Jump to content

User talk:Stephen2nd/sandbox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Background

[edit]

Most of the "Background" paragraph is nonsense puzzling to the uninitiated.


The conventional story is that Leopold's marriage did not give Leopold's siblings any claim whatsoever, and Queen Victoria inherited the throne through her father, not her mother.


Which English precedent would that be? (See also: Henry II, Henry VII, James I, William III, George I) —Tamfang (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Foreword written by Louda, actually questions sycophantic chroniclers of historical genealogical records.
Also, that “genealogical background can and must be sought as an explanation of many wars and other events”.

.

It was Maclagan who stated (Belgium. Ch 9, p82):

.

Table 42: (House of Saxe-Coburg on thrones of Europe)

Stephen2nd (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


You seem to be saying here that sycophantic fiction cannot be ruled out of anything we think we know about the family relations of monarchs, not only in the dark ages when records were sparse but even now when the royals' every sneeze is widely documented; that, while the conspirators would like us to believe that the British throne since 1714 has always passed by male-first primogeniture, the real procedure is esoteric and the beneficiaries are fitted into the official genealogy after they are selected; and that Maclagan's remarks about SCG's repeated efforts to gain the British throne (assuming that SCG is a real family!) represent a crack in the façade of the hoax. One wonders why Louda, knowing all this, bothered to catalog the fictions without a more explicit disclaimer. —Tamfang (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]