[ArthurWinterthurII]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...Australia.html

Michael Abney-Hastings, or "King Michael", was a British-born self-proclaimed republican who made international headlines in 2004 when a Channel 4 documentary suggested that King Edward IV was conceived illegitimately. It said the crown should have been passed down the Plantagenet line – ending at Abney-Hastings.

The reluctant, would-be king was born in Sussex and went to school at Ampleforth College in Yorkshire but moved as a teenager with his family to the small Australian town of Jerilderie, population 768, about 400 miles from Sydney.

His "claim" to the throne first became apparent after the documentary, Britain's Real Monarch, put forward a thesis by a historian, Dr Michael Jones, who said King Edward, who reigned from 1461 to 1483, was conceived when his parents were 100 miles apart.

May His Majesty rest in peace.

[alex5455]

yet more proof why an inherited monarchy is a ridiculous concept

[Ham22]

(Original post by alex5455)
yet more proof why an inherited monarchy is a ridiculous concept

Bingo. It's laughable. The royal family is a joke.

[kka25]

wow! but how close is this to the truth?

[Huz]

Well. That's obviously sad but can't forget that they have waged a war in Afghanistan.

[Norton1]

(Original post by Huz)
Well. That's obviously sad but can't forget that they have waged a war in Afghanistan.

You know I think a lot more people would support both the war and the royals if the Queen was charging about Afghanistan in a Challenger tank.

[ArthurWinterthurII]

(Original post by kka25)
wow! but how close is this to the truth?

King Michael's not the only King.

Jacobites still recognise Franz, Duke of Bavaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_...cession_rights ) as rightful King of England, Scotland and Ireland.

[fudgesundae]

This whole debacle was really a product of poor investigation and sensationalist journalism.

It has also been pointed out that Edward IV could claim the crown from Henry VI by right of conquest, whether he was a legitimate child or not, and that he was the eldest male heir in the senior line, since Richard, Duke of York, never contested his paternity. Under English law a child born to a married woman is presumed to be her husband's, although the husband may contest the presumption. Also, even if he were illegitimate, Edward still had a direct (albeit legally barred) blood-claim to the throne through his mother Cecily, who was a great-granddaughter of Edward III through John of Gaunt and his illegitimate daughter (Cecily's mother) Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland. Although this claim was through an illegitimate line, it was no weaker than that of Henry Tudor, who dislodged the House of York from the throne in 1485.

All of this is irrelevant anyway. The Queen is the Queen because of the Act of Settlement 1701, not because she is descended from anyone in particular.

[Martyn*]

Another conspiracy theory.

[ForKicks]

Is it me, or is TSR reading more and more like the Mail, despite using links to other papers..

[Izvestia]

(Original post by ArthurWinterthurII)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...Australia.html



May His Majesty rest in peace.

Regardless of whether he legitimately should have been; or whetehr it was an ironic title; he was not the King of England...

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
This whole debacle was really a product of poor investigation and sensationalist journalism.



All of this is irrelevant anyway. The Queen is the Queen because of the Act of Settlement 1701, not because she is descended from anyone in particular.

It has a fair amount to do with the fact she is descended from George VI.

[philistine]

I've always been the King of England. It's the sole reason I wear a pocket square with four points- to point out that very fact, that 'I am the King'.

[M4LLY]

Really?

[Manitude]

I remember watching this program when it was first put out. I have no strong opinion one way or the other, obviously it's unfortunate that somebody has died.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
It has a fair amount to do with the fact she is descended from George VI.

As far as the law is concerned, she's queen because she's descended from the Electress Sophia of Hannover. That she's also the eldest child of George VI is a lucky coincidence.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by mmmpie)
As far as the law is concerned, she's queen because she's descended from the Electress Sophia of Hannover. That she's also the eldest child of George VI is a lucky coincidence.

It is not enough that she is a descendant of Electress Sophia. These two young ladies are also descendents. She has to be the heir of Electress Sophia and she can only be that by being her father's daughter.

[kka25]

Power makes people do strange thing is what I'm getting here really :/

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
It has a fair amount to do with the fact she is descended from George VI.

haha yeh, I probably should have said she isn't Queen because of any ancestry before the Act of Settlement.

[The_Mighty_Bush]

Edward IV probably wasn't illegitimate anyway. Like most history documentaries on TV the whole thing is based on one historian's controversial opinion and doesn't even take into the account that most historians would disagree with Dr. Jones.