"King of England"; "The English Constitution"; "The Impediment of Crime"; this deserves to be in the podcast Hall of Fame.
I did live for several years outside of Oxford (Woodstock). The one thing I learned is that the English landed gentry view themselves as far superior to the Royal Family. They would view their children marrying a royal - at least a British royal - as a significant step down.
One has to wonder how this would have been handled if the then Prince Charles was 40 years younger and the legitimacy of the marriage would put the line of succession at risk. It seems that the response was pretty much "eh ... no harm, no foul ..."
Looking at the revelations about Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein, no sane person would let their children marry into such a shower. The British nobility tend to look down on the Royals because they are only a bunch of German Johnny-come-latelies, whereas British nobility go back much further in history.
I recommend Kitty Kelley's book "The Royals" for some hugely enjoyable stories about the nobility and the Royals. And numerous allegations which suggest we should force DNA testing on the whole shower to see if they are genetically entitled to their titles and priviledges.
One local example of ancient gentry are the recusant Stonor family, who have a lovely estate about twenty miles south east of Oxford. Their ancestors sheltered St Edmund Campion in their house and he ran his printing press up in the attic. There is sloping wooded ground directly behind the house and he could duck out the back attic window if the Queen's men approached up the remote valley.
If you are staying in Oxford and are renting a car, it is an easy run using sat nav. Otherwise grit your teeth and pay for a taxi. From London, train to Henley and taxi for the last few miles.
The key word you used is "stories about the nobility and the Royals", because those recounted by Kelley are fictional stories, not factual accounts. Kelley, to quote her wikipedia page, "(is) a "professional sensationalist" and the "consummate gossip monger." She is not considered a reliable reporter or historian; it is also notable that she was expelled from the University of Arizona for theft. There is a long list of accusations that she fabricated information contained in her publications. If you are familiar with the Harry Potter series, she was the inspiration behind Rita Skeeter.
In particular, a critical error can be found on almost every page of her book, "The Royals." For example, she confuses Edward VII with George VI (she doesn't realize that George VI's first name was not George - he went by "Bertie" before his coronation.) She doesn't realize that royal burials are typically not in "the dirt" but in the vaults (she says that George VI was kept in "an abandoned corridor" and was eventually buried in secret.) That is just the start.
There are literally dozens of well written and well sourced books about the British royal family. Kelley's book is not one of them. It (and her books on Nancy Reagan and Oprah Winfrey) are as accurate as "The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk" is an accurate account of the life of religious sisters in the Catholic Church.
Loads of people have enjoyed Kitty's book, including Christopher Hitchens. If there were any really serious untruths, it would be wide open for the Royals or any other aggrieved person to sue. Some of the most damaging stories (like the parentage of Prince Andrew) have been circulated long before Kitty's book.
In my own digging, I did find a couple of articles which claimed that Andrew Parker Boweles and Rosemary had their marriage “blessed by the Church” about a year after the attempted civil marriage. If this is the case, and the authors of the articles mean “convalidation” when they say “blessed by the church,” it would seem to imply that the necessary declarations of nullity had been obtained. That being said, it was just a claim. Do you guys look for something more solid than that whenever you evaluate one of these marital situations on the show? If so, what sort of things do you look for?
I think that the later in the day the show is, the more effusive JD gets and the less Ed gets - which leads to a more conflictual show. I’m not sure whether that’s a good or bad thing…
Hard for me to objectively assess the effect of that on the show, as I know just enough about the British system that certain stretches of nonsense made my head hurt almost as much as Ed’s.
I've always considered it among the highest forms of patriotism to obtain juuuust enough knowledge about the British royalty to mess with them effectively, preferably followed by chucking some tea into the nearest large body of water
At some point JD became so insistent that Ed became tongue-tied, and I don't think he ever quite made it clear to JD that the two nations were legally merged in 1707. (And also, in 1603 the King of Scotland became King of England, not vice versa, so the claim about the English title as being the one that accrued other titles is also not right, and I think Ed was too tired to refute it by that point.)
The words “Queen of England” will reliably take my brain to this classic “Hard Luck Stories” bit from those great masters of deadpan comedy, Bob and Ray.
The 13 colonies should have remained subjects of the Crown.
The Revolutionary War was not a just war.
Had the colonies failed in their bid for independence, perhaps both slavery and the treatment of Indigenous Peoples might have been addressed more justly.
The United States should seek to join the Commonwealth.
Had a timely investigation been conducted into the validity of the marriages of then-Prince Charles to Diana and of Camilla to Andrew Parker Bowles, finding grounds for nullity would have been exceedingly easy. Therefore, I presume the validity of King Charles’s marriage to Queen Camilla.
Prayers are needed for the conversion of England to Catholicism. If that proves impossible, at least for the reformation of the Church of England into a body more faithful to the Scriptures and the Church Fathers. At minimum, may the Church of England halt its descent into shear madness.
"King of England"; "The English Constitution"; "The Impediment of Crime"; this deserves to be in the podcast Hall of Fame.
I did live for several years outside of Oxford (Woodstock). The one thing I learned is that the English landed gentry view themselves as far superior to the Royal Family. They would view their children marrying a royal - at least a British royal - as a significant step down.
One has to wonder how this would have been handled if the then Prince Charles was 40 years younger and the legitimacy of the marriage would put the line of succession at risk. It seems that the response was pretty much "eh ... no harm, no foul ..."
Looking at the revelations about Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein, no sane person would let their children marry into such a shower. The British nobility tend to look down on the Royals because they are only a bunch of German Johnny-come-latelies, whereas British nobility go back much further in history.
I recommend Kitty Kelley's book "The Royals" for some hugely enjoyable stories about the nobility and the Royals. And numerous allegations which suggest we should force DNA testing on the whole shower to see if they are genetically entitled to their titles and priviledges.
One local example of ancient gentry are the recusant Stonor family, who have a lovely estate about twenty miles south east of Oxford. Their ancestors sheltered St Edmund Campion in their house and he ran his printing press up in the attic. There is sloping wooded ground directly behind the house and he could duck out the back attic window if the Queen's men approached up the remote valley.
https://www.stonor.com/
If you are staying in Oxford and are renting a car, it is an easy run using sat nav. Otherwise grit your teeth and pay for a taxi. From London, train to Henley and taxi for the last few miles.
The key word you used is "stories about the nobility and the Royals", because those recounted by Kelley are fictional stories, not factual accounts. Kelley, to quote her wikipedia page, "(is) a "professional sensationalist" and the "consummate gossip monger." She is not considered a reliable reporter or historian; it is also notable that she was expelled from the University of Arizona for theft. There is a long list of accusations that she fabricated information contained in her publications. If you are familiar with the Harry Potter series, she was the inspiration behind Rita Skeeter.
In particular, a critical error can be found on almost every page of her book, "The Royals." For example, she confuses Edward VII with George VI (she doesn't realize that George VI's first name was not George - he went by "Bertie" before his coronation.) She doesn't realize that royal burials are typically not in "the dirt" but in the vaults (she says that George VI was kept in "an abandoned corridor" and was eventually buried in secret.) That is just the start.
There are literally dozens of well written and well sourced books about the British royal family. Kelley's book is not one of them. It (and her books on Nancy Reagan and Oprah Winfrey) are as accurate as "The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk" is an accurate account of the life of religious sisters in the Catholic Church.
Loads of people have enjoyed Kitty's book, including Christopher Hitchens. If there were any really serious untruths, it would be wide open for the Royals or any other aggrieved person to sue. Some of the most damaging stories (like the parentage of Prince Andrew) have been circulated long before Kitty's book.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1997/oct/09/new-book-old-news-kitty-kelleys-book-the-royals/
You are aware that the book was not published in the U.K. precisely because the publishers knew that they would lose a defamation suit?
“break down someone else’s marriage” …wait a minute…
They have previously looked into Trump's and Biden's marriages. See the podcast archives.
Yes I know, I just found the phrasing funny. Haha
In my own digging, I did find a couple of articles which claimed that Andrew Parker Boweles and Rosemary had their marriage “blessed by the Church” about a year after the attempted civil marriage. If this is the case, and the authors of the articles mean “convalidation” when they say “blessed by the church,” it would seem to imply that the necessary declarations of nullity had been obtained. That being said, it was just a claim. Do you guys look for something more solid than that whenever you evaluate one of these marital situations on the show? If so, what sort of things do you look for?
Hmm. I wasn't the researcher on this one, but I'll bring it up to Dr. Condon and see what he says!
I think that the later in the day the show is, the more effusive JD gets and the less Ed gets - which leads to a more conflictual show. I’m not sure whether that’s a good or bad thing…
On this episode JD was indeed…extra.
Hard for me to objectively assess the effect of that on the show, as I know just enough about the British system that certain stretches of nonsense made my head hurt almost as much as Ed’s.
Ha!
I've always considered it among the highest forms of patriotism to obtain juuuust enough knowledge about the British royalty to mess with them effectively, preferably followed by chucking some tea into the nearest large body of water
Ditto
At some point JD became so insistent that Ed became tongue-tied, and I don't think he ever quite made it clear to JD that the two nations were legally merged in 1707. (And also, in 1603 the King of Scotland became King of England, not vice versa, so the claim about the English title as being the one that accrued other titles is also not right, and I think Ed was too tired to refute it by that point.)
The mess is ended, BREXIT in peace, glorifying the Lord (not the King) by your lives 🙏
The words “Queen of England” will reliably take my brain to this classic “Hard Luck Stories” bit from those great masters of deadpan comedy, Bob and Ray.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpY2SZ_9UfY
My two cents.
The 13 colonies should have remained subjects of the Crown.
The Revolutionary War was not a just war.
Had the colonies failed in their bid for independence, perhaps both slavery and the treatment of Indigenous Peoples might have been addressed more justly.
The United States should seek to join the Commonwealth.
Had a timely investigation been conducted into the validity of the marriages of then-Prince Charles to Diana and of Camilla to Andrew Parker Bowles, finding grounds for nullity would have been exceedingly easy. Therefore, I presume the validity of King Charles’s marriage to Queen Camilla.
Prayers are needed for the conversion of England to Catholicism. If that proves impossible, at least for the reformation of the Church of England into a body more faithful to the Scriptures and the Church Fathers. At minimum, may the Church of England halt its descent into shear madness.
"My God, do we not want... regular people to be able to book the private royal chapel."
The most British pause I've ever heard.