"a member for Oxford" refers to "a member for Oxford City Hall"?

@Setanta,

I may well give it a go.

When Tony Blair took office they decided to put a painting of Cromwell centre stage at No. 10, to show New Labour's commitment to a more egalitarian, republican Britain.

Unfortunately his first visitor was Bertie Ahern, who didn't see things quite the same way.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Small wonder . . . i would hardly equate Cromwell with egalitarianism, although he was arguably more tolerant than most other Puritans. You probably have interlibrary loan over there, it shouldn't be that hard to get Fraser's book. It's not light reading by any means, but she's a very good writer, and it's often a pleasure to read her work.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Unfortunately his first visitor was Bertie Ahern, who didn't see things quite the same way.

During the Spanish Civil War many Irish volunteers who fought on the anti-Franco side were not happy about the British volunteers choice of the name of "Oliver Cromwell Brigade" for their unit. I'm not sure what the Irish volunteers who fought on Franco's side thought of it.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I suggest to you that Powers that were and are in England don't want to see a written constitution. Limits their options, you know.

No, you don't know, though you often attempt to make people think you do.

0 Replies

@contrex,

contrex wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
Unfortunately his first visitor was Bertie Ahern, who didn't see things quite the same way.

During the Spanish Civil War many Irish volunteers who fought on the anti-Franco side were not happy about the British volunteers choice of the name of "Oliver Cromwell Brigade" for their unit. I'm not sure what the Irish volunteers who fought on Franco's side thought of it.

Talking of Oliver Cromwell has reminded me of King Charles I. I wonder whether King Charles I and today's Queen Elizabeth were from the same (royal) family.

2 Replies

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

I wonder whether King Charles I and today's Queen Elizabeth were from the same (royal) family.

Yes, of course. There is only one royal family. Charles I was the Queen's 8th great-granduncle. The Queen is directly descended from William the Conqueror (he is her 22nd great-grandfather). Her direct and indirect royal ancestry goes back further than William I; William's wife Matilda was a direct descendant of Alfred the Great via the marriage of Alfred's daughter Elfrida to Baldwin II, Count of Flanders, in the late 9th century.

The Conqueror also had a minor blood claim to the throne of England, going back to his great-aunt Emma, mother of his cousin King Edward the Confessor, last King of the House of Wessex, meaning again, that Queen Elizabeth's direct royal ancestry predates the Conquest.

Chart of descent as far back as William here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_I

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Distantly--Margaret Tudor, the daughter of Henry Tudor (King Henry VII) and Elizabeth of York was married off to King James IV of Scotland, James Stuart. His grandson, James VI of Scotland (son of Mary, Queen of Scots), became King James I of Englnad upon the death of the last Tudor monarch, Queen Elizabeth. His daughter (James VI & I), Elizabeth, was married to Frederick V, the Elector Palatine.

Known as Elizabeth of Bohemia, she had a daughter, Sophia, who was married to Ernest Augustus, the Duke of Brunswick, and the son of Sophia and Ernest Augusuts was George, the Elector of Hanover. Although there were dozens of Catholic relatives of Queen Anne (Anne Stuart, granddaughter of King James I of England), the Parliament had passed an act barring Catholics from the succession to the throne. When Queen Anne died (1714) without an heir, George, Elector of Hanover, became King George I. He was succeeded by his son and grandson, both Georges, and the grandson, George III had many sons, one of whom, the Duke of Kent, had a daughter, Victoria. George III was succeeded by his son George IV, nnd George IV was succeeded by his brother, William IV. When William died in 1837, he was succeeded by his niece, Victoria. It isn't necessary to go into the marriages, but the current monarch, Elizabeth II, is directly descended from Queen Victoria.

So, the answer is yes, Elizabeth is a distant relation to King Charles I, but she is not descended from him--she is descended from the father of Charles I, James VI and I.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

An elected official who represents the people of a particular area, in this case, Oxford University.

Nothing to do with the university, although he would represent them too, as they would fall within his constituency.

The "member for Oxford" is a member of parliament, representing the parliamentary constituency of Oxford.

2 Replies

@McTag,

Read the whole thread Tag, in this case you're wrong.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Nothing to do with the university

From 1603 until the Representation Of The People Act 1948 came into effect in 1950, Oxford and Cambridge Universities elected members of parliament. More came later, and lasted for various lengths of time. The remaining ones which lasted until 1950 were: Cambridge, Oxford, London, Combined English Universities, Combined Scottish Universities, Queen's University of Belfast, University of Wales.

Like Izzy said, read the whole thread. Did you think I just posted my answer above off the top of my head?

1 Reply

@contrex,

Quote:

Did you think I just posted my answer above off the top of my head?

I've got to read other people's posts now? Who knew that?

I was trying to correct a problem in interpretation which might have flowed (unusually, it must be said) from Joe Nation's post.
And also trying to help a Chinese guy understand what nowadays is generally meant by "the member for....".
Insofar as I was unaware of the historical context, and for not reading closely all the learned posts and the others too, I most heartily and shamefacedly apologise.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

I most heartily and shamefacedly apologise.

I reckon you owe me a pint or a wee heavy.

0 Replies

@contrex,

contrex wrote:

oristarA wrote:
I wonder whether King Charles I and today's Queen Elizabeth were from the same (royal) family.

Yes, of course. There is only one royal family. Charles I was the Queen's 8th great-granduncle. The Queen is directly descended from William the Conqueror (he is her 22nd great-grandfather). Her direct and indirect royal ancestry goes back further than William I; William's wife Matilda was a direct descendant of Alfred the Great via the marriage of Alfred's daughter Elfrida to Baldwin II, Count of Flanders, in the late 9th century.

The Conqueror also had a minor blood claim to the throne of England, going back to his great-aunt Emma, mother of his cousin King Edward the Confessor, last King of the House of Wessex, meaning again, that Queen Elizabeth's direct royal ancestry predates the Conquest.

Chart of descent as far back as William here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_I

Very cool.
Thank you Contrex.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Distantly--Margaret Tudor, the daughter of Henry Tudor (King Henry VII) and Elizabeth of York was married off to King James IV of Scotland, James Stuart. His grandson, James VI of Scotland (son of Mary, Queen of Scots), became King James I of Englnad upon the death of the last Tudor monarch, Queen Elizabeth. His daughter (James VI & I), Elizabeth, was married to Frederick V, the Elector Palatine.

Known as Elizabeth of Bohemia, she had a daughter, Sophia, who was married to Ernest Augustus, the Duke of Brunswick, and the son of Sophia and Ernest Augusuts was George, the Elector of Hanover. Although there were dozens of Catholic relatives of Queen Anne (Anne Stuart, granddaughter of King James I of England), the Parliament had passed an act barring Catholics from the succession to the throne. When Queen Anne died (1714) without an heir, George, Elector of Hanover, became King George I. He was succeeded by his son and grandson, both Georges, and the grandson, George III had many sons, one of whom, the Duke of Kent, had a daughter, Victoria. George III was succeeded by his son George IV, nnd George IV was succeeded by his brother, William IV. When William died in 1837, he was succeeded by his niece, Victoria. It isn't necessary to go into the marriages, but the current monarch, Elizabeth II, is directly descended from Queen Victoria.

So, the answer is yes, Elizabeth is a distant relation to King Charles I, but she is not descended from him--she is descended from the father of Charles I, James VI and I.

Excellent!

I read it through and caught some essence there. But the data look to have too many names and titles to bear in mind, and a family tree would be easier to remember, I believe.

Thank you.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

http://www.britroyals.com/royaltree.htm

Hope you can access this from where you are.

1 Reply

So they're Windsors now, aren't they? How did that happen? We kicked out the Hanovers, didn't we? What was Victoria?
And there were Plantagenets and Yorks and Tudors and Stuarts in there too, before the Hanovers. Weren't some Oranges?

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

When Victoria married Alfred she became a Saxe-Coburg. The name was changed during WW1. Bit rum talking about the filthy hun when the king's called Saxe-Coburg donchaknow.

1 Reply

ach so, danke sehr.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

William of Orange was married to Mary Stuart. He was a Queen's consort who was king as well, very rum.

0 Replies

so were the kids Oranges or Stuarts?

2 Replies

"a member for Oxford" refers to "a member for Oxford City Hall"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know