How royal are the royals?

[original PM]

If all these nobles got what they own by force, can I punch the Duke of Northumberland on the sneck and claim Alnwick castle as my new abode?

You can try - but when he turns up with his army you are probably fooked

Fact is I would much prefer the Queen etc represent the UK abroad over any politician from any party

[GlenW]

If all these nobles got what they own by force, can I punch the Duke of Northumberland on the sneck and claim Alnwick castle as my new abode?

[TykeMerc]

The Royals were always just the leaders of the biggest local gang, just time and expansions of territory made it an institution. Conquest shifted the crown about loads of times in history so the genetics are interesting, not important.

Personally I prefer a monarch to the alternative, if we had a President position we would have that lying scum B'liar (and his cronies and colleagues) in the position at some point.

[SueEllen]

Royals, why?

An anachronism and time the parasites were gone.

The alternative looks worse. Though they need to cull their numbers.

[Scruff]

Accident of birth is totally anachronistic 👑

[Cliphead]

Royals, why?

An anachronism and time the parasites were gone.

[Paddy]

No it doesn't.

What the DNA shows is that the Tudors might not have had a genuine claim to the throne, and if people had realised that at the time, Henry might not have been able to raise an army to defeat Richard III. Even then, though, his "claim" was disputed because the Yorkist claim was always stronger. The Tudors came to power by force and marriage.

The current royal family have a direct line from the Georgians, who were Protestant and close enough to Elizabeth I to have a claim on the throne - there were many more legitimate claimants but they were Catholic so ruled out. At that stage, though, the monarchy wasn't strictly hereditary - Mary I was chosen by her brother, and she chose Elizabeth on condition that she rules as a Catholic (which she obviously didn't do).

No-one has every really disputed that Richard had a stronger claim to the throne than Henry, but he lost the Battle of Bosworth, died and Henry took the throne.

Queen Victoria claimed she was Jewish and a decendant of Moses.

[SueEllen]

=

No-one has every really disputed that Richard had a stronger claim to the throne than Henry, but he lost the Battle of Bosworth, died and Henry took the throne.

This is the important bit.

[TheFaQQer]

Richard III DNA shows British Royal family may not have royal bloodline - Telegraph

No it doesn't.

What the DNA shows is that the Tudors might not have had a genuine claim to the throne, and if people had realised that at the time, Henry might not have been able to raise an army to defeat Richard III. Even then, though, his "claim" was disputed because the Yorkist claim was always stronger. The Tudors came to power by force and marriage.

The current royal family have a direct line from the Georgians, who were Protestant and close enough to Elizabeth I to have a claim on the throne - there were many more legitimate claimants but they were Catholic so ruled out. At that stage, though, the monarchy wasn't strictly hereditary - Mary I was chosen by her brother, and she chose Elizabeth on condition that she rules as a Catholic (which she obviously didn't do).

No-one has every really disputed that Richard had a stronger claim to the throne than Henry, but he lost the Battle of Bosworth, died and Henry took the throne.

[TheFaQQer]

"he brainier than Prince William anyway"

[BrilloPad]

Richard III DNA shows British Royal family may not have royal bloodline - Telegraph