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.
Walsingham (originally posted here)
Sound arguement for the most...but spoiled by your way, way OTT support for the Royals...Ok, they are fine for Britain's history and tourism...but what good have they ever done for the poor?
ReplyDeleteits is a fact, that the Queen has Billions of pounds-worth of oil paintings in basement which never even see light of day...
Enough to feed many third world countries I reckon.
Interesting history, and I like the look of this blog.
ReplyDeleteFrom what you say in your second to last (major) paragraph you seem to be implying, perhaps unintentionally, that we could get rid of The House Of Windsor without becoming a Republic?
That we could resort to a more traditional means of changing our Head of State. And all in the name of Monarchy?
Why is it that people always only think: The Windsors or a Republic.
Not that I am not loyal to the Queen of course, but anyway.
Would be interested in hearing your perspectives.
Firstly, John of Gaunt was the FOURTH son of Edward III. Secondly, the House of York's claim derived from their legitimate descent from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, who was the THIRD son of Edward III. The House of York also descended from the fifth son of Edward III, the line mentioned in the article.
ReplyDeleteProving Edward IV's bastardy in the 15th century would have been considerably more difficult than nowadays, as DNA tests did not yet exist.
Likewise, Richard III's claim was largely because Edward IV's own children were illegitimate, not Edward IV himself. Edward IV was already trothplight to another when he "married" Elizabeth Woodville, hence the "princes in the Tower" were born out of wedlock. Richard III himself firmly supported(whether he believed it or not) that Edward IV was his legitimate brother. It is only in Shakespeare's abomination that Richard III spreads the "Edward is a bastard rumours). Likewise, Richard had no reason to dispose of his nephews as, being bastards, they were not in line. However, Clarence's son WAS in line, or at least would have been, had his father not been attainted by...Edward IV. Hence Richard III's need to see Edward IV as legitimate. Had Edward IV been shown to be a bastard then Richard III would not have inherited the throne, Clarence's son would.
Lastly, the author also fails to mention that Henry Tudor descended from john of Gaunt, not through John's wife, but rather through his mistress, Katherine Swyfford. As an ILLEGITIMATE descendant of Gaunt, Tudor had no claim to the throne by way of bloodline whatsoever. After seizing the throne by way of conquest(which one could argue is the ONLY way to consider him a rightful King), Henry had to besmirch the good name of Richard III. The solution was to claim that Both Edward IV AND, more importantly, his children were legitimate, thus making Richard III the wicked usurper of popular fiction. However, if Richard III was a usurper then if either of Edward IV'S sons were still alive, he rather than Tudor would be King. Thus the disappearance of the Princes(supposedly killed by Richard III) and the marriage of Henry Tudor to Edward IV's daughter of Elizabeth of York, the union through which Elizabeth Windsor descends(possibly as the issue of the legitimacy of James Stuart, VI of Scotland and I of England is another matter entirely).
Thus you have an illegitimate Royal bloodline(Henry Tudor), and an illegitimate non-Royal bloodline (Elizabeth of York) as the ancestors of all subsequent Kings and Queens.
Further to the poster above, in 1485 Henry Tudor was NOT the senior heir to John of Gaunt. This was not only due to the fact that Tudor descended from Gaunt's extramarrital adultery, but also from the fact that Gaunt had other legitimate children besides Henry Bolingbroke/Henry IV. In 1485 the heir general of Henry VI was none other than the King of Portugal.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, Elizabeth of York was never the head of the House of York, as she was female. At the time, only males could inherit the throne, although claims could pass through LEGITIMATE(which she was not) females to their legitimate sons. Even assuming that she was the legitimate daughter of a legitimate man, her own line could not lay claim to the throne before she had given birth to a son. Her eldest son, Arthur, was only born in 1486, the year after His Most Royal Majesty Richard III had been most traitorously assassinated by treasonous rebels at Bosworth Field. Now, assuming the standard Tudor propaganda that His Majesty had killed the "Princes In The Tower", then, it being, 1485, the claim for the House of York would pass to the next legitimate male heir. This was either Edward, Earl of Warwick, or John De La Pole. Since Elizabeth had not yet married Henry Tudor, her own line could not possibly have become the Senior Yorkist Line.
The ONLY way that one could somehow consider the descendants of Henry Tudor and Elizabeth "of York" to be legitimate is to recognize that this was a Foreign Invasion by the Franco-Welsh Tudor, and as with Hastings or when Hengist and Horsa first appeared, and entirely new and separate era of English History begins in 1485. William The Conqueror was himself a bastard who had only the vaguest possible claim to the throne, yet he achieved this aim through Force of Arms. The same goes for Tudor. We must then realise that the period 1066-1485 represents a self-contained period of English History, and that Henry Tudor and Elizabeth "of York" may as well have been Barbary Pirates who assassinated the last English King of England and began an entirely new dynasty, that had no connection to the previous one. However, the heir general to William The Conqueror is indeed Michael Abney-Hastings.
The problem I have with this is that people continue to claim that Elizabeth Windsor's claim can be traced all the way back to Cerdic (or even The Messiah Himself!), and that Her claim in ancient and Divine. This is pure nonsense. Elizabeth Windsor's "ancient" bloodline and claim begins in 1485. And even then, she is not the heir general to Henry Tudor, but rather to Sophia of Hanover.
We can recognise that She is The Lawful Queen, but please do not insult people's intelligence by claiming that her "ancient and divine birthright" extends back any further than 1714.
Further to the above two posters, there are two other noteworthy points.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Edward Earl of Warwick also descended from Edward III from his MOTHER'S side. She was a legitimate descendant of Thomas of Woodstock, so even if his father's attainder was valid, he would still have been in the line of succession. Richard III named as his heir, both Warwick as well ad John De La Pole, his nephew by his sister. However in 1487 at the Battle of Stoke De La Pole fought under the banner of King Edward(Warwick). The De La Poles were relentlessly persecuted and assassinated by both Henry VII and Henry VIII until William De La Pole's murder in 1539, at which point Legitimists looked to....the heirs of Warwick.
The Tudor monarchs made an effort to assassinate all the issue of Edward III, both legitimate and illegitimate, that was not descended from Henry VII and Elizabeth(Edward IV's daughter). By the 1540's (and certainly by the time of the death of Edward Courtenay) Warwick's heirs were the legitimate Monarchs, even if we take into account the aforementioned attainder. One must wonder if the Tudor reign was so "secure" and "peaceful" why so very many people of Royal Blood had to be killed in so brutal and grotesque a manner, usually on trumped-up charges. Henry VIII even had the son of Norfolk murdered, as he descended from a younger son of Edward I!
The second, sorter, point is that the legal heir to Henry VI and the House of Lancaster was none other than George Duke of Clarence.
The reason for this is multifold. Firstly, 15th century English law stated that foreigners could not be King. Thus the descendants of John of Gaunt's daughter in Portugal were barred. After Henry VI and his son Prince Edward of Wales came the House of York. However Henry VI had attainted Edward IV, meaning that George of Clarence was the next in line after Henry VI and His son. Likewise Edward IV's bastardry disqualified him anyway. It could be argued that since Richard, Earl of Cambridge had attainted and thus the House of York were out of the line of succession. However, their descent from Richard's WIFE Anne Mortimer was superior to the Lancastrian claim, and her brother was alive when her son was born, making her son the heir. If people are unhappy with this, then George, Duke of Clarence's wife was descended from Thomas of Woodstock, so after both the Houses of Lancaster(the legitimate English heirs killed off) and the House of York(disqualified, though not really) came the descendants) of Thomas of Woodstock! Clarence's son to be precise. And again by the 1560's Clarence's descendants were the only legitimate heirs to Woodstock.
The second far simpler reason that George Duke of Clarence was the Lancastrian heir was because Henry VI Himself and His parliament had made it law that should Henry VI and Edward Prince of Wales(His son) both die having failed to produce legitimate issue, then the Crown must go to....George Duke of Clarence and His legitimate issue.
Thus Michael Abney-Hastings is the Rightful King in far more ways than just the fact that Edward IV was not the issue of Richard Duke of York.
To the above, you are wrong on one point. By the 1560s Woodstock had multiple heirs. However the Hastings were still first in line.
ReplyDeleteIn addition Isabella Neville was descended from a line of Edmund Duke of York that was not attainted, making her descendants the senior line in that regard.
In addition both George, Duke of Clarence and his wife Isabella Neville were descended from John of Gaunt through the same mistress (Katherine Swifford) that Tudor and his supposed heir Elizabeth Battenberg-Wettin is descended. If merely having a descendant of Gaunt marry a descendant of Richard Duke of York unites the Houses, then Abney-Hastings again has the superior claim, as regards Edward IV's illegitimacy. However, as the previous posters noted, both Clarence and his wife were both descended both from legitimate offspring of Edmund Duke of York, as well as illegitimate issue of Gaunt, but Clarence was the legitimate heir to both Lionel Duke of Clarence(who was the older brother of both Gaunt and Edmund of York), as well as the legal and legitimate heir of the last Lancastrian King Henry VI.
"Pulp fiction nonsense" indeed!
The author of this blog misses another point as well!
ReplyDeleteSince Henry VII and Elizabeth of York were cousins(even if her father was not Edward IV, her mother was still the granddaughter of John of Gaunt). For such a marriage to have been regarded as valid in 1th Century pre-Reformation England, a Papl dispensation was required. However, the marriage went ahead without such a dispensation. Thus in the eyes of English Law, Henry VII and Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV, were never legally married. Hence all their children, grandchildren etc. all the way to the present day are illegitimate. Thus when Henry VII died in 1509, his throne should have passed to the next nearest relative. This was either the heir of George of Clarence and Isabella Neville(who DID receive the necessary Papal dispensation) or the Duke of Buckingham, depending on your point of view on attainders. In any case with the murders of the Stafford family in the name of Henry VIII, the George/Isbaella Neville become the undisputed legal heirs to Henry VII, as both were descended from Gaunt.
Although Henry VII maintained that HE was The King, and his wife a mere consort, who would be the heirs to her claim? Again, since she was never legally married, it would have fallen to her sister's line. With the death of Edward Courtenay in 1566, Elizabeth's legal claim(as she was never legally married) would then have passed to the self-same descendants of George and Isabella, both as he was Edward IV's brother, and also as she was the heir general to Constance of York.
All of this is rather superfluous. Because "King" James I and VI was not the son of Mary, Queen of Scots and Henry Stuart Lord Darnley. This was well-known for centuries until the vermin such as "The Monarchist" covered it up. In fact, the illegitimate son of The Earl of Moray was substituted for Baby James, who was then hidden in the walls of the Earl's castle. Some crackpots such as Antonia Fraser have brought it up, but only to mock with factual errors. Both The "Windsors" and the Jacobite "Royals" are thus descended from illegitimate traitors. Henry Tudor's true heir general is the Lady Caroline Ogilvy(nee Child Villiers), as "King James Stuart" murdered Margaret Tudor's only other descendant, Arbella Stuart.
ReplyDeleteWhat is also noteworthy is that some smug bottomfeeders have said things to the effect of "it matters not whether they were illegitimate as they were legally regarded as their fathers' sons" etc. Well, that may be fine for the nouveau riche, social-climber parasites, but TRUE Monarchists do rather require their Sovereigns to be legitimate and of Royal descent.
Why does that revolting Mrs Oldenburg woman still occupy Saint Edward's Throne? She is not by any stretch of the imagination The Lord God's Chosen Ruler of the British Peoples. Just because some corrupt politicians, money lenders and bankers wish for her to sit upon the Throne that rightfully belongs to another does not make it right. Just because some insidious illegitimate descendant of her ancestors(and thus her cousin) swans around as "Prime Minister" does not make that person any more the Rightful Leader of parliament any more than she is the Rightful Monarch. In a very real sense, the Great Nations of England and Scotland, and part of the Great Nation of Ireland are under an illegal foreign occupation by agents of Satan himself. Anyone who supports this vile woman, her "Prime Minister" henchmen, and her unGodly and avaricious "Laws" is an agent of the Devil. When Judgement comes any and all who showed their support for these beasts of Babylon will burn for all eternity. God save the Rightful King and His Family, and let us pray that HE may deliver unto the British Peoples their true and just King, and that He may reign over the British Peoples with God's Laws, and that Elizabeth Oldenburg, the Whore of Babylon may be cast into the pit.
ReplyDelete