The BLOODLINE

EEWC · June 22, 2010, 09:21:23 PM

Other members of the Royol BLOODLINE are not in the public eye.

I'm HRM Eliz II's first cousin by blood; but I've never met her and I probably never will.

The reason this comes up is, "Blood is thicker than water," and "The apple doesn't fall very far from the tree."

When I read my Papa's autobiography (I was in my 50s at the time), I saw myself, my OWN interests, goals and perspective.

I found out late in life who my sire was; and I was astonished to see how similar our orientations were/are.

I assume his soul is still somewhere in existence because he was a confirmed Anglican just as I am [separately, without knowing my father's background at all].

And what interested me was his "take" on leadership. So, that's what I thought might be a fertile topic for this Forum. Leadership: Where and HoW It Goes.

What do you other members think about such a topic? Is it appropriate?

Emily

EEWC · June 23, 2010, 01:41:07 AM

This is what usually happens: dead air.

Oh well. I thought this is a group of people who are interested in the concept and praxis of "Monarchy."

:shrug:

LadyL · June 23, 2010, 01:58:42 AM

Please PM me. I recently started a blog and would LOVE to interview you!

drezzle · June 23, 2010, 04:45:44 AM

Hi Emily -- that does sound fascinating! So who would your father be? David, Henry or George? Also I forget who wrote which autobiography, that was just the Duke of Windsor, right? Was Wallis your mother?

Lila the Flirt · June 23, 2010, 12:57:05 PM

I believe Edward?

EEWC · June 25, 2010, 11:52:39 PM

Quote from: LadyL on June 23, 2010, 01:58:42 AM
Please PM me. I recently started a blog and would LOVE to interview you!

Quote from: Lila the Flirt on June 23, 2010, 12:57:05 PM
I believe Edward?

How nice to see replies! Thank you so much for acknowledging my being here.

Yes, Edward was my father. And Edward is also my son. Both these photos, at age 22.

http://www.holyconservancy.org/papa/edwardat22.jpg

scooter · June 26, 2010, 02:25:02 AM

How did you learn of your paternity?

Windsor · June 26, 2010, 08:44:40 PM

:laugh: :laugh:

They doon't look at all similar... Far too many claim to be related to the Royal Family! :D

drezzle · June 26, 2010, 10:29:33 PM

The son Edward looks a little like Prince William.

It would be nice to see a little proof of such claims before expecting a lot of discussion. Or I mean such proof would lead to a lot of discussion if that is what the opening poster would like?

Scarlet Flowers · June 26, 2010, 10:32:41 PM

EEWC, how did you find out? Or is that too personal of a question?

Trudie · June 26, 2010, 11:35:38 PM

EEWC did you ever meet your father at all? this is interesting but if you don't mind my asking who was your mother maybe then Windsor would take you seriously. I have to say it is a shame that you cannot meet HM or maybe if you write her and submit proof she may take the time to receive you.

drezzle · June 27, 2010, 12:31:06 AM

We3: but no son named Edward.

http://we3.org/

daibando · June 27, 2010, 07:22:06 AM

Quote from: Windsor on June 26, 2010, 08:44:40 PM
:laugh: :laugh:

They doon't look at all similar... Far too many claim to be related to the Royal Family! :D

I once met a young American, in Dusseldorf, who claimed to be the Duke of Windsor's grandson. He said he had been expelled from Britain for trying to claim his inheritance and that the same thing had happened later in Switzerland. What he was trying to achieve in Germany was beyond understanding. Personally, without proof, I don't believe any of these claims.

princessoctavia · June 27, 2010, 05:54:26 PM

I agree people can say anything they like on this forum. Theres been people on this board claiming to know the royals personally and I am very sceptical about that as well.

EEWC · July 09, 2010, 04:40:59 PM

Sorry, not to get back to you. I lost this link in the midst of a lot of other stuff.

How did I find out? My mother left a trail. When I followed the trail, facts surfaced in Googling that confirmed her assertions.

The only proof that truly exists is an exhaustive DNA test. In the meantime, what I notice is, my son Edward is JUST LIKE his grandfather, temperamentally; and my son Andrew is EXACTLY LIKE my grandfather, George V--solitary, ultra-individualistic, highly conventional. Reading Royal biographies is like reading about my own kids.

So their family is my family, even if "They" the Royals have absolutely nothing to do with me. And that's fine. I live an anonymous life, I do as I please, as my father had to do. Why was the Throne stripped out from under him? you ask. Well, he was timid in a way, always waiting for the other guy to go first.

And so the Imperialists went first, as usual. George V backed the Round Table, backed the Balfour Declaration, backed toppling his own beloved first cousins, both Nicky and Willie. He was awful, really a snake in the grass insofar as Monarchies were/are concerned.

And what's amazing to me is that people seem to PREFER Monarchy who are virtually toothless and powerless, merely figureheads. Okay. Whatever.

I always get kicked out of Royal Forums, because Royalists don't want to discuss matters of Royal Ethics, Royal adherence to Rule of Law and Royal genetics including the sowing of lots of wild oats, presumably to improve the genetic stock of their constituencies.

I don't know whether my Papa ever worried for one second about my existence or non-existence. And I will never know. But since I too am inclined to be interested in the same venues and processes that interested him, those are the matters that I choose to discuss.

Uncle Willie [Kaiser Wilhelm] told Edward about the UFOs that arrived in Germany prior to 1928; and so the reason that the Windsors were at the Alhawani Hotel, Yosemite, during the month of May 1943, was because the Duke received an invitation from one of his old WWI Army buddies to see the saucer craft being developed [then] at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, where my mother [a Scott from the Kirkpatrick line coming from James II and Mary Queen of Scots] was an Army nurse, a very pretty lady. His invitation covered Memorial Day weekend 1943, and he was ostensibly there to inspect the troops [mostly Black] over that Holiday weekend. And my mother was his entertainment, since everybody knew the Duchess was no longer interesting.

I was born the following spring, and immediately put up for adoption. I suspect the CIA have a full dossier on that transaction that I have never been able to access, just as they have the compleat dossier on Mrs. Simpson, who worked for Geo V during WWI when AHitler also was an MI-5 agent in Britain.

The real story is a lot more complicated than the Official Version allows for. Of course.

And now you know ... some more. Maybe I'm telling you the Truth; maybe I'm lying to you. Maybe we'll never know for certain.

: ) EEWC

drezzle · July 09, 2010, 05:42:08 PM

George V did seem rather snaky and snarky and I hope the resemblance of your son Andrew is not exactly like George V since he was mostly unlikeable from what I've read. Unlike his father, Edward VII, who grew up under overwhelming stress and by chance, or partly because of his unfortunate background developed a charm with empathy and a lack of hauteur not seen in his wife and their children who could all be mean bullies in whom expediency ruled. Not only did George V desert his "beloved" cousins Nicky and Willie, he also deserted all his sons for most practical purposes, and totally betrayed his oldest and youngest sons.

EEWC · July 09, 2010, 08:27:00 PM

Really. And what I have to face is offspring with similar outlooks to Geo V and Edw 8. Yikes. Only we're not of the privileged classes.

And I don't want to talk about my adult offspring; that would not be nice. But I can see the patterns, and I can predict the outcomes.

My Heather ANNE is a very equivalent of Princess Anne. So, I just have to LET GO OF ALL THAT family stuff.

So, I focus my attention on the functions of Monarchy, in the abstract: Moral Leadership and the INVESTING of the Monarchy in the PEOPLE.

The fact HRM has title to 6 billion acres of land MEANS, she has resources to actually do some good wherever those properties exist.

The fact HRM is property POOR in the UK itself means, she has lost track of her peoples' activities. They're wasting her money.

The fact HRM needs to have her addresses written for her says, she doesn't know what to do.

So now what? The whole system is about to collapse upon itself. What do we who intend for our children and grandchildren to live on, DO?

EEWC

drezzle · July 09, 2010, 11:18:33 PM

England will go on, with or without its monarchy. It would probably do better without the monarchy since no matter what the cost, it represents something unhealthy and promotes a feeling of helplessness among HRM subjects.

EEWC · July 10, 2010, 01:03:16 AM

You and I know that the Monarchy was organized as a hereditary bloodline to provide leadership, long long ago, back when the Stone of Scone was in Scotland, when Anglo-Saxon Law {keeping the Peace} prevailed, not the Roman Law that dominates [by protecting special Elites] today.

I believe the Monarchy was a GOOD IDEA. It's no longer a good idea because Roman Law does not facilitate the people who work. But if Common Law [as both John Harris and Brian Gerrish present the case] can be restored to Britain so people are only judged on whether or not they "breached the Peace," then Leadership FUNCTIONS and INVESTMENTS of the Monarchy in the people can rightfully and lawfully be restored.

But with Roman Law in place [top-down dictatorial Rules-Upon-Rules] the Monarchy is both farce and irrelevant to actual Governance. Governance is now by Elite Committees, and they have absolutely no contact with Reality. They're mostly Occult, upper class, secret fraternity types, NOT-SEES who pander to Corporate excesses.

EEWC

EEWC · July 10, 2010, 02:39:03 AM

As an addendum, I think it's fair to say the Monarchy has taken up on the wrong side of a class war between the people who do the work and those who don't, but live off interest.

drezzle · July 10, 2010, 03:13:57 AM

Quote from: EEWC on July 09, 2010, 04:40:59 PM
Why was the Throne stripped out from under him? you ask. Well, he was timid in a way, always waiting for the other guy to go first.

And what's amazing to me is that people seem to PREFER Monarchy who are virtually toothless and powerless, merely figureheads. Okay. Whatever.

I always get kicked out of Royal Forums, because Royalists don't want to discuss matters of Royal Ethics, Royal adherence to Rule of Law and Royal genetics including the sowing of lots of wild oats, presumably to improve the genetic stock of their constituencies.

The throne was stripped out from under Edward VIII, because he was outmaneuvered by Baldwin and the Queen Mother -- or maybe that's what he wanted since he was tired of being in the circus.

It does seem strange to have a Monarchy that is virtually toothless and powerless, and it seems even stranger that staunch royalists would want it that way, but overall it's for the best -- mostly since heredity never was a good predictor of how good a leader someone would become.

As for royals wanting to improve the genetic stock of their constituents :D, there was a time when they were proud to own up to all their children born on the wrong side. Now it's more hush-hush, and what's more, many of the constituents would not want to admit to a blood tie to some of them.

EEWC · July 10, 2010, 03:30:32 AM

History of interest [Wikipedia]

In ancient biblical Israel, it was against the Law of Moses to charge interest on private loans[3].

Britain was established as a Monarchy WHILE usury was illegal under Anglo-Saxon Law.

During the Middle Ages, time was considered to be property of God. Therefore, to charge interest was considered to be commerce with God's property.[citation needed] Also, St. Thomas Aquinas, the leading theologian of the Catholic Church, argued that the charging of interest is wrong because it amounts to "double charging", charging for both the thing and the use of the thing. The church regarded this as a sin of usury; nevertheless, this rule was never strictly obeyed and eroded gradually until it disappeared during the industrial revolution. [citation needed]

The change-over to Roman Law [Laws of the Sea] brought Usury BACK into lawful practice.

Usury has always been viewed negatively by the Roman Catholic Church. The Second Lateran Council condemned any repayment of a debt with more money than was originally loaned, the Council of Vienna explicitly prohibited usury and declared any legislation tolerant of usury to be heretical, and the first scholastics reproved the charging of interest. In the medieval economy, loans were entirely a consequence of necessity (bad harvests, fire in a workplace) and, under those conditions, it was considered morally reproachable to charge interest.[citation needed] It was also considered morally dubious, since no goods were produced through the lending of money, and thus it should not be compensated, unlike other activities with direct physical output such as blacksmithing or farming.[4]

One of the problems of the Monarchy today is that is stands with the practice of Usury AGAINST Anglo-Saxon [Natural, Common] Laws that protect the people from being exploited.

No wonder, the Crown has been reduced to a figurehead; or the Monarch would suffer the accusation of having brought Usury [interest money charges] to favor only the Rich.

You see, there are many issues surrounding the Monarchy that are independent of the personality of the Monarch.

: ) EEWC

EEWC · July 10, 2010, 03:32:31 AM

Quote from: drezzle on July 10, 2010, 03:13:57 AM

The throne was stripped out from under Edward VIII, because he was outmaneuvered by Baldwin and the Queen Mother -- or maybe that's what he wanted since he was tired of being in the circus.

It does seem strange to have a Monarchy that is virtually toothless and powerless, and it seems even stranger that staunch royalists would want it that way, but overall it's for the best -- mostly since heredity never was a good predictor of how good a leader someone would become.

As for royals wanting to improve the genetic stock of their constituents :D, there was a time when they were proud to own up to all their children born on the wrong side. Now it's more hush-hush, and what's more, many of the constituents would not want to admit to a blood tie to some of them.

These are good points, you make. And of course, there is more to it than has ever been revealed, a true "who done what?" according to my research. : )

EEWC · July 10, 2010, 03:33:34 AM

So, drezzle, please tell me something about yourself; or, where can I find your story?

daibando · July 10, 2010, 08:32:08 AM

Quote from: drezzle on July 09, 2010, 11:18:33 PM
England will go on, with or without its monarchy. It would probably do better without the monarchy since no matter what the cost, it represents something unhealthy and promotes a feeling of helplessness among HRM subjects.

Unlike the Americans, we British don't press hand to heart when our National Anthem is played. The Monarchy is the flag pole around which we gather to respect and support our country. It (the Monarchy) does not represent anything unhealthy and it certainly is not on the verge of collapse. The vast majority of Brits express no dissatisfaction with our democratic system, of which the Monarchy is an integral part.