Queen Elizabeth II not the rightful Queen...?

I recently watched a documentary by Tony Robinson, and if his claim is true, which it does very much indeed look so, that Elizabeth II is not the rightful heir to the throne, and all those before her dating back to Edward IV, then could the 'rightful heir' claim his throne?

This was in the press a few years ago, but it just simmered out... I'm interested in what would happen if the 'rightful heir' did want his throne... does anybody have any idea? I'm not very clued up about the British Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5fIwLo1Trs

Reply 1

stemitchell91

The Royal Family and the government would presumably laugh in their face and tell them where to go. Essentially during medieval times the "rightful" monarch was whoever could take the throne, and then keep it (inheritance laws could sometimes ignored due to the fact that someone with a lesser claim had more support/armies).

As a good example of this, take William de Normandie. He certainly wasn't first in line to the throne, but he had a large army, papal backing and some generally good luck which put him on the throne; Harold Godwinson had a better claim, but that didn't matter since he got shot in the face.

Reply 2

LukeyJB

Original post by stemitchell91

Yes, but it's rumored that Edward IV was born a bastard; his father was a commoner - and those rumors seem to hold true - so that breaks the royal blood line

Reply 3

stemitchell91

Original post by LukeyJB

Yes, but it's rumored that Edward IV was born a bastard; his father was a commoner - and those rumors seem to hold true - so that breaks the royal blood line

As long as he was either legitimised or the previous king claimed him as his son, it doesn't matter if he was a bastard. I'd point out that William de Normandie from my example was famously known as William the Bastard.

Reply 4

cant_think_of_name

Yeah Pascal Sauvage is actually the rightful king :redface:

Reply 5

stemitchell91

Original post by cant_think_of_name

Yeah Pascal Sauvage is actually the rightful king :redface:

Only if the Queen abdicates. :tongue:

Reply 6

Will Lucky

Original post by stemitchell91

As a good example of this, take William de Normandie. He certainly wasn't first in line to the throne, but he had a large army, papal backing and some generally good luck which put him on the throne; Harold Godwinson had a better claim, but that didn't matter since he got shot in the face.

Oh god no, William had a stronger claim. Harold was just quicker to the punch, his first action was to solidify his power.

Of course, William proceeded to take back the throne he was next in line for.

Original post by Will Lucky

Just spent a few minutes looking it up, you're right about him having a better claim. My example is fairly rubbish now.

Reply 9

scrotgrot

It doesn't matter at all, for starters, the best known usurpation of the throne, the Glorious Revolution, happened over two hundred years later, so even if this were not true, the Queen is still plainly not the real successor.

And that is ignoring all the general turmoil of the Middle Ages where there were often several claimants to the throne who basically fought for it. Off the top of my head I can think of three: 1066, the Anarchy and the Wars of the Roses.

Reply 10

thunder_chunky

Original post by LukeyJB

Civil war followed by some public executions perhaps? It might make a nice change to the usual day to day dross.

Reply 11

MatureStudent36

The armed forces have been swearing allegiance to her since 1952 as have all politicians. I'm sensing they could be a problem.

Reply 12

Rakas21

Original post by thunder_chunky

Civil war followed by some public executions perhaps? It might make a nice change to the usual day to day dross.

About time we had a good old public flogging and hanging. :colone:

OP, the person in question has no army and at best would get a monetary settlement from the crown.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 13

username1020490

Edward may well have been a bastard, I think it is unlikely as his parents were only 100miles apart in France during the time of his conception, and, importantly, it was very rare for wives to accompany their husbands on campaign- so they were clearly hoping to stay close to have children. Yes Edward is tall, unlike his brother Richard, but he looked quite similar to his other brother George. The Plantagenet's appear to have two distinct genetical lines- tall and built: Edward I, II, III and many many more examples; as well as short and dark haired like Edward's father, and brother Richard.

Also, to directly address the question, even if he was a bastard, it does not matter at all. He was proclaimed king, accepted as king, and crowned- this legally goes over the top of any bastardy or attainders. It can be seen through Henry VII's accession, there was no need to revoke his attainder, as being king overrides it all.

Oh and on top of that, the 1485 settlement vested the Crown in Henry Tudor and his heirs, as the heirs to the Lancastrians, so Edward's 'bastardy' is actually completely irrelevant. As well as all the later Acts of Settlements.