View previous topic | View next topic

Phew - no Dutchie on the British Throne

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

djgordy
902074.  Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:58 am Reply with quote

I couldn't help thinking that she can't have had much faith to begin with if she's willing to change it on the slight chance that she might be married to the future King of Canada?

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?

 
exnihilo
902098.  Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:24 am Reply with quote

Oceans Edge wrote:
Basic rule of thumb on European royalty - everyone is everyone's first or second cousin - thanks largely to Victoria and Albert being so .. prolific. Nine children were an awful lot of progeny to marry off to other royal families.


To be fair they're actually mostly second, third, or further cousins as it's not, in fact, 1914 any more. Also, many of them are as much descended from Christian IX of Denmark as from Victoria and his descendants occupy more extant thrones than do hers.

All of which being said, there were plenty of towns and villages all over the country a hundred years ago where practically everyone would be a second or third cousin of practically everyone else, it's not so very strange when one thinks about it that people will tend to marry within the group of people they know.

 
mckeonj
902103.  Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:26 am Reply with quote

It was said of somewhere: 50,000 inhabitants, only six surnames.

 
suze
902135.  Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:13 pm Reply with quote

djgordy wrote:
I couldn't help thinking that she can't have had much faith to begin with if she's willing to change it on the slight chance that she might be married to the future King of Canada?


I can't help agreeing with you there. I'm not deeply religious by any stretch of the imagination, but if I'd been told that I had to ditch Rome and embrace Canterbury before I could marry, then I'd have found myself a different boyfriend.

What's more, Canada wouldn't even care. The Canadian courts always fudge the issue when it comes before them - as it has done on several occasions - but the bar on RCs is almost certainly incompatible with the Canadian Constitution.

Within the UK, one of the sovereign's titles is "Defender of the Faith". Since it has no state religion, Australia has ditched that part of the Royal title, as have all of the other Realms bar Canada and New Zealand.

Canada has no state religion either, but came up with a ruse to retain "Defender of the Faith" in the 50s. The PM at the time was a Roman Catholic French-Irish Canadian called Louis St-Laurent, and he decided to retain the wording, but to interpret it as though the definite article were not present. New Zealand too manages without a state religion; I'm not quite sure how it justifies "Defender of the Faith".

 
djgordy
902189.  Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:09 pm Reply with quote

exnihilo wrote:


All of which being said, there were plenty of towns and villages all over the country a hundred years ago where practically everyone would be a second or third cousin of practically everyone else, it's not so very strange when one thinks about it that people will tend to marry within the group of people they know.


The words "Tennessee" and "Norfolk" come to mind.

 
gerontius grumpus
902191.  Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:31 pm Reply with quote

Of course when the title defender of the faith was originally granted to an English monarch, it was for defending Roman Catholicism against protestant and reformist tendencies.

 
Starfish13
902204.  Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:34 pm Reply with quote

'yorz wrote:
Wiki wrote:
Peter Phillips holds no royal title or style and is currently 11th in the line of succession to the thrones of the 16 Commonwealth realms.


Why on earth would his wife change religious colour?! He's 11th in line for heaven's sake. Is Mr Peter planning a bloody coup or sommat?


It would have put Mr and Mrs Tindall one step closer if Mrs Phillips hadn't converted, and that would have been cool. Mike Tindall would look great on a postage stamp.

 
'yorz
902205.  Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:41 pm Reply with quote

Would they have to include dwarfs as well?

 
Celebaelin
902312.  Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:20 am Reply with quote

Starfish13 wrote:
Mike Tindall would look great on a postage stamp.

^)

 
Oceans Edge
902339.  Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:32 am Reply with quote

I suspect it was largely an appearance and appeasement thing - rather than any practical considerations for his place in line.

Many people have over the years converted religions for the sake of their partner. To appease the family, to hold with tradition, etc., etc.

exnihilo wrote:
To be fair they're actually mostly second, third, or further cousins as it's not, in fact, 1914 any more. Also, many of them are as much descended from Christian IX of Denmark as from Victoria and his descendants occupy more extant thrones than do hers.

All of which being said, there were plenty of towns and villages all over the country a hundred years ago where practically everyone would be a second or third cousin of practically everyone else, it's not so very strange when one thinks about it that people will tend to marry within the group of people they know.


Indeed, I was being deliberately glib. I doubt I'm going to count extant thrones and trace lineages - better than I have already done so I'm sure. I think we can fairly safely say that all of the Royal houses of Europe contain genetic material and linkages to both lines.

I forget off the top of my head which episode it was now where in Stephen pointed out that go far enough back we're all related to Genghis Khan (or some such) ... just simply based on the far narrower ancestral tree.

 
mckeonj
902399.  Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:44 am Reply with quote

Also, in the same episode, that we all have less great-grandparents than we should have.

 
Chowchilla
903956.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:15 am Reply with quote

Oceans Edge wrote:

I forget off the top of my head which episode it was now where in Stephen pointed out that go far enough back we're all related to Genghis Khan (or some such) ... just simply based on the far narrower ancestral tree.

It was Charlemagne: the reasoning being that any individual who lived just over 1000 years ago and had a lot of children is likely to be 'everybody's daddy' as Sean Lock put it, of Europeans alive today.


In the same bit, Stephen Fry stated that everyone would have billions of ancestors if you went back to that same period by simple arithmetic, doubling the number of your ancestors every generation. You don't have to go back far before you get 'billions'; more than the number of people that would have actually been alive just over 1000 years ago. So this clearly implies that many of us would be descended from the likes of Charlemagne, and other randy buggers along many lines of descent, not just one!

 
Jenny
904000.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:59 am Reply with quote

mckeonj wrote:
Also, in the same episode, that we all have less great-grandparents than we should have.


Fewer!

 
Sadurian Mike
904037.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:00 pm Reply with quote

I have less grandparent as my Grandmother is shrinking.

 
Celebaelin
904057.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:53 pm Reply with quote

Oceans Edge wrote:
I forget off the top of my head which episode it was now where in Stephen pointed out that go far enough back we're all related to Genghis Khan (or some such) ... just simply based on the far narrower ancestral tree.

Greats (G10).

The one with the Giant Tortoises - it's on Dave right now (well, technically it's a commercial break right now).

 

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group