20th Century The Windsor Dynasty - making the wrong decision to appear "Impartial"

[Pessimistic]

Theres been a few docos and docudramas on foxtel, Netflix etc about the windsors and the queen.

If they are to be believed, the monarch of the time was persuaded by advisors to treat their own family appallingly.

Example 1. King George wanted to give his cousin (a close friend) asylum in the Russian revolution. His instincts told him it was the right thing. Advisors said he risked enraging republicans in britain (as if they cared about them) and he decided not to, The kaiser and his family were executed by a mob. British public opinion was not impressed.

Ill bypass the Edward and Mrs Simpson episode because he basically did himself in, but royal advisore reacted with zeal in future - also advising his brother and hsi niece to treat him as badly as possible, cheered on by elizabth the queen mother)

Example 2. Queen Elizabeth and Princess Margaret with Peter Townsend. her instincts were to allow it subject to protocol, but they kept on, margaret was denied and had a subsequent apallingly unsuccesful marriage. Public opinion was not impressed

This one has been repeated with Charles and Camilla, and probably several others we dont know of. It sounds like William and Kate had to endure because of "advice"

I'm suggesting the various advisors were probably a bit twisted and must have ejoyed seeing their 'masters; squirm now and again. They probably had to deny their own family lives to take up the position.
Im suggesting that in many cases, the Monarch may have made the wrong decision just to appear to be 'impartial'

But I suppose not too many people care.

 

[Roylion]

Theres been a few docos and docudramas on foxtel, Netflix etc about the windsors and the queen.

If they are to be believed, the monarch of the time was persuaded by advisors to treat their own family appallingly.

Example 1. King George wanted to give his cousin (a close friend) asylum in the Russian revolution. His instincts told him it was the right thing. Advisors said he risked enraging republicans in britain (as if they cared about them) and he decided not to, The kaiser and his family were executed by a mob. British public opinion was not impressed.

The Czar/Tsar. The Kaiser was another cousin.

On hearing the Czar had abdicated King George V sent a telegram on March 19, 1917 that read: "Events of last week have deeply distressed me. My thoughts are constantly with you and I shall always remain your true and devoted friend, as you know I have been in the past"

This message was telegraphed by the War Office to Major-General Sir John Hanbury Williams, British Military Representative at Russian Headquarters. It arrived after the Tsar had been placed under arrest. Sir John therefore repeated the King's telegram to Sir George Buchanan, British Ambassador at Petrograd, who handed it to Miliukov, Foreign Minister in the Provisional Government, with the request that it might be forwarded to the Tsar. The next day M. Miliukov sent for Sir George Buchanan and in-formed him that he thought it better not to send on the telegram as it 'might be misinterpreted and used as an argument in favour of (the Tsar's) detention.

This quite small incident rendered it evident that any efforts the King could make to assist Tsar Nicholas might, unless cautiously handled, embarrass the moderate elements in the Russian Provisional Government and even be mis-interpreted at home.

On March 30 George V instructed Lord Stamfordham to write to the Foreign Secretary:

"The King has been thinking much about the Government's proposal that the Emperor Nicholas and his family should come to England. As you are doubtless aware, the King has a strong personal friendship for the Emperor and therefore would be glad to do anything to help Him in this crisis. But His Majesty cannot help doubting not only on account of the dangers of the voyage, but on general grounds of expediency, whether it is advisable that the Imperial Family should take up their residence in this country. The King would be glad if you would consult the Prime Minister, as His Majesty understands that no definite decision has yet been come to on the subject by the Russian Government."

By April 1917, the suggestion that the Tsar and his family should be given asylum in this country had become publicly known. Much indignation was expressed in left-wing circles and the King, who was unjustly supposed to be the originator of the proposal, received many abusive letters. Sir George Buchanan, moreover, pointed out that the presence of the Imperial family in England would assuredly be exploited to our detriment by the extremists as well as by the German agents in Russia. The King felt that these disadvantages had not been sufficiently considered by the Government. On April 10, he instructed Lord Stamfordham again to suggest to the Prime Minister that, since public opinion was evidently opposed to the proposal, the Russian Government might be informed that His Majesty's Government felt obliged to withdraw the consent which they had previously given.

The French Minister of War was asked whether the French Government would give the Russian Royal Family asylum in France. He replied in the affirmative and a telegram was thus sent to Sir George Buchanan (the British ambassdor) instructing him to place this alternative suggestion before Miliukov (the Foreign Minister in the Provisional Government).

Source: Harold Nicolson, King George the Fifth: His Life and Reign (1953)

Example 2. Queen Elizabeth and Princess Margaret with Peter Townsend. her instincts were to allow it subject to protocol, but they kept on, margaret was denied and had a subsequent appallingly unsuccesful marriage. Public opinion was not impressed.

The British Cabinet refused to approve the marriage. The Queen was told that the Dominion prime ministers were unanimously against the marriage and that Parliament would not approve a marriage that would be unrecognised by the Church of England unless Margaret renounced her rights to the throne. The PM Anthony Eden drew up a plan in 1955 under which Princess Margaret would have been able to marry Townsend by removing Margaret and any children from the marriage out of the line of succession. Margaret would be allowed to keep her royal title and her civil list allowance, stay in the country and even continue with her public duties. However Margaret herself decided it was too much and on 31st October 1955 announced "But mindful of the Church's teachings that Christian marriage is indissoluble, and conscious of my duty to the Commonwealth, I have resolved to put these considerations before others. I have reached this decision entirely alone..."

Source: Christopher Warwick, Princess Margaret: A Life of Contrasts (2002)

 

[Pessimistic]

The Czar/Tsar. The Kaiser was another cousin.

On hearing the Czar had abdicated King George V sent a telegram on March 19, 1917 that read: "Events of last week have deeply distressed me. My thoughts are constantly with you and I shall always remain your true and devoted friend, as you know I have been in the past"

This message was telegraphed by the War Office to Major-General Sir John Hanbury Williams, British Military Representative at Russian Headquarters. It arrived after the Tsar had been placed under arrest. Sir John therefore repeated the King's telegram to Sir George Buchanan, British Ambassador at Petrograd, who handed it to Miliukov, Foreign Minister in the Provisional Government, with the request that it might be forwarded to the Tsar. The next day M. Miliukov sent for Sir George Buchanan and in-formed him that he thought it better not to send on the telegram as it 'might be misinterpreted and used as an argument in favour of (the Tsar's) detention.

This quite small incident rendered it evident that any efforts the King could make to assist Tsar Nicholas might, unless cautiously handled, embarrass the moderate elements in the Russian Provisional Government and even be mis-interpreted at home.

On March 30 George V instructed Lord Stamfordham to write to the Foreign Secretary:

"The King has been thinking much about the Government's proposal that the Emperor Nicholas and his family should come to England. As you are doubtless aware, the King has a strong personal friendship for the Emperor and therefore would be glad to do anything to help Him in this crisis. But His Majesty cannot help doubting not only on account of the dangers of the voyage, but on general grounds of expediency, whether it is advisable that the Imperial Family should take up their residence in this country. The King would be glad if you would consult the Prime Minister, as His Majesty understands that no definite decision has yet been come to on the subject by the Russian Government."

By April 1917, the suggestion that the Tsar and his family should be given asylum in this country had become publicly known. Much indignation was expressed in left-wing circles and the King, who was unjustly supposed to be the originator of the proposal, received many abusive letters. Sir George Buchanan, moreover, pointed out that the presence of the Imperial family in England would assuredly be exploited to our detriment by the extremists as well as by the German agents in Russia. The King felt that these disadvantages had not been sufficiently considered by the Government. On April 10, he instructed Lord Stamfordham again to suggest to the Prime Minister that, since public opinion was evidently opposed to the proposal, the Russian Government might be informed that His Majesty's Government felt obliged to withdraw the consent which they had previously given.

The French Minister of War was asked whether the French Government would give the Russian Royal Family asylum in France. He replied in the affirmative and a telegram was thus sent to Sir George Buchanan (the British ambassdor) instructing him to place this alternative suggestion before Miliukov (the Foreign Minister in the Provisional Government).

Source: Harold Nicolson, King George the Fifth: His Life and Reign (1953)



The British Cabinet refused to approve the marriage. The Queen was told that the Dominion prime ministers were unanimously against the marriage and that Parliament would not approve a marriage that would be unrecognised by the Church of England unless Margaret renounced her rights to the throne. The PM Anthony Eden drew up a plan in 1955 under which Princess Margaret would have been able to marry Townsend by removing Margaret and any children from the marriage out of the line of succession. Margaret would be allowed to keep her royal title and her civil list allowance, stay in the country and even continue with her public duties. However Margaret herself decided it was too much and on 31st October 1955 announced "But mindful of the Church's teachings that Christian marriage is indissoluble, and conscious of my duty to the Commonwealth, I have resolved to put these considerations before others. I have reached this decision entirely alone..."

Source: Christopher Warwick, Princess Margaret: A Life of Contrasts (2002)

Sorry tsar

 

[skilts]

Sorry tsar

Methinks your apology has fallen on deaf ears. The otherwise unknown depths of yet another historic period and series of events, brought to you by that ill-informed bludger, Roylion.

 

[MaddAdam]

What about the disabled kid they locked in a cupboard up at Balmoral and never spoke of again?

Screw them, bring out la guillotine.

 

[Pessimistic]

Inbreeding

You occasionally get a great one. Like now

The cycle is like after q Victoria there a succession of screw ups

Looks remarkably like the ones which will follow qe2

 

[MaddAdam]

I would prefer more fishing accidents to befall them, like with Mountbatten.

 

[Roylion]

What about the disabled kid they locked in a cupboard up at Balmoral and never spoke of again?

"Locked in a cupboard." Really?

And which "disabled kid" would this be? Are you referring to John, the youngest son of King George V who died at the age of 13 at Sandringham in 1919 and who suffered from epilepsy and possible autism?

 

[Roylion]

Inbreeding

And how 'inbred' are the current royal family?

 

[MaddAdam]

"Locked in a cupboard." Really?

And which "disabled kid" would this be? Are you referring to John, the youngest son of King George V who died at the age of 13 at Sandringham in 1919 and who suffered from epilepsy and possible autism?

Yes, the one they called an "animal" and hoped and prayed would die as soon as possible.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-described-disabled-brother-as-an-animal.html

As I said, there's two good options for the Windsors:

Guillotine or firing squad.

 

[Pessimistic]

And how 'inbred' are the current royal family?

Different today. They certainly knew how to breed back then

Also you can see why they were so ambivalent over royals who were so weak as to marry 'for love'

 

[Roylion]

Yes, the one they called an "animal" and hoped and prayed would die as soon as possible.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/11692636/Edward-VIII-described-disabled-brother-as-an-animal.html.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-described-disabled-brother-as-an-animal.html
"They"? I only read "Edward Prince of Wales". Later Edward VIII. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-described-disabled-brother-as-an-animal.html

And where was the "cupboard"?

 

[MaddAdam]

"They"? I only read "Edward Prince of Wales". Later Edward VIII.

And where was the "cupboard"?

The cupboard is a figure of speech.

 

[Roylion]

Different today. They certainly knew how to breed back then

Queen Victoria married her first cousin.
King Edward VII married his third cousin once removed (effectively fourth cousin)
King George V married his second cousin once removed (effectively third cousin - common ancestor was George III)
King George VI married his thirteenth cousin (their common ancestor was King Henry VII (r. 1485 -1507)
Queen Elizabeth II married her second cousin once removed (effectively third cousin)
Prince Charles married his seventh cousin (Diana) once removed. (Camilla is his 9th cousin (one removed)
Prince William married his eleventh cousin once removed.

In some countries it is illegal to marry your first cousin, but marrying your first cousin in Australia is legal.

Some communities in Australia have a much higher rate of first cousins marrying than others, believing there are cultural, extended family, social, religious and financial benefits in the practice.

 

[Roylion]

The cupboard is a figure of speech.

Really? I'm shocked. So your cupboard was a negative exaggeration and wasn't accurate at all.

Now who exactly are we talking about in regards to "they"?

 

[Pessimistic]

Queen Victoria married her first cousin.
King Edward VII married his third cousin once removed (effectively fourth cousin)
King George V married his second cousin once removed (effectively third cousin - common ancestor was George III)
King George VI married his thirteenth cousin (their common ancestor was King Henry VII (r. 1485 -1507)
Queen Elizabeth II married her second cousin once removed (effectively third cousin)
Prince Charles married his seventh cousin (Diana) once removed. (Camilla is his 9th cousin (one removed)
Prince William married his eleventh cousin once removed.

In some countries it is illegal to marry your first cousin, but marrying your first cousin in Australia is legal.

Some communities in Australia have a much higher rate of first cousins marrying than others, believing there are cultural, extended family, social, religious and financial benefits in the practice.

So what number in line for the throne are you Roylion Fitzroy?

What you said above is not so bad in itself, but if all those others had the same degree of inbreeding, the shared genes a few generations ago is very cosy to say the least

PS never knew the relationship between William and Kate. Its closest through Diana's line

Common ancestors:

• They both descend from King Edward III through his sons, Lionel of Antwerp's, daughter Philippa of Clarence and through another son's, John of Gaunt, daughter Joan Beaufort.[12] Shared medieval ancestors (between Diana and Catherine) include Margaret Percy (great granddaughter of Joan Beaufort and 2x great granddaughter of Philippa of Clarence) and Sir William Gascoigne (2x great grandson of Joan Beaufort).
• Diana and Catherine also share a number of other common ancestors including: Sir William Blakiston, Anne Gascoigne (daughter of Margaret Percy and William Gascoigne) and her husband, Sir Thomas Fairfax.

fairfax was 1400s so plausible You and I could be as closely related, but chances are neither of us can name an ancestor with a birth year starting with 16 never mind 14

 

[Roylion]

So what number in line for the throne are you Roylion Fitzroy?

I have medieval Scottish royalty as ancestors, so there would be hundreds of thousands of people, if not more, in front of me for the throne of the United Kingdom.

What you said above is not so bad in itself, but if all those others had the same degree of inbreeding, the shared genes a few generations ago is very cosy to say the least

But what point are you trying to make? Cousin marriage is prevalent in a number of societies around the world and at various times in history. United States before 1880, Ancient Rome, medieval Europe, ancient China, some regions of modern India, the Middle East to this day, particularly in Islamic countries. Certain Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia have rates of marriage to first or second cousins that may exceed 70%. Iraq was estimated in one study to have a rate of 33% and figures for Afghanistan have been estimated in the range of 30–40%.

An estimated 35–50% of all sub-Saharan African populations either prefer or accept cousin marriages.

Slightly over 10% of all marriages worldwide are estimated to be between second cousins or closer.

 

[MaddAdam]

I have medieval Scottish royalty as ancestors, so there would be hundreds of thousands of people, if not more, in front of me for the throne of the United Kingdom.

Which Scottish royalty?

 

[Roylion]

The royal house of Stewart.

 

[Pessimistic]

I have medieval Scottish royalty as ancestors, so there would be hundreds of thousands of people, if not more, in front of me for the throne of the United Kingdom.



But what point are you trying to make? Cousin marriage is prevalent in a number of societies around the world and at various times in history. United States before 1880, Ancient Rome, medieval Europe, ancient China, some regions of modern India, the Middle East to this day, particularly in Islamic countries. Certain Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia have rates of marriage to first or second cousins that may exceed 70%. Iraq was estimated in one study to have a rate of 33% and figures for Afghanistan have been estimated in the range of 30–40%.

An estimated 35–50% of all sub-Saharan African populations either prefer or accept cousin marriages.

Slightly over 10% of all marriages worldwide are estimated to be between second cousins or closer.

yeah I have great grang parent who lived in a hillside village in yorksire with a Viking name where its known in living memory that youths were strongly encouraged to marry within. Of course this broke down after the war and the place would now have plenty of comers in because rising property values would have priced people out.

It cam home to me whan I saw a School photo c 1900 and tried to determine which one looked like an ancestor whom I knew as likely to be in the photo. most of them looked like the ancestor!

 

[MaddAdam]

The royal house of Stewart.

Why do you toady up to the Germans in London then?

 

[Roylion]

Why do you toady up to the Germans in London then?

What's with the obsession about the part Germanic descent of the British Royal Family?

The Queen, her children and grand-children are no more than half German by descent.

Of the Queen's eight great grandparents, three were German (Edward VII, Francis Duke of Teck and Mary Adelaide of Hanover), one was Danish, (Alexandra of Denmark), one was Scottish (Claude Bowes-Lyon Earl of Strathmore) and three were Anglo-Scot (Frances Smith of Blendon Hall, Charles Cavendish-Bentick and Carolina Burnaby of Baggrave Hall). So the Queen has just over 37% Germanic descent and 50% Anglo-Celtic descent.

Prince Charles is slightly more German (50%), through his father Prince Philip. Charles' grandparents were King George VI, Elizabeth Bowes Lyons, Prince Andrew of Greece (a Dane) and Alice of Battenberg. Prince Charles' great-grandparents consist of a Dane, 2 Anglo-Celts, four Germans and a Russian.

Prince William's great-grandparents consist of two Germans (George VI of England and Alice of Battenberg) one Dane (Prince Andrew of Greece) and six Anglo-Celts (Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the 7th Earl Spencer, Lady Cynthia Elinor Hamilton, Edmund Maurice Burke Roche, 4th Baron Fermoy and Ruth Gill) In fact William can trace his line of descent from a number of famous Anglo-Norman lines including the Spencers, the Howards, the Dudleys, the Devereuxs, the Staffords, the Percys and so on. William is also descended from a number of Anglo-Celtic clans such as the Campbells, the Hamiltons, the Douglases, the Murrays and so on.

 

[MaddAdam]

Why do you toady up to these scum regardless of their heritage?

Have some bloody dignity.

 

[Roylion]

Why do you toady up to these scum regardless of their heritage?

I'll ask again. What's the obsession with the part Germanic descent of the British Royal Family? Why is it a big deal for you?

Have some bloody dignity.

About what? The current British Royal family is descended from the Stewarts as well. In multiple lines of descent. And?

 

[M Malice]

the idea of genetic power/status in todays society is a throwback to medieval times and shows off our minion tendencies. couldn't care less about the personalities involved, it is time we out grew the whole concept of royalty.

i'm sure the tabloid newspapers, womens magazines and the tripe they serve up in the MSM TV current affairs and news these days will find other things to fill in the "feel good" portions of their content.