An Aussie the real ruler of Britain
Dec 4th 2004, 2:57 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
An Aussie the real ruler of Britain
Queen Elizabeth claim to the throne is illegitimate an Historian has proven that an Aussie called Michael Abney-Hastings should be the real king of England.
Read the link below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3368731.stm
Read the link below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3368731.stm
Last edited by wombat42; Dec 4th 2004 at 3:03 am.
Dec 4th 2004, 3:21 am
#2
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Re: An Aussie the real ruler of Britain
Originally Posted by wombat42
Queen Elizabeth claim to the throne is illegitimate an Historian has proven that an Aussie called Michael Abney-Hastings should be the real king of England.
Read the link below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3368731.stm
Read the link below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3368731.stm
Its old stuff discussed here long ago. He was an English migrant.
Dec 4th 2004, 7:09 am
#3
AWOL
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Victor Harbor, SA
Posts: 1,256
Re: An Aussie the real ruler of Britain
All nonsense when you look at it seriously (although champagne socialist Tony Robinson got very excited about the whole thing). The theory comes from the supposed bastardy of Edward IV. His father Richard Duke of York was apparently nowhere near his mother at the time of conception who took comfort in the arms of a common archer. None of this explains why Edward was the Duke of York's acknowledged heir. They did know the gestation period for humans in the 15th century and if York had any basic grasp of mathematics he would have known if their was no possibility of the child being his. Bearing in mind the importance of legitimate heirs to your average medieval nobleman and the fact that York fathered three other healthy sons young Edward would not have suceeded his father as Duke of York (and future king) at 18 if York doubted that this was his real son.
Poor amateur historians and their five minutes of fame.
Poor amateur historians and their five minutes of fame.
Dec 4th 2004, 9:15 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: An Aussie the real ruler of Britain
Originally Posted by Kentish Man
All nonsense when you look at it seriously (although champagne socialist Tony Robinson got very excited about the whole thing). The theory comes from the supposed bastardy of Edward IV. His father Richard Duke of York was apparently nowhere near his mother at the time of conception who took comfort in the arms of a common archer. None of this explains why Edward was the Duke of York's acknowledged heir. They did know the gestation period for humans in the 15th century and if York had any basic grasp of mathematics he would have known if their was no possibility of the child being his. Bearing in mind the importance of legitimate heirs to your average medieval nobleman and the fact that York fathered three other healthy sons young Edward would not have suceeded his father as Duke of York (and future king) at 18 if York doubted that this was his real son.
Poor amateur historians and their five minutes of fame.
Poor amateur historians and their five minutes of fame.
Dec 4th 2004, 9:21 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: An Aussie the real ruler of Britain
Originally Posted by wombat42
l guess with all the illegitimate bastards the royal family has produced over the century there would be thousands of people who could make a claim to the throne.
How about King Prawncracker?
The King is dead! Long live the King!
