Has this article got their information wrong? | Historical Debates | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Has this article got their information wrong?
July 14, 2012
6:08 am
Avatar
Bill1978
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 476
Member Since:
April 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

OK so while browsing the news on my phone I came across this article

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ne…..6423828014

It’s about how an Australian is now a new pretender to the British throne with the death of his father. In the article, the story says that his claim to the throne is based on Edward IV being an illegitamate child and therefore Edward’s descendeants do not have a claim to the thrown including Elizabeth II.

As a non-expert on the War Of The Roses saga, I thought the whole illegitimatcy involved the Princes In The Tower and in reality is a null and void cause none of Edward’s children ever claimed the throne after Richard III, his daughter just happened to be married to an eventual King of England which wouldn’t make any descendeants illegitimate if we are using Richard III’s act or of Edward himself was illegitimate.

Has this article got its ancestors wrong? Should they be talking about John of Gaunt’s (I think) descendants who ended up with Henry VII claiming the throne?

July 14, 2012
6:20 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bill,
They are talking about Edward IV.
Two people claimed that Cecily Neville, Edward’s Mother, had an affair when the Duke was away with the military. Edward was the result. The accusers were Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick and Cecily’s son, (and Edward’s brother) George, Duke of Clarence. These two were trying to overthrow Edward. Edward was born in Rouen and he was immediately baptized. It was not a grand affair like Clarence’s baptism. Left the door open I guess for Warwick and Clarence. Some historians say Edward was illegit because the Duke of York had been away when Cecily would have conceived. Others say York could have visited his wife from wherever he was. Richard, Duke of York readily acknowledged Edward as his son. The claims were eventually dismissed, but apparently, not forgotten.

July 14, 2012
8:35 pm
Avatar
Maggyann
Nottingham
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 239
Member Since:
May 7, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

One of CJ Sansom’s stories covers this I think it was Sovereign?
I hadn’t even heard of the whole brouhaha until I read that. The Babbacombe conspiracy or something (not not Babbacombe but similar – Jeezz Babbacombe is Uncle Tom Cobley I think not the monarchy haha) well it is definitely the B**** conspiracy I am sure of that. Oh I think I shall just off to bed.Frown

Let us show them that they are hares and foxes trying to rule over dogs and wolves - Boudica addressing the tribes Circa AD60

July 15, 2012
6:45 am
Avatar
Bill1978
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 476
Member Since:
April 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think where my confusion over the reporting of the article is the assumption tha Edward IV’s reign dictated where the British monarch stands today. It assumes that what happened with Richard III is a direct correlation to Edward IV and would not have occurred if someone ‘more legitimate’ took the throne. Who is to say that Richard III would not have pulled the same type of ‘stunt’ with another relative. And therefore Henry VII still comes along and history continues on its merry way. I personally view the claim as requiring a large assumption that Richard III acts in a different way.

Cause as far as my brain can put the pieces together, Henry VII got to the throne not based upon his relation to Edward IV but by defeating Richard and being a desecendant of someone further up the royal family tree (one which i acknowledge is very suspect to begin with). If the article was about Henry VII not having a legal claim to the throne because of the act that barred his side of the family from ingeriting the throne I could understand that logic, but to say it’s because of Edward’s illegitimacy that allows this guy to claim the throne just baffles ne. What logic am I missing.

July 15, 2012
9:19 am
Avatar
Maggyann
Nottingham
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 239
Member Since:
May 7, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If my aunt had b*lls she’d be my uncle – as my dad used to say…

This is just one of those stories really that the media thrive on. If this had happened and that had not and blah blah blah. Why let some facts get in the way of a good story etc.

Richard had taken the throne (on his claim of the wrongness of his brother reign and heirs). Henry VII took it from him in a fair (or not so fair) fight and so the Tudors had their time in the limelight. So in point of fact the legitimacy or not of Edward is so much padding.

Why don’t they go back to Harold and work forward so that if William hadn’t trounced him at ‘Hastings’ we would know who which line would hold the throne today? What if Rufus hadn’t been into boys and had heirs and had not been killed in the ‘accident’ in New Forest? What if old Richard the Lionheart had managed to impregnate Berengaria? What if……………….

I do not think you are missing any logic Bill,

Edward IV had the backing of powerful people in the end and won the day. His legitimacy was not an issue at the and really shouldn’t be today but journalists and ‘experts’ need to do something with their days eh?

Let us show them that they are hares and foxes trying to rule over dogs and wolves - Boudica addressing the tribes Circa AD60

August 12, 2012
1:53 am
Avatar
Gill
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 118
Member Since:
June 15, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yeah, I’ve seen this claim before, and it’s a load of nonsense. Edward IV won his crown in battle, his legitimacy is a moot point. If we’re going to discount crowns won in battle then we need to look for descendants of…wow, I don’t even know how far back you’d have to go. And then of course the Tudors won their crown in battle too, so however you slice it, the Tudors and their descendants would still be Kings/Queens of England.

August 19, 2012
7:25 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Much the same rumour surfaced when Margaret of Anjou had Edward..Henry 6th wasn’t compus mentus at around the time he was conceived or so it was claimed anyway. There were a number of supposed fathers to Edward as a result, An Archer and stable groom and believe it or not, Jasper Tudor. There were always people ready to believe these rumours however.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 70

Currently Online:
14 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2345

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 934

DuchessofBrittany: 847

Mya Elise: 782

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 426041

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1679

Posts: 23600

Newest Members:

franklingo18, HorinadR, estherqw4, enriquebo2, Delaquand, esperanzamt3

Administrators: Claire: 998