PDA

View Full Version : King and Queen of Scotland



Angel
11-Aug-08, 22:34
Who if anyone would be the King and of Queen of Scotland if history had not stopped them?

A curious Angel

unicorn
11-Aug-08, 22:35
I have often wondered that too, good question :D

joxville
11-Aug-08, 22:36
I'm ready and waiting to claim my rightful place as King of Scotland.:cool:

joxville
11-Aug-08, 22:54
I'm now trying to decide which lucky lady shall be my Queen.:cool:

unicorn
11-Aug-08, 22:59
ok just found this on wiki so could be wrong :lol:

If Scotland were to become independent it would probably be in the form of a republic. Scottish Kings did rule over the whole of Britain (the Stuart line) so the current Royal family in Britain would still be the rightful heirs to the Scottish throne

Sapphire2803
11-Aug-08, 23:01
Apparently this chappie (http://www.scotlandroyalty.org/) reckons it's him

TBH
11-Aug-08, 23:05
Why would an independent Scotland need to have these parasites?
The monarchy belongs in the past and if Scotland regains it's independence then that is where it should stay.

teenybash
11-Aug-08, 23:29
The Earl of Eligin, the 37th chief of the clan Bruce, descendant of Robert the Bruce......................

Rheghead
11-Aug-08, 23:41
Why would an independent Scotland need to have these parasites?
The monarchy belongs in the past and if Scotland regains it's independence then that is where it should stay.

In a new republican and independent Scotland, is that what Holyrood should present to the public as acceptable education of Scotland's long historical links with the monarchy?:confused

parasites?

And who will be the Head of State? President Salmond? Emperor Swinney?

And what sort of ex-officio privileges will they be entitled to? How much will that cost us? The cost burden will be distributed amongst a population of 5 million rather than 60 million as it is now.

TBH
11-Aug-08, 23:48
In a new republican and independent Scotland, is that what Holyrood should present to the public as acceptable education of Scotland's long historical links with the monarchy?:confused

parasites? tyranny?I never mentioned Tyranny although if you want to throw that into the equation then it is quite relevant to the history of the monarchy and the term 'Parasite', I thought was quite apt even in this modern age.

Rheghead
11-Aug-08, 23:49
I left tyranny out, I realised it was innappropriate in this modern era.

TBH
12-Aug-08, 01:24
In a new republican and independent Scotland, is that what Holyrood should present to the public as acceptable education of Scotland's long historical links with the monarchy?:confused

parasites?

And who will be the Head of State? President Salmond? Emperor Swinney?

And what sort of ex-officio privileges will they be entitled to? How much will that cost us? The cost burden will be distributed amongst a population of 5 million rather than 60 million as it is now.Why should having Alex Salmond as our head of state cost any more than it already does and as for 'President Salmond, Emperor Swinney', do I detect a wee hint of sarcasm in there?

oldmarine
12-Aug-08, 03:38
Some good answers here. Enjoyed reading all of them.

Bad Manners
12-Aug-08, 09:21
hi i am a ex member of HM Armed Forces. The HM stands for his/her majestys armed forces when i signed on it was to serve queen and country. i'm not that old as to have served for king and country.

If scotland were to become independant there is no reason we cannot have the queen as our monarch as well. it would just mean we would be in charge of our own affairs.
the monarch is also good for business especially with overseas and is certainly good for tourism.

I do not think we should ever go down the route of having a president or emperor they would only be normal people thrust into a powerful position and as we all know power corrupts.

Rheghead
12-Aug-08, 11:40
Why should having Alex Salmond as our head of state cost any more than it already does?

Because they will become the Head of state which requires all the trappings of status, protection and security etc. The money for that won't grow on trees. We already have a Queen of Scotland which is funded by Westminster which costs less to the Scottish people than if a Head of State were wholly funded by Scottish taxpayers.

I don't think we are so naive to think that an independent Scottish Head of State woukl be content to live in modest accomodation...:roll:

Given that the MSPs approved the funding of a £440 million building, they haven't yet proved themselves to be trusted to mmake the big financial decisions.

rich
12-Aug-08, 16:32
Let's begin at the English court in the late 16th century. Elizabeth, the virgin queen, marries the Earl of Essex.
Essex is the virile handsome guy who defeated the Irish and thus won the acclaim of the English. Elizabeth swiftly produces a male heir - Henry IX.
That knocks James VI of Scotland out of the running for the English throne.
James then proposes an alliance with the French because he fears his tiny kingdom becoming Presbyterian.
The result is Scotland's incorporation with France.
What this means for the future is that the British Empire never happens. Because there are no energetic Scots to make it happen. Likewise for the Industrial Revolution.
Instead there is a huge French Empire that includes North America and most of Asia.This Empire is dependent on windmills, sailing ships and crossbows.
The all-embracing French Empire collapses as a resurgent China and India overwhelm the Europeans.
And that is the end of European and American power....
(Oh, lest I forget, a marriage is arranged between Scotland and one of the minor offspring of the Chinese royal family - the Maid of China. She perishes in a storm in the Pentland Firth. Scotland turns into a chillier Burma as the Scottish army (Presbyterian) clamps down.
So that's it folk. Enjoy the history you have - it could all be an awful lot worse...

rich
12-Aug-08, 17:03
Annie Oakley, the amazing marksman (marksperson?) was touring Europe with a Wild West Show. She claimed - or it was proclaimed on her behalf - that she could shoot the ash off a cigarette from the lips of the smoker.
The Show was in Berlin and Kaiser Wilhelm 2 was in the audience. When Oakley asked for a volunteer, up popped the Kaiser.
She could have blown his brains out thus preventing the First World War. This was a likely outcome because she was nursing a monster hangover. But she made the shot and hit the ash. Too bad!

teenybash
12-Aug-08, 23:01
:cool:Scotland has such a chequered history when it comes Monarchy.
Dynasties came and went died out or died without issue.
Even Bonnie Prince Charlie, the romantic figure that still fascinates, was not a Scot but, was born in Italy......it is said he had many illegitimate children and some of the claims are really quite pathetic.
To discover bloodines to the Scottish throne would be nigh impossible and maybe we should settle with the present Royal Family, who despite some who would see them ousted, still do a great job in promoting Scotland.

joxville
12-Aug-08, 23:25
I'm still willing to wear the Crown of Scotland. I'll promote it at every chance and won't charge much either. :D

sprint95m
12-Aug-08, 23:35
Scottish Kings did rule over the whole of Britain (the Stuart line) so the current Royal family in Britain would still be the rightful heirs to the Scottish throne

The current Royal family have nothing to do with the Stuart line. The last Stuart king was James VII & II. He was forced to flee for his life/abdicated, depending on how you view it, in the late seventeenth century.
What followed were various Protestant monarchs from The Netherlands and then Germany. (Remember, it was only after The Great War that the Royal family changed their names from German to something more English sounding. George V, Kaiser Wilheim (Germany) and Tsar Nicholas II (Russian Empire) were all first cousins.)
Being Catholics, the Stuarts are now barred from the British throne.

JamesMcVean
13-Aug-08, 00:36
If you read Genesis of the Grail Kings by Laurence Gardner...He claims that Prince Michael of Albany is the rightful king of Britain, descended from the Stuarts...A Very Interesting Book indeed!!!!!

Rheghead
13-Aug-08, 11:00
The current Royal family have nothing to do with the Stuart line.

I disagree, George I of Hannover was a direct descendent of James VI of Scotland.

Oh and King Arthur is lying sleeping under the mountains of Wales and waiting to rule over the whole of Britain. No need to wake him up though.

Welcomefamily
13-Aug-08, 12:03
I disagree, George I of Hannover was a direct descendent of James VI of Scotland.

Oh and King Arthur is lying sleeping under the mountains of Wales and waiting to rule over the whole of Britain. No need to wake him up though.

I thought King Arthur was burried in Glastonbury (Avalon), a few miles west of Cadbury, I believe this is now the case however he was very much involved in Welsh and Cornish history. However Dumnonia once covered Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Dorset and Wales. cc400

http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/archaeology/cadbury.html
http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/legends/arthurs_avalon.html

Welcomefamily
13-Aug-08, 12:07
I'm still willing to wear the Crown of Scotland. I'll promote it at every chance and won't charge much either. :D

How would you like to be addressed in future? if you are prepared to do it for free than you have my vote.

router
13-Aug-08, 12:24
hi i am a ex member of HM Armed Forces. The HM stands for his/her majestys armed forces when i signed on it was to serve queen and country. i'm not that old as to have served for king and country.

If scotland were to become independant there is no reason we cannot have the queen as our monarch as well. it would just mean we would be in charge of our own affairs.
the monarch is also good for business especially with overseas and is certainly good for tourism.

I do not think we should ever go down the route of having a president or emperor they would only be normal people thrust into a powerful position and as we all know power corrupts.
why have an english monarchy,it's bad enough that a lot of scottish afairs are still governed by an english parliament.these lot(monarchy) get freedom of this that and the next place and they are probably just as open to corruption,like all the rest who sold the scots out for their own selfish needs,the land grabbers and estate owners.
a democratically elected president and a free scotland would suit me fine.

teenybash
13-Aug-08, 13:22
I'm ready and waiting to claim my rightful place as King of Scotland.:cool:

A Coronation date needs to be set, a crown needs to be found and a cermony organized to take place in Org Cathedral.
Do you prefer a simple crowning or an elaborate ritual......should hymns of religion be sang or music of the day............
People of The Org unite....We have found a King !!!!!!!! :Razz

sprint95m
13-Aug-08, 13:47
I disagree, George I of Hannover was a direct descendent of James VI of Scotland.

It is true that the Hanoverians were distant relatives and therefore descendants, it is not very relevant when you look at the large number of other possible heirs, all much closer to the Stuart line, who were barred because of their religion.


To go further back in English history, shouldn't the Royal line followed the Plantagenant line? A point not lost on Queen Victoria......
If it had followed the Plantagenant line there would have been no Tudor monarchs and therefore James VI would not have become James I of England.


Looking at this stuff opens many "tins of worms".................

rich
13-Aug-08, 14:51
Speculate on this:
What would have happened if the Scots had lost the Battle of Bannockburn?
What would have happened if Bonnie Prince Charlie had won the Battle of Culloden?
What would have happened if Wellington had lost at Waterloo?

Rheghead
13-Aug-08, 15:05
It is true that the Hanoverians were distant relatives and therefore descendants, it is not very relevant when you look at the large number of other possible heirs, all much closer to the Stuart line, who were barred because of their religion.


A bit more than 'nothing' then.

It is very relevent when there were laws to prevent the other 50+ candidates from being chosen because of their religion. There is more to the right of Kings than just birthright. There is also political and military might and popular support to consider. Britain was not to come out of all that religious bloodshed just to put an unpopular catholic King on the throne, how much more bloodshed would that have caused? Mary I and James II were lessons that had been learnt. You have to appreciate that having another religion was not the same as it is now. It meant a great deal more back then.

router
13-Aug-08, 16:31
Free Scotland and Bill Fernie as president :)

Chobbersjnr
13-Aug-08, 16:47
Debatable if the Stuart line should ever have been Kings in Scotland. Bruce's(de Brus, a Norman with a celtic grandmother) daughter and Walter, High Steward of Scotland( also Norman) marry and their children inherit the throne won by Robert in battle. Rather weak link to the Scottish Royal house which died with Alexander(?) in Fife.

joxville
13-Aug-08, 16:51
How would you like to be addressed in future? if you are prepared to do it for free than you have my vote.

Address me as King Jox, however I will want to be paid. Perhaps a few Johnstons bridies and pies each month and a modest Ford Mondeo as my official car. Oh, and a house overlooking the sea as my official residence.


A Coronation date needs to be set, a crown needs to be found and a cermony organized to take place in Org Cathedral.
Do you prefer a simple crowning or an elaborate ritual......should hymns of religion be sang or music of the day............
People of The Org unite....We have found a King !!!!!!!! :Razz

I'm available anytime except on days with an F1 Grand Prix. Nothing too fancy for a crowning ceremony, I don't want to waste public funds, perhaps a party on the beach then everyone can attend.


Free Scotland and Bill Fernie as president :)

He can get lost. I'm sure he's a fine chappie but I got in there first. He can be my Master of the Rolls- supplying the Andrex.[lol]

Do any of you fine lady members of the org fancy being my Queen? PM me with your details.

Welcomefamily
13-Aug-08, 17:19
[quote=rich;418718]Speculate on this:

What would have happened if Bonnie Prince Charlie had won the Battle of Culloden?

The Scots would be complaining about their German government? wanting divorces and french letters all which would have been banned.

Henry VIII has a lot to answer for, but at least we would have know if King Arthur Tomb was at Glastonbury and we would have had the knowledge of its great library, it was said to have greater wealth than the crown.

Welcomefamily
13-Aug-08, 17:28
However if its going to be King Jox, how will you influence Scottish Policy?

joxville
13-Aug-08, 21:48
However if its going to be King Jox, how will you influence Scottish Policy?

Whit? Dinna confuse me.......eh,let me see now.....I'll we'll go to war with the Isle of Man over fishing rights and everyone will have the right to learn Gaelic-as long as they move to Skye, then we'll blow up the bridge so they canna get back. Also, we'll.......och, that's just for starters, wait 'til I'm King and we'll discuss it then.:)

golach
13-Aug-08, 21:51
Whit? Dinna confuse me.......eh,let me see now.....I'll we'll go to war with the Isle of Man over fishing rights and everyone will have the right to learn Gaelic-as long as they move to Skye, then we'll blow up the bridge so they canna get back. Also, we'll.......och, that's just for starters, wait 'til I'm King and we'll discuss it then.:)
What is your policy on GM Crops Jox? [lol]

joxville
13-Aug-08, 22:10
What is your policy on GM Crops Jox? [lol]

Whilst GM build some good cars I'm doubtful about their farming abilities so we'll leave the crops to traditional farmers.

JamesMcVean
13-Aug-08, 23:00
King Arthur was not buried at Glastonbury - That was made up by the church to attract pilgrims and money!!! The Historical Arthur was not a king, but a sort of general and took troops from each of the small kingdoms and made a defensive army around 400AD!! Not in shining armour like the romantic tales suggest...

Read this

http://www.philipcoppens.com/log_art3.html

For a more realistic version?

James

Rheghead
13-Aug-08, 23:03
The Historical Arthur was not a king

What is in a King? I would say if you get enough fowkies saying someone is King then they are.

joxville
14-Aug-08, 00:44
What is in a King? I would say if you get enough fowkies saying someone is King then they are.

Glad to hear it...I don't need that many then.[lol]

Message to Mods: Can I change my name to King Joxville of Orgland?

Aaldtimer
14-Aug-08, 02:31
Remember, historically, the King was King of Scots, not of King of Scotland.
I.E. The King, OF the people, chosen by the people.

northener
14-Aug-08, 18:02
The current Royal family have nothing to do with the Stuart line. The last Stuart king was James VII & II. He was forced to flee for his life/abdicated, depending on how you view it, in the late seventeenth century.
What followed were various Protestant monarchs from The Netherlands and then Germany. (Remember, it was only after The Great War that the Royal family changed their names from German to something more English sounding. George V, Kaiser Wilheim (Germany) and Tsar Nicholas II (Russian Empire) were all first cousins.)
Being Catholics, the Stuarts are now barred from the British throne.

The Hanoverian line comes, as Rheghead pointed out, from a branch of the Stuart family.

This is off the top of my head, so aplologies if i get something wrong:

Charles I (Charles Stuart) sister Elizabeth married Frederik of Bohemia.

As well as producing Prince Rupert - who became Uncle Charles' cavalry commander during the British Civil Wars - they had a daughter - Sophia - who was eventually recognised as being the heir to the throne after James II abdicated/got booted out (Rupert never married and was either dead or an old duffer by this time).

She (Sophia) was the direct link between the Stuart dynasty and the Hanoverian line.
There's no way that a Catholic Monarch would have been tolerated given the previous history of Britain so the bloodline went via Sophia Stuart (Protestant) to the House of Hanover (Protestant).

So all the British Hanoverian line and after are, in fact, Stuarts.

All the dynasties of Europe intermarried, it was very common. It's virtually impossible to come up with a 'pure' Scots/English/whatever bloodline at any stage.

For example.....Caithness was part of the Norwegian kingdom until the lands were handed to Scotland as a dowry for a Norwegian/Scots royal marraige (C14th?).....sooo, we have a Norwegian bloodline mixed in with the Scots. Chuck in a couple of quirks in history and the odd untimely death - and we could have been flying the Norwegian flag up here....

Welcomefamily
14-Aug-08, 18:13
Very good but this view is generally regarded as very unlikely and is based upon work by Carroll. Also there is lots of evidence that various Arthur's existed. However there should be 5 /6th century Archaeology evidence at the site.


King Arthur was not buried at Glastonbury - That was made up by the church to attract pilgrims and money!!! The Historical Arthur was not a king, but a sort of general and took troops from each of the small kingdoms and made a defensive army around 400AD!! Not in shining armour like the romantic tales suggest...

Read this

http://www.philipcoppens.com/log_art3.html

For a more realistic version?

James

joxville
14-Aug-08, 19:09
I'd like to quote Israel Kamakawiwo'ole talking of his beloved Hawaiian Islands. I think we could apply the same words to Scotland.

Facing backwards I see the past
Our nation gained, our nation lost
Our sovereignty gone
Our lands gone
All traded for the promise of progress
What would they say....
What can we say?
Facing future I see hope
Hope that we will survive
Hope that we will prosper
Hope that once again we will reap the blessings of this magical land
For without hope I cannot live
Remember the past but do not dwell there
Face the future where all our hopes stand


A big man with an even bigger heart.

Go to my youtube home page to see videos of him singing.