Many happy returns of the (yester)day

by Stephen Tall on April 22, 2006

A quick post, both to commemorate HM The Queen’s 80th birthday (belatedly), and also to test the human condition:

  • Here’s a link to some scandalous, unsourced Royal gossip; or
  • There’s this link to the BBC’s official ‘The Queen at 80’ site.

Your choice…

Enjoy reading this? Please like and share:

5 comments

What a curious position the gossip takes. All but one of the disputed paternities are of royals with royal mothers. So what does it matter, constitutionally speaking, who the father is?

In the case of Harry, a genetic test might be appropriate should he be in a position to succeed immediately to the throne.

by Joe Otten on April 22, 2006 at 11:56 am. Reply #

Joe, the reason it matters is that children whose biological parents were not married at the time of their birth are illegitimate and therefore cannot inherit. If Andrew and Edward are not actually the children of Philip, then they are ineligible for the throne.

Interestingly, Charles and William – the direct line – are not being disputed, which does make the line a lot safer than otherwise; if Andrew, Edward, Harry and Zara are removed, then the line of inheritance goes Charles-William-Anne-Peter and then, presuming the paternities of Princess Margaret’s children, Viscount Linley, Charles Armstrong-Jones, Margarita Armstrong-Jones, Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones, Samuel Chatto, Arthur Chatto (and then to the Gloucesters, then the Kents and their collaterals).

Given how dodgy Margaret’s marriage to Snowdon was, it’s wholly credible to argue that the next legitimate heir after Charles, William, Anne and Peter Phillips is the Duke of Gloucester. I’m removing thirteen people from the line to the throne to do that, six of whom are the descendants of Princess Margaret.

[Incidentally, I’ve read fiction involving King Alexander I – the current Earl of Ulster was the most senior royal not present at the Queen Mother’s funeral and this short story starts with a bomb there]

by Richard Gadsden on April 22, 2006 at 12:20 pm. Reply #

Typical Liberal, sitting on the fence 🙂

by Naughty Lobster on April 22, 2006 at 6:50 pm. Reply #

Is discrimination against illegitimate children still permitted under the Human Rights Act?

Frankly, if it came to a toss up between the Human Rights Act and one of the more laughable aspects of our constitution, I would support the Human Rights Act any day.

by Joe Otten on April 22, 2006 at 7:17 pm. Reply #

The day after Her Majesty’s birthday, Dr Who suggested the royal family were werewolves on prime time TV. I don’t think it’s half so offensive to call for DNA tests…

by Anonymous on April 24, 2006 at 9:57 am. Reply #

Leave your comment

Required.

Required. Not published.

If you have one.