User talk:Stephen2nd/sandbox

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

... the German Prince Leopold I of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfield ... had lost his British throne when his wife Charlotte, only child of George IV, had predeceased William IV in 1817. Thus, the succession of the British throne passed to Leopold’s sister Victoria, the mother of Queen Victoria, and to Leopold’s brother; Ernest I, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, who was the father of Albert, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, whom Victoria married.

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.

The English precedent forbidding maternal succession, challenged succession of princes of a House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, against the continuance of the House of Hanover. ...

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)


 * 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”.

..that even today (1981), historians often discuss the Hanoverian heritage, to good or bad effect, in Queen Victoria’s blood while no one seems to take into consideration the fact that she was just as much a descendant of the Counts of Erbach, as she was of the rulers of Hanover.
 * It was Maclagan who stated (Belgium. Ch 9, p82): Ultimately the congress agreed to nominate Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfield. He had already been married to the only child of George IV, but the death in childbirth of Princess Charlotte robbed him of the throne of Britain.
 * Table 42: (House of Saxe-Coburg on thrones of Europe)

Leopold’s sister Victoria, as mother of Queen Victoria, and Leopold’s brother Ernest I, as father of Prince Albert. Stephen2nd (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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)