Over the past few decades, great strides have been made in DNA
analysis and in data science. Analysis of the DNA of living members
of the royal families of Europe have allowed reconstruction of their
earlier and earlier ancestors.

This has resulting in a shocking discovery. It turns out that William
the Conqueror was illegitimate, i.e. his parents were not married to
each other!

This of course means that none of his descendants were or are rightful
kings or queens or the ancestors thereof. This includes Princess
Sophia of the Palatinate, Electress of Hanover. By current law, all
British monarchs must be her descendants. This creates a problem.

Parliament is working late to change that law, replacing her with
Alfred the Great. The entire British population will them be checked
to see who is most closely related to him. That person will become
the new British king or queen (if they're a member of the Church of
England, of course). If you're British and a church member, please
spit in a cup and mail it to Buckingham Palace for DNA analysis.
Thanks.

Of course this means that all laws that were ratified by monarchs
since 1066 are hereby null and void, and the laws have reverted to
those extant in 1065. If you are fluent in Old English, please
report to Parliament for translation duty. Thanks.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 02:57:40 -0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Over the past few decades, great strides have been made in DNA
>analysis and in data science. Analysis of the DNA of living members
>of the royal families of Europe have allowed reconstruction of their
>earlier and earlier ancestors.
>
>This has resulting in a shocking discovery. It turns out that William
>the Conqueror was illegitimate, i.e. his parents were not married to
>each other!
>
>This of course means that none of his descendants were or are rightful
>kings or queens or the ancestors thereof. This includes Princess
>Sophia of the Palatinate, Electress of Hanover. By current law, all
>British monarchs must be her descendants. This creates a problem.
>
>Parliament is working late to change that law, replacing her with
>Alfred the Great. The entire British population will them be checked
>to see who is most closely related to him. That person will become
>the new British king or queen (if they're a member of the Church of
>England, of course). If you're British and a church member, please
>spit in a cup and mail it to Buckingham Palace for DNA analysis.
>Thanks.
>
>Of course this means that all laws that were ratified by monarchs
>since 1066 are hereby null and void, and the laws have reverted to
>those extant in 1065. If you are fluent in Old English, please
>report to Parliament for translation duty. Thanks.

Two points, one, it was already known that William the Bastard's, aka
the Conqueror, parents weren't married (at least to each other).

And, two, it doesn't matter whether he had a legitimate claim to the
throne, as, since he took the throne by force of arms, the line starts
with him.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> Two points, one, it was already known that William the Bastard's,
> aka the Conqueror, parents weren't married (at least to each other).

Yes, that was the point of my joke -- that something that's been known
for nearly a thousand years was being presented as a shocking new
discovery.

Another part of my joke is based on the fact that probably everyone
now living who has any Anglo-Saxon ancestry is a direct descendant of
his. So the likelihood that anyone now living who is descended from
Alfred the Great isn't also descended from William is pretty much zero.

> And, two, it doesn't matter whether he had a legitimate claim to
> the throne, as, since he took the throne by force of arms, the
> line starts with him.

He actually did have a pretty good claim. He didn't just randomly
march into England and say that it was his now. Unfortunately, two
others also had pretty good claims, which is why there was a war.

That's what scares me about those who say that the 2020 election was
stolen. Who is president (or king) is usually much less important
than that everyone agrees on who that is. The worst case for 2024 is
if half the US population, including half the military, believe that
one guy won and the other half are equally sure that the other guy
won. Civil wars seldom end well.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.