Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

What do you think Queen Elizabeth II is afraid of?

Do you think she's trying to hide something by not allowing scientists to test the skeletons that may belong to the young Tudor princes supposedly murdered by Richard III?

After all, her lineage is mostly German, not English.

by Anonymousreply 10302/09/2013

The princes were not Tudors. They were Plantagenet.

by Anonymousreply 102/06/2013

I agree with them. There's a lot of bodies at Westminster, and if you say yes to one group you're going to be bombarded by everyone with a crackpot theory and the money for a DNA test.

by Anonymousreply 202/06/2013

R2, they aren't crackpot theories - there are legitimate historians and professors of archeology who are interested.

by Anonymousreply 302/06/2013

If there's anyone they should be doing a DNA test on it's Prince Harry.

by Anonymousreply 402/06/2013

[quote][R2], they aren't crackpot theories - there are legitimate historians and professors of archeology who are interested

Yes, this time they are. What about next time? My point is, once you set the precedent, in no time at all you're digging up Charles Dickens to prove he wasn't a space alien.

by Anonymousreply 502/06/2013

R5, link to someone who is advancing the theory that Charles Dickens is a space alien.

by Anonymousreply 602/06/2013

What could she possibly be trying to hide by not allowing this? The accepted version of history is that the boys were murdered by the king.

How much worse could any resulting testing get than that? Not to mention that the history of the British monarchy is chockfull of all manner of nefarious behavior all well chronicled in scholarly texts, drama and on screen from Holinshead to Shakespeare to Olivier and Masterpiece Theatre.

And there is no possible impact on Elizabeth's claim to the throne.

So she is certainly not hiding anything.

by Anonymousreply 702/06/2013

[quote]The accepted version of history is that the boys were murdered by the king.

But it's never been actually proven. If it can be done so through DNA evidence, it would further complete the historical record.

by Anonymousreply 802/06/2013

What the fuck is up with the Daily Guardian? How could they possibly describe the princes as the Tudor successors?

They were not Tudors. The Tudor dynasty did not begin until Richard was defeated by Bolingbroke at Bosworth Field.

One would expect the British press, even the crap British press, to know at least that.

by Anonymousreply 902/06/2013

[quote]What the fuck is up with the Daily Guardian? How could they possibly describe the princes as the Tudor successors?

It's the Daily Mail, not the Guardian.

by Anonymousreply 1002/06/2013

This Richard III story has certainly gotten a lot of headlines this week. Anderson Cooper interviewed Richard Quest about it last night.

by Anonymousreply 1102/06/2013

I am beginning to buy the story that it could have been the Tudors that killed the Princes.

Nonetheless, all this would do si confirm that it was their bodies- which is already assumed. it wouldn't lent any credence to anyone's theory on who actually killed them. It wouldn't change anything.

Perhaps the Queen realizes that given the results would reveal nothing new or of historical change- digging out their bodies isn't worth it.

by Anonymousreply 1202/06/2013

Or maybe many affairs were had and parentage is questionable.

by Anonymousreply 1302/06/2013

I understand the death of the princes is debated. What I reject is OP's conjecture that the queen is trying to hide something or what she would have to gain by doing so.

by Anonymousreply 1402/06/2013

R4 - I agree Mr. Hewitt. Didn't they do a test and just say they were "satisfied with the results" without publishing?

by Anonymousreply 1502/06/2013

It was Camilla who killed them.

by Anonymousreply 1602/06/2013

Her real name is Agnes Schnabel, a former showgirl who was having an affair with Phillip. She switched places with Elizabeth Tudor after the latter was killed by a bomb during World War II!

This is the kind of thing the OP is looking for.

by Anonymousreply 1702/06/2013

[quote]Their bones are kept in Westminster Abbey, who won't let them be tested

OK, that grammar is so bad I definitely won't be dating the Daily Mail

by Anonymousreply 1802/06/2013

I agree with r2. What answer could they be looking for? We'll never have concrete evidence by examining the remains of Richard III or the two princes what truly happened.

by Anonymousreply 1902/06/2013

The only thing that testing the bones would prove is whether or not they were (probably) the Princes. So why bother? They were pretty certainly killed. Identifying the bones as their's wouldn't show who did it; and if the bones aren't their's (which I suspect they wouldn't be), where does that get anyone? It not like there's anyone desperate for closure. It would be a pointless exercise, as well as a bad precedent for the reasons other posters have described.

by Anonymousreply 2002/06/2013

Hopefully not too far off-topic, but if a member of the Royal Family, then or now, gave birth to a mentally or physically disabled child what would happen? How about if the "defect" were not visible until much later on? Considering the prevalence of extra-marital affairs, due to frequent opportunities, and VD-related "illnesses," I'm surprised this isn't a long-standing serious problem.

by Anonymousreply 2102/06/2013

Was hoping from the title that we would be speculating about the Queen's phobias. I could use some clues.

by Anonymousreply 2202/06/2013

R21 There were many mentally and/or physically disabled Kings and Queens in the past. Luckily for them, there was no media. The royal court would run things and the disable royal would just be in the background, going mad and sometimes killing people. Today, however, it would be different. I think they would either kill the fetus if they knew of a defect before birth or find a way to dispatch of them later. Kate and Wills need an able bodied heir of sound mind for the parade to continue.

by Anonymousreply 2302/06/2013

Snakes. Spiders. Dying alone.

by Anonymousreply 2402/06/2013

R24 - having to look the help directly in the eye.

by Anonymousreply 2502/06/2013

They are afraid they will start digging up all the royal bones buried in Westminster- testing them all. God knows how many were truly Royal and how many were the horseman's bastard?

by Anonymousreply 2602/06/2013

SHe's a dotty old bag, she can't remember why

by Anonymousreply 2702/06/2013

I think that as the queen referred to in the phrase "the queen's English," Queen Elizabeth is afraid of the R20s of the world who put apostrophes into words like 'theirs.'

by Anonymousreply 2802/06/2013

"I think that as the queen referred to in the phrase "the queen's English," Queen Elizabeth is afraid of the R20s of the world who put apostrophes into words like 'theirs.'"

With or without an apostrophe, "theirs" is not a word. Plurals, including plural possessives, are not re-pluralized.

by Anonymousreply 2902/06/2013

"Theirs" is not a word? So this is not a valid sentence: "Is that book yours or theirs?"

by Anonymousreply 3002/06/2013

So we've moved from Britain's queen to grammar queens.

If only they were even a fraction as interesting or likable.

by Anonymousreply 3102/06/2013

[quote] She switched places with Elizabeth Tudor after the latter was killed by a bomb during World War II!

Elizabeth Tudor died in 1558.

Queen Elizabeth II is Elizabeth Windsor.

by Anonymousreply 3202/06/2013

[quote][R5], link to someone who is advancing the theory that Charles Dickens is a space alien.

Dumbass, it's the Tudor princes that were space aliens. Elizabeth Tudor's ruff was actually her gills through which she breathed.

by Anonymousreply 3302/06/2013

R21, the last case I can think of is Prince John a/k/a the lost prince, from the early 20th century. I've only heard of him because of a TV production. The family tried keeping him with the family, but sometime during his teen years he was kept out of the public eye.

by Anonymousreply 3402/06/2013

I just think that the Windsors MUST have skeletons in their closet. All that money and power and centuries of history... they must have some filthy secrets that they will do anything to keep from us.

by Anonymousreply 3502/07/2013

I've always thought Harry was spitting image of James Hewitt and I think he is Harrys father this is what really set Charles and Diannas marriage on the rocks and hushed up by the Queen who started to dislike Disnna bring on the DNA test I know James you are the father a love child as Dianna and james were very much in love Charles hated that he got his own back for cheating on his beautiful wife who got him back by having an affair but didn't think she was going to get pregnant what a scandal that could never come back so they used Sarah to disguise the problem for them great timing Queen Elizabeth well that's my theory and I'm sticking to it :)

by Anonymousreply 3602/07/2013

R36 needs to put down the meth pipe

by Anonymousreply 3702/07/2013

R37, it's a common rumor in the UK

by Anonymousreply 3802/07/2013

I'm not arguing with the idea, R38. I'm commenting on R36's rambling presentation.

by Anonymousreply 3902/07/2013

Harry is not Charles's - just reconfirmed by my friend from the inner circle who is visiting me.

by Anonymousreply 4002/07/2013

[quote]I just think that the Windsors MUST have skeletons in their closet.

Or buried under parking lots

by Anonymousreply 4102/07/2013

I think the Queen will eventually consent to having the bodies examined. The bodies were only presumed to be the princes, and the bones were interred 200 years after they died. There may be some modern techniques that give clues to how they actually died. One theory is that they were starved to death in Richard's custody. I don't know if that can be proven by bones or not, but while anyone could have killed them with a sword, only Richard could have had them starved to death.

by Anonymousreply 4202/07/2013

LOL r41!

by Anonymousreply 4302/07/2013

What do you assume she's afraid of? She's not directly descended from the princes, so any DNA results would not call her lineage or right to the throne into doubt.

by Anonymousreply 4402/07/2013

I'm starting to think that Harry might actually be the son of Charles. He's resembling him more as he gets older.

by Anonymousreply 4502/07/2013

R45, You cannot go by just looks. I don't look like anyone else in my family; everyone thinks that I'm adopted as a result. Not true.

by Anonymousreply 4602/07/2013

Prince Harry has a very strong resemblence to both Prince Phillip and Queen Elizabeth for there to be any doubt about his paternity.

by Anonymousreply 4702/07/2013

I fail to understand how it can be proved that Richard III murdered his two nephews thru exhumation of these bones for testing.

First, we have no way to know whose bones these are. Yes, DNA testing might be able to confirm they are relate to Richard and there fore likely are his nephews.

DNA testing might also give us a lead into the cause of death, whether it was the pox, or poison for example.

But DNA testing will not prove Richard murdered his nephews.

by Anonymousreply 4902/07/2013

I think Harry looks more like Charles now than William does.

Same eyes and nose.

by Anonymousreply 5002/07/2013

Well, I have it direct he isn't.

by Anonymousreply 5102/07/2013

Lizzie doesn't want to set a precedent. If they agree to the DNA testing of the Little Bones, they will open themselves up to all kinds of requests for testing other remains.It could change history. Even if it didn't, it would be expensive and silly. Let sleeping corgis lie.

It's like that movie I saw where they found some tomb in Jerusalem and it had bones in it and they figured out these were Jesus's bones and if anyone ever found out it would destroy Christianity so they tried to murder all the people who might know. Antonio Banderas was in it. He played a priest. It was a shit movie.

by Anonymousreply 5202/07/2013

[quote]Well, I have it direct he isn't.

Oh, how is Diana? Tell her we send our love!

by Anonymousreply 5302/07/2013

[quote]Elizabeth Tudor died in 1558.

Actually 1603.

by Anonymousreply 5402/07/2013

In a country steeped in history, they should at least have that history right.

by Anonymousreply 5502/07/2013

Isn't there a rumor that Elizabeth Tudor died as a child and another was substituted? Maybe that was why she wasn't crazy like Henry VIII.

by Anonymousreply 5602/07/2013

"Hold me, Phillip, I'm scared!"

by Anonymousreply 5702/07/2013

Violet, Dowager Countess of Grantham, meets the queen.

by Anonymousreply 5802/07/2013

I've never heard that rumor, R56.

I don't think Henry VIII was crazy, just not real bright & ruled by his libido. Elizabeth inherited her mother's brains & used them.

by Anonymousreply 5902/07/2013

Henry VIII wasn't crazy R56. He became a self serving egomaniac but he wasn't nuts. Bloody Mary, his other daughter, was straight out crazy pants however. He was in ill health at the end which made him crankier than he already was, but that's because historians now believe he had type 2 diabetes (not syphillis as the old theory claimed) which had given him nasty case of gangrene. You'd be a cantankerous old fart too if you had green smelly rotting toes. Ewww. Plus if they were going to "switch" a baby that had died at birth they probably would have switched it for a male. Henry was livid that he didn't have a "legitimate" male heir. The poor love kept having boys with his mistresses but never with his wives.

by Anonymousreply 6002/07/2013

[quote]After all, her lineage is mostly German, not English.

Only on her father's side. Her mother was a proud Scot.

by Anonymousreply 6102/07/2013

The rumored switch wasn't at birth. It was when she was a young girl -being taken care of by some couple. She did not live with the King. Damn. I can't remember where I read it. Will see if I can find it.

by Anonymousreply 6202/07/2013

Whatever she carries around in that Pandora's Box of a purse.

by Anonymousreply 6302/07/2013

I love a good conspiracy theory! Especially one that has a ring of truth to it.

by Anonymousreply 6402/07/2013

I can't keep it a secret any longer. My friend Julie killed the two princes. She is such a cunt.

by Anonymousreply 6502/07/2013

A deformed member of the royal family was hidden away in Glamis Castle.

by Anonymousreply 6602/07/2013

King Charles IV

by Anonymousreply 6702/07/2013

There is a theory that Elizabeth I died as a child and was replaced with a red-headed BOY. That is why he/she remained the `Virgin Queen`.

by Anonymousreply 6802/07/2013

Catching a glimpse of Camilla in the nude in the hallways of Sandringham at Christmastime.

by Anonymousreply 6902/07/2013

I think Harry resembles photos I've seen of Prince Philip when young. He might also look like Diana's family. Agree he looks nothing like Charles.

by Anonymousreply 7002/07/2013

Windsors will give you nothing but problems. Get a Mac!

by Anonymousreply 7102/08/2013

The real conspiracy theory is that the Queen Mother was her father's daughter but not his married wife's. The old rumor is that the father impregnated a housemaid and that he kept the child as his own. There is supposed to be some discrepancy in The Queen Mother's birth certificate regarding her place of birth that fuels the rumor. Even without a shred of truth to it, it's funny to imagine the Queen bring the grand-daughter of a Scottish parlor maid.

by Anonymousreply 7202/08/2013

These terms confuse me. The queen is the granddaughter of the queen mother?

by Anonymousreply 7302/08/2013

No, R73, the Queen is the daughter of the late Queen Mother (born Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon) who was rumored to be the daughter of a Scottish parlor maid.

by Anonymousreply 7402/08/2013

[quote]it's funny to imagine the Queen bring the grand-daughter of a Scottish parlor maid.

To put in Downton terms, as if Elizabeth II's biograndmother were Anna . . . or Daisy!

by Anonymousreply 7502/08/2013

@ 32, I thought Windsor was a made-up name like the Duchess of Cornwall and the Duchess of Cambridge? Isn't the family Battenberg (tr. Mountbatten)? Also I think possibly Elizabeth II might have some Plantaganet blood, you could take her genealogy in many different lines once you get back a ways.

as for the DNA, can somebody explain, they have to have something to compare it to. Do they KNOW what the Plantaganet DNA is?

by Anonymousreply 7602/08/2013

Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Cambridge are not made-up names; they are titles that have been given for hundreds of years.

by Anonymousreply 7702/08/2013

What is she afraid of?

A full length mirror.

by Anonymousreply 7802/08/2013

R198 from the other Richard thread wrote:

"Henry Tudor/VII married Richard's neice who was a Plantagenet (Elizabeth of York), thereby uniting the houses of York and Lancaster (which Tudor represented by 1485). So Queen Elizabeth I was related to both. Henry VII had a daughter amongst his children, Margaret, who married the King of Scotland. Her great grandson if i'm not mistaken was James VI, who became James I of England, thereby uniting England and Scotland"

So it is highly likely that our present Queen Elizabeth II does, in fact, have Plantagenet and Stuart blood and descends from both houses.

You're absoutely correct R76, about the Battenburg name and they changed it for sounding too German. They changed it to Windsor at the turn of the 20th century I think. This is DL so someone will definitely correct me if I'm wrong.

by Anonymousreply 7902/08/2013

Hitler called Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon ( The Queen |mother) "the most dangerous woman in Europe. Not because her smiling brave face and refusal to flee london during the Blitz, Hitler made this statement before the start of WW2.

He recognized a fellow sociopaths power hungry social climber like himself.

Queen Elizabeth was conceived by artificial insemination by King George of course, but that is NOT the shocker. As an aside, they mention the Queen Mother was born out of wedlock in a liaison with the French cook.

Her father Claude George Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, KG, KT, GCVO sired two children with Marguerite Rodiere a French chef at St Paul’s Walden Bury where the Queen Mother was born in 1900. Her mother's name was given as a middle name to Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes Lyon.

Where the plot thickens is young Elizabeth was betrothed to Prince Albert the Duke of York. You will remember him better as King George VI. That should have been the end of the brilliant stroke her mother the cook bequeathed her to marry a royal Prince and live happily ever after. However, Albert's brother Edward was heir to the throne and assumed it after his father's death in January 1936. It has now become a matter of public record that his sister in law Elizabeth conspired ruthlessly to oust Edward and place her husband on the throne making herself Queen of England.

Plus to insure that there were no male heirs to lay claim to the throne before her 'Lillabet" she arranged to have her brother in law Prince george, Duke of Kent killed in a bizarre air crash that defies all explanations to this day. No pesky males cousins getting in the way to the throne for "Cookie" aka "Lady MacBeth !

Wouldn't surprise me if she was the one who ordered Diana done away with.

by Anonymousreply 8002/08/2013

R80 Oh my! But interesting stuff. Lillabet seemed like a decent egg though. But who knows what her mother was capable of. And French of all things!

Which may explain why they don't want Harry tested. A Royal would have to submit dna as well-to see if there's a match. And they don't want their dna to ever be recorded. Right?

by Anonymousreply 8102/08/2013

[quote] Anderson Cooper interviewed Richard Quest about it last night.

Is that before or after Richard was in the fisting sling?

by Anonymousreply 8202/08/2013

R80 that's utter nonsense. Elizabeth the Queen Mother never ran David out, and campaigned ruthlessly for her husband. She hated David and Wallis, but it was because she blamed them for her husband's premature death.

She claimed the stresses of being a war time king killed him. Of course he died of lung cancer, but try telling her that. She hated David first, because he was so completely self indulgent and immature, and engaged in conduct she felt was really an embarrassment to the Royal Family.

She also knew that his behavior would place unnecessary pressure on his brother Albert. David was spending moneu like a drunken sailor to maintain his lifestyle with Wallis.

He was even gifting her with Royal Jewelry that his family had reserved for the next queen. His behavior was very upsetting to the King, their father, who had monstrous temper tantrums because of David's behavior.

Bertie was dutiful,always tried to pick up the slack and be the peacemaker. Bertie & David's father, the king, was a mean bastard and the two brothers reacted differently. David was the petulant, narcissistic rebel,Albert was the subservient, masochistic peace at any price brother.

Also note they had another brother, George, Duke of Kent I think, who was aserious drug addict and very likely a closeted homosexual. All they ever said about him was that he led a "decadent lifestyle."

So Elizabeth Bowes Lyon was the only one who was truly trying to support her husband. There was nothing ruthless about her politically, except when it came to protecting her husband and her daughters.

She had a very keen sense of propriety and understood better than anyone what the role and expectations for the Royal family should be. If QE2 is an exemplar when it comes to duty and dignity she owes it to her mother. Of course behind closed doors, they had a sense of fun and the Queen mother enjoyed her gin and tonics.

by Anonymousreply 8302/08/2013

R80 is the worst kind of frau-minded lunatic who sprays bad history like a cat with a yeast infection sprays yellow froth.

by Anonymousreply 8402/08/2013

How do we know if any of these rumors of baby swapping and illegitimate heir is true?

by Anonymousreply 8502/08/2013

um, r80, if Cookie had Prince George,Duke of Kent, murdered, why did she not also conspire to kill off Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, who was before him in line to the throne?

by Anonymousreply 8602/08/2013

All nonsense on Queen Mother, except while she was her fathers daughter it is unlikely she came from the aged Countess. Quite possibly half Welsh is a good bet

by Anonymousreply 8702/09/2013

She is afraid the lizard people thing will be exposed.

by Anonymousreply 8802/09/2013

QEII is wise to oppose all exhumations for DNA testing. Where would it end! There would be requests from all over the world, even many from reputable institutions in Academia, from people with impeccable credentials, literally tens of thousands, and along with them, the wack jobs, and it would be an expense to sift thru them, and evaluate them and decide and people would be pissed off. So, NO. Just NO.

Yes she is standing in the doorway blocking the march of history, but who really gives a shit. I don't think it's any kind of fear at all. It's just a sense of being practical.

The main thing abut Richard III is that now we can see how terribly he died, how humiliating and brutal, and we are also seeing a public acknowledgement that he was not the monster he was made out to be by the Tudors and their minions.

by Anonymousreply 8902/09/2013

"I am my father's daughter, and I am not afraid of anything!"

by Anonymousreply 9002/09/2013

R38, no it's not.

Battenburg/Mountbatten is Philip's family surname, it's not a British royal family name. The Windsors were formerly known as the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas, before that the House of Hanover.

I don't think the Queen's trying to hide anything. It's the Church that doesn't want the exhumations, as they believe that will lead to non-stop exhumations. And, the "two princes" died over 500 years ago: what present-day scandal will they expose?

by Anonymousreply 9102/09/2013

But she is the Head of the Church, R66.

That is what I'm curious about. Would non-stop exhumations of others lead to something that questions the actions or histories of key people in her lineage?

Certainly it seems odd that Buckingham Palace is mum on the discovery of the bones of an English King.

by Anonymousreply 9202/09/2013

No doubt Queen Elizxabeth knows if the two boys have their DNA studied, she'll be thrown off the throne and banished to Sierra Leone in west Africa. That's the only reason there won't be any testing done.

by Anonymousreply 9302/09/2013

Maybe she is afraid that the motherland will be overrun with peoples from all those countries around the globe her nation tried to conquer.

by Anonymousreply 9402/09/2013

I thought Saxe Coburg Gotha was Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's husband's House? Didn't the Hanoverians come after that? But you're absolutely correct about Battenburg Mountbatten.

The Hanovers were the German connection. Interestingly, weren't all of these stemming from the Hapsburg Dynasty long years before? It seems that Marie Antoinette's mother had a shitload of kids to marry off and then later on so did VR, so most all of the royal houses in Europe were related to some degree or another and often several times over.

by Anonymousreply 9502/09/2013

Elizabeth TUDOR in WWII, r17?

by Anonymousreply 9602/09/2013

When you get down to it, aren't they Glucksburgs?

by Anonymousreply 9702/09/2013

I was right & Wrong. Saxe Coburg Gotha was indeed the House of Prince Albert. Victoria & Albert's Son Edward was the first of the Saxe Coburg Gotha line. And Victoria was the last of the Hanoverian line. So the Hanovers came before the Saxe Coburg Gothas.

An odious fact I came across, Prince Ernst August, the pig assed husband of Caroline of Manaco, is probably a relative of ER2.

by Anonymousreply 9802/09/2013

Doesn't everyone know that George III, Hanover, was the 1776 monarch, waaay before Victoria?

by Anonymousreply 9902/09/2013

I didn't realize he was a Hanover. They didn't teach us that part only found out he was mad from Helen Mirren.

by Anonymousreply 10002/09/2013

Agnes Schnabel here, I object to being dismissed as a frau who bedded the Prince of Edinburgh. I was never a common hootchie kootchie dancer. I was never considered as a replacement for Elizabeth Regina's vagina.

by Anonymousreply 10102/09/2013

R100, didn't the clothing, the set and the styles in general strike you as looking earlier than the mid-19th century?

George III was Victoria's grandfather, so logic and biology suggest he came before her.

And, OMG... The Habsburgs (it's with a b!) were the ones in Austria and its dominions. Germany, on the other hand, was made up of a bunch of principalities, of which Hanover was one. George of Hanover was already George I of Great Britain before Maria Theresa (Marie Antoinette's mother) was even born.

by Anonymousreply 10202/09/2013

Who cares what she is afraid of. We had a revolution in 1776 to get rid of them.

by Anonymousreply 10302/09/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.