conqueror) who reigned from 1066. You have to factor in sons and daughters who didn't inherit the throne who then had descendants who did inherit the throne, etc, etc. It's a direct line of biological descent, not a direct line of succession, if you catch my drift. Regarding "Mad King George" (George III), it did not begin with him at all. George I was the first of the House of Hanover. And, although German, he was the great-grandson (via his mother) of King James I (James VI of Scotland). George III (the mad one) was George I's grandson, and he in turn was the grandfather of Queen Victoria. Queen Victoria was Saxe-Coburg via her mother. It was Prince Albert who was Sax-Coburg Gotha, which is the proper name of the current House of Windsor. They changed it during the First World War as it was deemed too Germanic. Now, working backward from George I -- his great-grandfather, James I, was the son of Mary Queen of Scots, who was descended from the House of York, who were descended via one of Edward I's sons from the House of Plantagenet; then it connects back to William I via Henry II, via his mother, Queen Matilda, who was the daughter of Henry I, who was in turn the son of William I. So, contrary to popular belief, the Royal Family are as BRITISH as the hills. French hills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Buckingham Palace Press release 9 September 2014: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11085691/Keep-the-Queen-out-of-the-Scottish-referendum-campaign-Buckingham-Palace-says.html A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “The sovereign’s constitutional impartiality is an established principle of our democracy and one which the Queen has demonstrated throughout her reign. “As such the monarch is above politics and those in political office have a duty to ensure this remains the case. “Any suggestion that the Queen would wish to influence the outcome of the current referendum campaign is categorically wrong. Her Majesty is simply of the view this is a matter for the people of Scotland.” The Queen is always on the side of the people who have to rub along with each other no matter what the politicians throw our way. God Save the Queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Not for 1000 years - wasn't it mad King George who was the first of them? Yes. That's interesting - just spent ages reading about it thanks to your post. Wikipedia is fantastic. So George III's mother was a Saxe-Gotha. And that Duchy became: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 I was impressed with that as he came across as genuinely caring about his family but also making it clear that the world should have other priorities. Just a word of advice...if you're that easily impressed...keep away from anything shiny. I know you like playing the grumpy old man but he could just have waffled on how wonderful it was, how he was excited about his second child and his concerns over the health of his wife. It may not have been much but I thought it showed a touch of humility in a world which is so obsessed with me! me! me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 I was impressed with that as he came across as genuinely caring about his family but also making it clear that the world should have other priorities. Just a word of advice...if you're that easily impressed...keep away from anything shiny. I know you like playing the grumpy old man but he could just have waffled on how wonderful it was, how he was excited about his second child and his concerns over the health of his wife. It may not have been much but I thought it showed a touch of humility in a world which is so obsessed with me! me! me! I don't think that many people are obsessed with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Buckingham Palace Press release 9 September 2014: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11085691/Keep-the-Queen-out-of-the-Scottish-referendum-campaign-Buckingham-Palace-says.html A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “The sovereign’s constitutional impartiality is an established principle of our democracy and one which the Queen has demonstrated throughout her reign. “As such the monarch is above politics and those in political office have a duty to ensure this remains the case. “Any suggestion that the Queen would wish to influence the outcome of the current referendum campaign is categorically wrong. Her Majesty is simply of the view this is a matter for the people of Scotland.” I'm not a monarchist, but that's quite a classy response from her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Another child? Isn't it about time they got married? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.