Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: King Wilhelm of the UK
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Louis Epstein
Jan 22, 2013, 4:01:34 PM1/22/13
to
hihgdm <hih...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21053919
>
> According to the above article which allegedly quotes Sir Peter Tapsell (who
> should know better), if the male primogeniture rule had not existed when
> Queen Victoria died, the Kaiser would have become "King of England" upon her
> death. Ignoring the usual descriptive mistake, how likely is this? If
> Princess Victoria had been heir to her mother, I don't think a marriage to
> an heir to the then Prussian throne could have happened, as, in theory,
> there would have ended up the King of Prussia (and afterwards Emperor of
> Germany) with the British-born Victoria as his consort, and a Queen Victoria
> with the Prussian/German Frederik as the Prince Consort. I think it is
> wildly improbable as the British government would never have allowed a
> British monarch to live in Prussia/Germany as consort to a German King, and
> I'm sure that the Prussian/German government would have been equally
> reluctant, so Kaiser Wilhelm would never have existed (and perhaps WWI would
> not have happened).
Be that as it may,love matches between holders of different sovereignties
ought to be seen as the only permissible path to European unity,and no
mere elected politicians should regard themselves as having the slightest
right to interfere.
> However, if it had happened, what an interesting slant that would have
> placed on world events. Would they have spent half the year in the UK and
> half in Germany? And if Kaiser Wilhelm was also King William of the UK,
> would he, wearing his German hat, have declared war on himself wearing his
> British hat? If he was as stupid as some histories paint him, perhaps so.
Not if they worked hard enough to shame the parochial interests out
of the uniting realms.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21053919
>
> According to the above article which allegedly quotes Sir Peter Tapsell (who
> should know better), if the male primogeniture rule had not existed when
> Queen Victoria died, the Kaiser would have become "King of England" upon her
> death. Ignoring the usual descriptive mistake, how likely is this? If
> Princess Victoria had been heir to her mother, I don't think a marriage to
> an heir to the then Prussian throne could have happened, as, in theory,
> there would have ended up the King of Prussia (and afterwards Emperor of
> Germany) with the British-born Victoria as his consort, and a Queen Victoria
> with the Prussian/German Frederik as the Prince Consort. I think it is
> wildly improbable as the British government would never have allowed a
> British monarch to live in Prussia/Germany as consort to a German King, and
> I'm sure that the Prussian/German government would have been equally
> reluctant, so Kaiser Wilhelm would never have existed (and perhaps WWI would
> not have happened).
Be that as it may,love matches between holders of different sovereignties
ought to be seen as the only permissible path to European unity,and no
mere elected politicians should regard themselves as having the slightest
right to interfere.
> However, if it had happened, what an interesting slant that would have
> placed on world events. Would they have spent half the year in the UK and
> half in Germany? And if Kaiser Wilhelm was also King William of the UK,
> would he, wearing his German hat, have declared war on himself wearing his
> British hat? If he was as stupid as some histories paint him, perhaps so.
Not if they worked hard enough to shame the parochial interests out
of the uniting realms.
hihgdm
Jan 22, 2013, 7:16:06 PM1/22/13
to
"Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:kdmune$jol$1...@reader1.panix.com...
-------------------------------------
One of the many problems with that scenario is the inalienable requirement
for monarchs to submit to the will of their respective subjects - the people
who permit them to stay on the throne - and if they don't toe the line then
they should get the royal boot. The point is that a monarch should only be
allowed to marry a particular person if that's what the country wants, and
what is the likelihood of a monarch falling in love with and wanting to
marry a monarch of another country if the people of either or both countries
don't approve, effectively rendering it impossible? (the word "heir" can be
substituted for the word "monarch" in the above scenario). Another more
basic issue is that European royalty is already too inter-bred and the more
"outside" blood that is introduced, the healthier they will become.
If European unity is what you're after, I could see a scenario where
European politicians are encouraged to shack up together. For example, how
productive would a Merkel-Hollande love match be? And imagine Italy telling
Berlusconi that he can revisit the prime ministership if, and only if, he
enters into a civil union with Elio di Rupo of Belgium. In fact, seeing
European unity is about as likely as seeing you dressed as the leather queen
from the Village People, chained to a float whilst belting out a medley of
Village People songs in the next NYC gay pride parade.
-------------------------------------
news:kdmune$jol$1...@reader1.panix.com...
One of the many problems with that scenario is the inalienable requirement
for monarchs to submit to the will of their respective subjects - the people
who permit them to stay on the throne - and if they don't toe the line then
they should get the royal boot. The point is that a monarch should only be
allowed to marry a particular person if that's what the country wants, and
what is the likelihood of a monarch falling in love with and wanting to
marry a monarch of another country if the people of either or both countries
don't approve, effectively rendering it impossible? (the word "heir" can be
substituted for the word "monarch" in the above scenario). Another more
basic issue is that European royalty is already too inter-bred and the more
"outside" blood that is introduced, the healthier they will become.
If European unity is what you're after, I could see a scenario where
European politicians are encouraged to shack up together. For example, how
productive would a Merkel-Hollande love match be? And imagine Italy telling
Berlusconi that he can revisit the prime ministership if, and only if, he
enters into a civil union with Elio di Rupo of Belgium. In fact, seeing
European unity is about as likely as seeing you dressed as the leather queen
from the Village People, chained to a float whilst belting out a medley of
Village People songs in the next NYC gay pride parade.
-------------------------------------
Louis Epstein
Jan 23, 2013, 12:59:24 PM1/23/13
to
> the people who permit them to stay on the throne -
from the consent
> and if they don't toe the line then they should get the royal boot.
but only the Monarch decides what SHOULD happen.
> The point is that a monarch should only be allowed to marry a
> particular person if that's what the country wants,
> and what is the likelihood of a monarch falling in love with and
> wanting to marry a monarch of another country if the people of either
> or both countries don't approve,
that they are not entitled to a say in the matter,there can
be practical problems,but the principles are inalterable.
> effectively rendering it impossible? (the word "heir" can be
> substituted for the word "monarch" in the above scenario). Another
> more basic issue is that European royalty is already too inter-bred
> and the more "outside" blood that is introduced, the healthier they
> will become.
royals...are you advocating bestiality as a health cure?
> If European unity is what you're after, I could see a scenario where
> European politicians are encouraged to shack up together.
or those the Monarch permits to elect them are the owners of
the power God gives only to Monarchs are never advisable.
> For example, how productive would a Merkel-Hollande love match be? And
> imagine Italy telling Berlusconi that he can revisit the prime
> ministership if, and only if, he enters into a civil union with Elio di
> Rupo of Belgium.
> In fact, seeing
> European unity is about as likely as seeing you dressed as the leather queen
> from the Village People, chained to a float whilst belting out a medley of
> Village People songs in the next NYC gay pride parade.
> -------------------------------------
>>> However, if it had happened, what an interesting slant that would have
>>> placed on world events. Would they have spent half the year in the UK
>>> and
>>> half in Germany? And if Kaiser Wilhelm was also King William of the UK,
>>> would he, wearing his German hat, have declared war on himself wearing
>>> his
>>> British hat? If he was as stupid as some histories paint him, perhaps
>>> so.
>>
>> Not if they worked hard enough to shame the parochial interests out
>> of the uniting realms.
>>
>
>
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
hihgdm
Jan 23, 2013, 5:23:22 PM1/23/13
to
"Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:kdp8ds$isj$2...@reader1.panix.com...
What does bestiality have to do with this discussion? I don't advocate it
under any circumstances so I'm at a loss to know what you are on about or
why you introduced it?
------------------------------------------
Louis Epstein
Jan 23, 2013, 7:15:14 PM1/23/13
to
In alt.talk.royalty hihgdm <hih...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
> news:kdp8ds$isj$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>> In alt.talk.royalty hihgdm <hih...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kdmune$jol$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>>>> hihgdm <hih...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21053919
>>>>>
>>>>> According to the above article which allegedly quotes Sir Peter
>>>>> Tapsell (who should know better), if the male primogeniture rule
>>>>> had not existed when Queen Victoria died, the Kaiser would have
>>>>> become "King of England" upon her death.
Actually,of course,he would have waited for the death of his mother,
> "Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
> news:kdp8ds$isj$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>> In alt.talk.royalty hihgdm <hih...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kdmune$jol$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>>>> hihgdm <hih...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21053919
>>>>>
>>>>> According to the above article which allegedly quotes Sir Peter
>>>>> Tapsell (who should know better), if the male primogeniture rule
>>>>> had not existed when Queen Victoria died, the Kaiser would have
>>>>> become "King of England" upon her death.
some months after the death of HER mother,before inheriting a British
throne of any description...thus having had both his parents precede
him on thrones for reigns measured in months.
nonsense.
As the late Wrei guy observed,historic European royalty can be viewed
as a distinct ethnic group now being interbred into extinction.
Chris Pitt Lewis
Jan 25, 2013, 10:33:55 AM1/25/13
to
In message <kdpuei$o8l$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Louis Epstein
<l...@main.put.com> writes
Hapsburgs, or do you mean losing their identity through exogamy? :-)
--
Chris Pitt Lewis
<l...@main.put.com> writes
>
>A reduction ad absurdum of your "the more outside blood the better"
>nonsense.
>
>As the late Wrei guy observed,historic European royalty can be viewed
>as a distinct ethnic group now being interbred into extinction.
>
Do you actually mean "interbred into extinction", like the Spanish
>A reduction ad absurdum of your "the more outside blood the better"
>nonsense.
>
>As the late Wrei guy observed,historic European royalty can be viewed
>as a distinct ethnic group now being interbred into extinction.
>
Hapsburgs, or do you mean losing their identity through exogamy? :-)
--
Chris Pitt Lewis
hihgdm
Jan 25, 2013, 11:12:03 AM1/25/13
to
"Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:kdpuei$o8l$1...@reader1.panix.com...
I think that what you actually meant, but would no doubt be loathe to admit
openly, is that for a so-called royal personage to marry (and presumably
have sex with) someone who isn't royal would be akin to having sex with an
animal. Nice. In that case, in your absurd fantasy monarchy, the monarch
wouldn't need to chop off the head of a recalcintrant subject - they could
simply order an injection to put them down, as happens with animals. So
much easier, and no mess.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Epstein
Jan 25, 2013, 12:59:33 PM1/25/13
to
InTERbred is NOT synonymous with "inbred",
which was the problem of the Spanish Hapsburgs.
The Horny Goat
Jan 27, 2013, 4:46:42 AM1/27/13
to
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:01:34 +0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
<l...@main.put.com> wrote:
>hihgdm <hih...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21053919
>>
>> According to the above article which allegedly quotes Sir Peter Tapsell (who
>> should know better), if the male primogeniture rule had not existed when
>> Queen Victoria died, the Kaiser would have become "King of England" upon her
>> death. Ignoring the usual descriptive mistake, how likely is this? If
>> Princess Victoria had been heir to her mother, I don't think a marriage to
>> an heir to the then Prussian throne could have happened, as, in theory,
>> there would have ended up the King of Prussia (and afterwards Emperor of
>> Germany) with the British-born Victoria as his consort, and a Queen Victoria
>> with the Prussian/German Frederik as the Prince Consort. I think it is
>> wildly improbable as the British government would never have allowed a
>> British monarch to live in Prussia/Germany as consort to a German King, and
>> I'm sure that the Prussian/German government would have been equally
>> reluctant, so Kaiser Wilhelm would never have existed (and perhaps WWI would
>> not have happened).
>
>Be that as it may,love matches between holders of different sovereignties
>ought to be seen as the only permissible path to European unity,and no
>mere elected politicians should regard themselves as having the slightest
>right to interfere.
Not to mention there's not a snowflake's chance in hell Princess
<l...@main.put.com> wrote:
>hihgdm <hih...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21053919
>>
>> According to the above article which allegedly quotes Sir Peter Tapsell (who
>> should know better), if the male primogeniture rule had not existed when
>> Queen Victoria died, the Kaiser would have become "King of England" upon her
>> death. Ignoring the usual descriptive mistake, how likely is this? If
>> Princess Victoria had been heir to her mother, I don't think a marriage to
>> an heir to the then Prussian throne could have happened, as, in theory,
>> there would have ended up the King of Prussia (and afterwards Emperor of
>> Germany) with the British-born Victoria as his consort, and a Queen Victoria
>> with the Prussian/German Frederik as the Prince Consort. I think it is
>> wildly improbable as the British government would never have allowed a
>> British monarch to live in Prussia/Germany as consort to a German King, and
>> I'm sure that the Prussian/German government would have been equally
>> reluctant, so Kaiser Wilhelm would never have existed (and perhaps WWI would
>> not have happened).
>
>Be that as it may,love matches between holders of different sovereignties
>ought to be seen as the only permissible path to European unity,and no
>mere elected politicians should regard themselves as having the slightest
>right to interfere.
Victoria would have been allowed to marry a non-Englishman (well OK
>maybe< she'd be allowed to marry a Scot or a Welshman but never ever
an Irishman!) had she in fact been the heir to the throne.
The Horny Goat
Jan 27, 2013, 4:49:56 AM1/27/13
to
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:59:24 +0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
<l...@main.put.com> wrote:
>> For example, how productive would a Merkel-Hollande love match be? And
>> imagine Italy telling Berlusconi that he can revisit the prime
>> ministership if, and only if, he enters into a civil union with Elio di
>> Rupo of Belgium.
>
>No,same-sex unions should lead to complete exclusion from public life.
Knowing Berlusconi I'm quite sure he would hold out for the former
<l...@main.put.com> wrote:
>> For example, how productive would a Merkel-Hollande love match be? And
>> imagine Italy telling Berlusconi that he can revisit the prime
>> ministership if, and only if, he enters into a civil union with Elio di
>> Rupo of Belgium.
>
>No,same-sex unions should lead to complete exclusion from public life.
Carla Bruni (aka Mme Sarcozy) who from his point of view has the
benefit of being Italian.
The idea of a Cameron-Merkel union would be positively scary but then
Mitterand - Thatcher probably would have brought about continent wide
apoplexy thus rendering the point moot.
Louis Epstein
Jan 27, 2013, 4:19:58 PM1/27/13
to
anything new.
The Horny Goat
Jan 28, 2013, 3:54:30 AM1/28/13
to
on the premise Edward IV had been proven illegitimate and thus not in
the rightful line of succession and working their way generation by
generation down to the present day as to who the rightful heir
'should' have been. It suggests the next heir would have been through
the Hastings family rather than the Tudors as the ranking Plantagenet
and that according to the rules of succession the King today would
have been an Englishman who emigrated to Australia in the 1960s.
All very interesting (particularly his great-grandmother's sister's
scandal involving Queen Victoria who had been a lady in waiting to
Victoria's mother) but not all that meaningful.
Again - had THAT been the royal line their marriages would have been
quite different too...
0 new messages