Queen Elizabeth isn't Britain's legitimate monarch
- Thread starter Murphy
- Start date
Not only has a number of historians since challenged the conclusions reached by the programme but that Australian fellow is now dead.
"Britain's Real Monarch" and more pulp fiction nonsense...
Posted by The Monarchist at 8:24 PM . Wednesday, April 6, 2005
Labels: Royal Sovereigns
THE THEORY ABOUT the illegitimacy of Britain's monarchs since Edward IV has been around since..., well, Edward IV. It is amazing how succeeding generations of quack historians - most recently, that diminutive manservant from Black Adder who is pushing a treatment of the matter on the History Channel - "discover" it and attempt to flog it to the (increasingly indifferent) masses. The whole idea of five centuries of illegitimate monarchs is, in actual fact, bunk of the first rank, for reasons which I shall explain here.
The conjecture that Edward IV was a bastard was active in his lifetime, and there is, in fact, reason to believe that the conjecture may have been well-founded. Some recent scholarship suggests strongly that Richard, duke of York, was on campaign in France and nowhere near his wife, Cicely Neville, at any time when Edward could plausibly have been conceived. The record indicates that this possibility was widely whispered in Edward's lifetime, and that Edward's supporters (and ironically, the Tudor monarchs) fought actively to disprove the rumours.
All this matters, in principle, because Edward's claim to the throne derived from the descendency of his father, Richard of York, from Edward III (through his grandfather Edmund, duke of York, third son of Edward III; and his father Richard, earl of Cambridge, who was attainted of high treason by Henry V and executed in 1415). In many respects, Edward's claim to the throne was on the same order of strength as that of Henry VI, who descended from the second son of Edward III, John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster. As we all know, the fact of this strong claim, which provoked Richard's persecution at the hands of Henry VI's wife, Margaret of Anjou, touched off the Wars of the Roses. But I digress...
If Edward had, in fact, been born of a father other than Richard, he would not have been of the royal blood, and would therefore have been entirely without a legitimate claim to the throne. More to the point, however - given that Edward's brother, Richard III, who undoubtedly was legitimate and therefore definitely of the royal blood, was killed on Bosworth Field by Henry (VII) Tudor in 1485 - are the implications with respect to the Tudor dynasty. Henry VIII's royal blood derived in part from that of his mother, Elizabeth, who was the daughter of Edward IV. The theorists point out that the loss of this link would upset the rightful order of precedence to the succession.
Henry VIII was, however, also of the royal blood in his father’s right – his father was great-great-grandson of John of Gaunt. The bastardy of Edward, even if fact, would therefore not sever the blood continuity of Britain's monarchs from Henry VI to his Tudor successors on the throne. Let me now come to the point of my argument, which is three-fold: first, that the potential bastardy of Edward cannot now be lawfully established; second, that Edward’s bastardy, even if proved, would not substantially affect the legitimacy of Tudor and subsequent claims to the throne; and third, that even if Edward had been a bastard, and even if that bastardy had in fact severed the blood continuity of the Crown, it would not finally matter in the slightest.
It is self-evident that the information available to us today is insufficient to rule on a point of fact that is 563 years in the past, especially on an issue of such vast consequence. The evidence was insufficient at the time, and has been so considered ever since.
Second: the Tudor dynasty’s blood links to the Plantagenets derived from both sides of Henry VIII's parentage. So issues of precedence aside, continuity of the royal blood would not have been fully interrupted by Edward’s supposed bastardy. And what significance can we meaningfully attach to such second-order issues of precedence, in a century that saw the Wars of the Roses - the storm sown by the usurpation of the Crown of Richard II by Henry (IV) Bolingbroke – pass the Crown three times between competing branches of the same family?
Which brings me to my final point. The right of kings, within the span and scope of British history and law, does not derive exclusively from birth, but from the fact of rule which may, under exceptional circumstances, be established by means other than rightful precedence or even of blood inheritance. Such circumstances obtained, for example, in the cases of Henry Bolingbroke, Henry Tudor, and William the Conqueror. In the latter case, the right to the throne was established and recognized by outright force of conquest, irrespective of any (in fact extant) blood ties to a prior king.
These arguments are irrefutably and completely vindicated and upheld by over five centuries of British history - those centuries establishing fact and precedent that by themselves are absolutely unassailable under British constitutional law.
So much for the dime-novel bunk. God save the Queen.
"Britain's Real Monarch" and more pulp fiction nonsense...
The rightful king is whoever is powerful enough to hold the title. WHo slept with who several hundred years ago is irrelevant. Just like the monarchy.
The British and Canadian monarchies are much more relevant than the British and Canadian republics (England, Scotland and Ireland were once a republic but the people hated it).
Henry VIII's will determined the next three monarchs after him - Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I.
It's one reason why the populace supported Mary when Lady Jane Grey usurped her Throne for nine days and Jane's subsequent beheading at the age of 16 - Mary was the rightful Queen according to her father's will.
As far as i am aware The current senior heir-general of King James II of England and VII of Scotland is Franz, Duke of Bavaria. This represents the legitimate Jacobite and Catholic lineage of the British Throne. Elizabeth is the Anglican Pretender. Franz' family was notable for its opposition to the Nazis, for which Franz was sent to a Concentration Camp as child.
James II was ousted from the Throne due to his persecution of Scottish Presbyterians (known as The Killing Time); his support of Absolute Monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings; and his Catholic policies which alienated the majority of his subjects. He didn't learn from his father Charles I's and his great-grandmother Mary Queen of Scots's mistakes and was lucky that he wasn't also beheaded like them.
The Stuarts were a bad bunch, with the exception of the last Stuart monarch Queen Anne. It was right to get rid of them.
And Elizabeth II is no pretender. She is the lawful monarch according to the Line of Succession.
Elizabeth is a stupid old c*nt clinging to an outmoded historical system of people with money and some hired swords claiming authority over every other human. All monarchies should be abolished and all their wealth distributed to the citizens.
Now you are starting to act ignorant and stupid, Nick! I think she may be clinging to life, but her job lasts for the duration. I don't believe she volunteered for it in the first place. As far as I know she's done a good job.
What I find funny from reading this thread is that some of you did not even watch it, but feel like you have something to add to the discussion.
What I also find funny is that no one here is an expert or even knowledgeable of Britain's succession laws, but will argue who is legitimate and who isn't. That's why Robinson went to the experts during his search for the rightful heir.
Some of you also ignored, or didn't even watch Richard Hastings response when he was asked if he would go back to England and claim his throne. In order for the Queen to be evicted from Buckingham Palace, Hastings has to start the ball rolling.
Carry on arguing as to whether or not the Queen is legit, an old fool, and who is legally entitled to what. Regardless of who sits there, rightfully or not, the monarchy's days are numbered.
What I also find funny is that no one here is an expert or even knowledgeable of Britain's succession laws, but will argue who is legitimate and who isn't. That's why Robinson went to the experts during his search for the rightful heir.
Some of you also ignored, or didn't even watch Richard Hastings response when he was asked if he would go back to England and claim his throne. In order for the Queen to be evicted from Buckingham Palace, Hastings has to start the ball rolling.
Carry on arguing as to whether or not the Queen is legit, an old fool, and who is legally entitled to what. Regardless of who sits there, rightfully or not, the monarchy's days are numbered.
How many hours have you personally spent over the past 60+ years observing her doing her job? 100? 200? 1000? I'd bet about the same number that I have and I wouldn't dream of criticising her performance!
How many hours have you personally spent over the past 60+ years observing her doing her job? 100? 200? 1000? I'd bet about the same number that I have and I wouldn't dream of criticising her performance!
I'm sure she does a fine job at playing god over the citizens. My point is the monarchy, all monarchies in fact, are outdated and not needed and should be completely abolished and all the royal wealth given back to the citizens where it came from to begin with. I can't fault her for believing she has a god-given right to rule over all the other humans as she was taught from birth but I do not agree with the lie.
What's outmoded about it?
Using your logic, the republic is an outmoded system, due to the fact that ancient Rome, Athens and Sparta were republics.
The idea that the royals are superior and chosen by god to rule over people is pathetic. In this day and age where the general populace is educated nobody is superior especially by bloodline. They are a huge waste of money. All their wealth has come from the citizens and should be returned.
No different from believing that presidents are superior.
They weren't chosen by God. They were chosen according to the Line of Succession.
That's simply not true.
No, they aren't. The constitutional monarchy is the best form of governance in today's world and Britain's is very cheap.
Give me a detailed breakdown of where the royal wealth comes from.