Is There Somethind They Didn't Teach In History?

[Geordie582 18]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/131032213536?ssPageName=STRK:MESINDXX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1436.l2649

I hope someone told Charles.

[Rob 3,002]

That's ok. A while back there was an Ethelred XII coin cunningly disguised as a Chas.1 shilling.

[jaggy 528]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/131032213536?ssPageName=STRK:MESINDXX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1436.l2649

I hope someone told Charles.

I laughed out loud

[Peter 615]

LOL I hope you didn't 6 peed yourself.

[Coinery 926]

That J1 bust looks posthumous to me, a new variety!!!!

[Geordie582 18]

Ah ! Fun over. It has been withdrawn

[scott 129]

withdrawn... i was going to buy that

[scottishmoney 18]

He relisted it as a James I coin, already up to 5.50. Dang I would have bought it at 99p for chits and giggles.

When or if Prince Charles becomes the monarch he will be a III - which reminds me of the Carolus III coins from Spain that were overstamped with George III's portrait during Napoleonic times - "The head of a fool on the head of an ass"

[Peckris 579]

He relisted it as a James I coin, already up to 5.50. Dang I would have bought it at 99p for chits and giggles.

When or if Prince Charles becomes the monarch he will be a III - which reminds me of the Carolus III coins from Spain that were overstamped with George III's portrait during Napoleonic times - "The head of a fool on the head of an ass"

I'm just reading about (the real) Richard III. Apparently the Tudor usurpers got some rhyme going about "A Cat and a Rat ruled over by a Hog"!

[jaggy 528]

He relisted it as a James I coin, already up to 5.50. Dang I would have bought it at 99p for chits and giggles.

When or if Prince Charles becomes the monarch he will be a III - which reminds me of the Carolus III coins from Spain that were overstamped with George III's portrait during Napoleonic times - "The head of a fool on the head of an ass"

Always assuming he chooses to reign a a Charles.

[scottishmoney 18]

Always assuming he chooses to reign a a Charles.

Knowing him he might well wanna be Henry IX - he thinks VIII got a bad rap.

[Peckris 579]

Always assuming he chooses to reign a a Charles.

Knowing him he might well wanna be Henry IX - he thinks VIII got a bad rap.

George VI was really an Albert wasn't he? Edward VII certainly was.

As for Charlie-boy, he's got another 4 wives to go yet, before he can call himself another Henry..

[scottishmoney 18]

George VI was really an Albert wasn't he? Edward VII certainly was.

As for Charlie-boy, he's got another 4 wives to go yet, before he can call himself another Henry..

Somewhere in there I want to assail Camilla - but I think it more appropriate to skip the generation and be thankful that Duchess Kate is far more attractive - literally and figuratively.

[RLC35 288]

Always assuming he chooses to reign a a Charles.

Knowing him he might well wanna be Henry IX - he thinks VIII got a bad rap.

George VI was really an Albert wasn't he? Edward VII certainly was.

As for Charlie-boy, he's got another 4 wives to go yet, before he can call himself another Henry..

I read in a article, one time, that Prince Charles would be a King George when he began his reign.

[azda 973]

Recently watchers a programme presented by Tony Robinson that stated that Edward IV was actually illigitimate which in turn means that every Monarch after him should not have been on the throne

[Peter 615]

The constipation makes my eyes water.

I think a lot of the royals over the centuries would be prime for Jeremy Kyle and his DNA tests.

They are also on benefits but just lack the tattoo's and piercings although Prince Albert did his bit.

[declanwmagee 122]

The whole things a bit of a farce really. Even if we don't mention the current German imposters, the Normans only took the throne because they were better at fighting.

[TomGoodheart 373]

The whole things a bit of a farce really. Even if we don't mention the current German imposters, the Normans only took the throne because they were better at fighting.

Oh, I say! That's bloody well just not cricket! Typical Johnny Foreigner! Thank God we never won anything because we were better at fighting!

Edited November 3, 2013 by TomGoodheart

[Garrett 76]

Recently watchers a programme presented by Tony Robinson that stated that Edward IV was actually illigitimate which in turn means that every Monarch after him should not have been on the throne

Without checking online, and probably making a fool of myself, didn't Edward IV's line not get very far on the throne (with his brother Richard III blamed for killing his sons).

Maybe it was Edward III in the program ?

cheers

Garrett.

[davidrj 194]

The whole things a bit of a farce really. Even if we don't mention the current German imposters, the Normans only took the throne because they were better at fighting.

Err, weren't the Saxons German too? .... and those bloody Scandanavians like Cnut... where are the descendents of Arthur Pendragon?

[Peckris 579]

Recently watchers a programme presented by Tony Robinson that stated that Edward IV was actually illigitimate which in turn means that every Monarch after him should not have been on the throne

Without checking online, and probably making a fool of myself, didn't Edward IV's line not get very far on the throne (with his brother Richard III blamed for killing his sons).

Maybe it was Edward III in the program ?

cheers

Garrett.

Actually, the royal line gets interrupted a fairly regular intervals :

William the Conqueror; bugsy's turn during the Wars of the Roses; Henry VII (a very dubious claim); James I; William III; George I; though it's been fairly secure since then. But the Royal claim to trace their line back to Alfred is just laughable.

The whole Richard III killing the Princes thing was a total posthumous frame-up anyway. 1) The Princes were LIVING in the Tower (a royal residence), not prisoners; 2) they were then declared illegitimate as Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was arguably not a legal marriage; 3) Richard didn't try to dispose of the many other offspring ahead of him in the line of succession, e.g. all of Edward's daughters, and his older brother George's children (it was actually Henrys VII and VIII who saw to that); 4) Henry VII passed an Act of Attainder against Richard accusing him of treason and all manner of barbarous acts, though strangely it doesn't even mention the two Princes; 5) Margaret Beaufort, Henry's mum, had far more reason to see off the two boys than Richard, who had been voted king by Parliament; 6) the rumours didn't start until after Richard's death, and no-one actually knows what happened to the Princes... and so the list goes on.

[copper123 1,352]

Well his son was called charles so it was fairly close

[azda 973]

the programme link

[Garrett 76]

thanks mate !

I'll watch that when I am back in Brissie (in Melbourne playing chess right now) and not on prepaid mobile broadband (cost a fortune to watch a video of that length).

Cheers

Garrett.

[Peckris 579]

thanks mate !

I'll watch that when I am back in Brissie (in Melbourne playing chess right now) and not on prepaid mobile broadband (cost a fortune to watch a video of that length).

Cheers

Garrett.

Not wanting to spoil the punchline, but the apparent true heir to the throne is much closer to you than to me