Lit Apropos of Nothing - ACKBAR IN CAPITALS - The Lit Forum Social Thread, v2.0.15

Doesn't matter, the current royal family is descended from William I several times over, not just through Edward IV.

 

Yeah but if we want to go that way, they are also descended from Genghis Khan

 

And Muhammad, through a moorish princess, so I've heard.

... So what?

 

The question has been debated, but no conclusive proof has been offered, and short of having DNA tests run on the remains of Edward IV and Richard of York, there would be no other way to know. In any case, Gorefiend, Edward was descended from William I through both of his parents, as Cecily of York was the daughter of Joan Beaufort, the illegitimate daughter of Prince John of Gaunt, Edward III's fourth son. Edward IV is included as a member of the senior royal line of direct descent from William I to Elizabeth II, so even if he was not Richard of York's son, the direct line still would run through Edward III, John of Gaunt, Joan Beaufort, and Cecily to him and from him to Elizabeth.

AnakinFan, Here's a page that shows it all, if you're confused about the various relationships: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_the_Conqueror

The senior direct royal line is shown first and then it goes on to show other relations.

 

I know, I know, still fun to think that the actual King should be this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Abney-Hastings,_15th_Earl_of_Loudoun

 

WHat I really found interesting in that link I posted was that several Kings of England before William, including the man he defeated, Harold II, also passed on their bloodline to the later Kings.

 

Yeah we seem to only keep the royalty around for the sake of tourism anyway and of course so the Sun will always have something to write about.

 

I will never, ever understand this interest in royalty. Outside of Crusader Kings II, at least.

 

What you don't realise is that the royals are directly tied to the health of the land, and they secretly defend us all from the supernatural.

...

Or at least I like to think so.

 

No, you're thinking of Hellboy.

 

Hellboy isn't real, silly.

 

I know! I'm practically gagging from the pompousness of them from here

 

You think that picture's bad? If you could see their legs you'd realize they're standing on a carpet made of poor people.

 

The Capetian Kings actually had an unbroken line from father to eldest (surviving) son from 996, when Robert I succeeded his father, Hugh, until John I Posthumous died at the age of 5 days in 1316, so the French actually did better than the English for a while. It only took 34 years from William I's coronation to have a King succeeded by his brother rather than a son (William II and Henry I). Still, the UK is probably one of the oldest surviving monarchies left in the world.

This Regnal_number article has a rather interesting section on the British monarchs and how regnal numbers would be used for future rulers. After James I became King, he was known as James VI and I, but William IV was not called William III in Scotland.

 

So is like a quarter of Earth.

 

Being a United Statesican, I love that not only did the Founding Fathers originally plan to just pick someone to be King, there's a handful of "rightful heirs to the throne of America" that are running about on the Internet.

 

Which was the point of the comment

 

So this is just perfect