Return to Answer

And Mr. Evan Vaughan Anwyl of Tywyn (born 1943) may be the rightful heir of the kings of Gywnedd and Kings of the Britons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Aberffraw#Anwyl_family_of_Tywyn[8]

There is a complication here. Emperor Franz Joseph I (1830-1916) was probably the heir of Harold II Godwinsson. But Emperor Franz Joseph I (1830-1916) has three possible heirs.

By the rule of male preference primogeniture, the rule that passed the heirship of Harold II down to Franz Joseph, his heir is Guillaume, Prince of Windisch-Graetz (b. 1950).

http://europeandynasties.com/descendants_of_crown_prince_rudo.htm[8]

By the rule of male only primogeniture, or agnatic primogeniture, the heir of Franz Joseph is George, 3rd Duke of Hohenberg (b. 1929).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohenberg_family[9]

But George's grandparents, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Sophie Duchess of Hohenberg, had a nondynastic, unequal, or morganic type of marriage, making their descendants unable to inherit the Austrian throne. That makes the right to the Austrian throne pass to Karl von Habsburg, the third potential heir of King Harold II Godwinsson.

Some historians have claimed that King Harold II Godwinsson was descended from King Aethelred, the older brother of King Alfred the Great, which would make the heirs of Harold II the rightful heirs of Anglo-Saxon England, if true.

And Mr. Evan Vaughan Anwyl of Tywyn (born 1943) may be the rightful heir of the kings of Gywnedd and Kings of the Britons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Aberffraw#Anwyl_family_of_Tywyn[10]

If someone accepts that the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 was totally right, then Elizabeth II is the 100 percent legal and rightful sovereign of the United Kingdom. If someone does not accept the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 as totally right, then there are numerous other persons with claims to be the rightful monarchs, and the question of which medieval English and Scottish royalty was of legitimate birth is then important to selecting the true rightful heir.

If someone accepts that the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 was totally right, then Elizabeth II is the 100 percent legal and rightful sovereign of the United Kingdom. If someone does not accept the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 was totally right, then there are numerous other persons with claims to be the rightful monarchs, and the question of which medieval English and Scottish royalty was of legitimate birth is then important to selecting the true rightful heir.

As another example, in 977 King Lothair of France's wife Queen Emma was accused of adultery with Bishop Adelberen of Laon by Lothair's brother Charles. Nobody knows if the charges were true. Emma and Adelberen were not convicted and Charles was exiled from France. If the charges were false Lothair and Emma's son Louis was the rightful heir to the throne, if the charges were correct Charles would be the rightful heir to the throne.

In 978 Lothair invaded the Holy Roman Empire and Emperor Otto II retaliated by invading France and proclaiming Charles the new king. And no matter who was the rightful king or heir of France before, the instant that the emperor decreed that Charles was the king of France, all right to the throne was snatched away from Lothair and his descendants and/or successors - such as the Capetians and Bourbons - and granted to Charles and his heirs forever, or until such time as some future emperor should decree otherwise.

So it doesn't matter if Emmas's son, the future Louis V, was really Lothair's legitimate son or the bastard son of Bishop Adelberen of Laon. When the emperor decreed that Charles was the king of France, Louis and all his successors lost all right to become king.

Centuries later four future successors of Lothair and Louis married two sets of sisters, two daughters of the Count of Burgundy and two daughters of the Duke of Burgundy, just to confuse everyone.

The future Louis X, Philip V, and Charles IV, sons of Philip IV the (un) Fair, and their first cousin the future Philip VI, were married to those four young women when three of the wives were accused of adultery in the Tour de Nesle affair in 1314.

Posts # 1, 14, here: http://historum.com/medieval-byzantine-history/121828-navarre-succession-crises-1316-1322-1328-a-2.html discuss the possible lines of succession to the potential heirs.

And none of these possible cases of royal illegitimacy matter to the present day presidents of France whose right depends only on being elected according to the terms of the constitution of the Fifth Republic of France established in 1958.

And for much the same reasons the claim of Elizabeth II to be the rightful monarch of the United Kingdom does not depend on whether any medieval monarchs of England or Scotland were of legitimate birth. Her claim of right to be queen goes back only as far as the invasion and revolution in 1688. She claims to be the rightful heir according to the rules and laws of succession established by the invaders and revolutionaries of 1688, no more, no less.

If someone accepts that the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 was totally right, then Elizabeth II is the 100 percent legal and rightful sovereign of the United Kingdom. If someone does not accept the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 as totally right, then there are numerous other persons with claims to be the rightful monarchs, and the question of which medieval English and Scottish royalty was of legitimate birth is then important to selecting the true rightful heir.