Syphillis.. That movie is creepy but really good. And i can see where it's feasible...

 

:werd:
i side with the other virgin

 

Because he had issues....serious issues


:af: Hi Grifter

 

because his hampster died. j\k

i agree with the all messed up in the head part. probobly from a bad child hood or something

 

he was a ............

 

 

didnt he surgically cut "them" up like a scientist?

he did it all in the name of science

and like most scientists he was :screwy:

 

Although an interesting fantasy, that story really was pretty far off for a number of reasons.

1.The Prince implicated was too far from the succession for his escapades to have been a threat, and the Queen had means at her disposal to deal with any threat his escapades might be.

2.No person covered by the RMA can get married without the sovereign's permission, and that marriage is completely invalid in the law if the sovereign has not approved ahead of time, which approval is kept in the records of the Privy Council. Moreover, anyone who performed such a wedding, anyone who stood at the altar of such a wedding, and anyone who ever witnessed such a wedding "incurred and suffered the pains and penalties of Praemunire."

This means that you would have acknowledged a temporal power greater than your own people's power, your own sovereign's power, and you were essentially committing a capital crime. People just did not do that kind of thing. It's a kind of treason.

3.The fanciful child, Alice, would not have been any kind of threat in the law. No child born of a Catholic can succeed, no Catholic can succeed, and no child born outside of a marriage approved of by the sovereign can succeed.

4.If the Masons really had all that much power, they wouldn't have allowed the movie to be made or the books to be written.

5.The Queen's physician had many problems, but mental illness wasn't one of them. Nor was Her Majesty as distantly uninformed and uninvolved as the movie would like for you to believe. Her intelligence services were everywhere and she knew what was going on in the world, even if her constitutional understanding of the liberty of the subject prevented her intefering.

 

The author at casebook.org also points out quite rightly that the Duke of Clarence died in the flu epidemic, and did not die of syphillis as the author fancifully created.

Be careful taking everything at casebook.org as Gospel truth, though. He has mixed up his facts a bit and seems to have confused some details of the life of Edward, Prince of Wales with "Eddy" the Duke of Clarence.

Casebook.org also reminds us that the author of the fanciful theory involving the Duke of Clarence was invited to have free access to all records involving the activities of the Duke of Clarence and he declined. Weirdly suspicious, eh?

 

whoa.. i stand corrected..