January 11, 2007

Situation Vacant - The Throne. Weak Chin? Sense of superiority? Trace your lineage back to 1066? Then English Heritage want to hear from you. You could be the next king / queen of Olde Englande.
posted by kitfisto 17 years ago
  • "We would stress that we are not trying to put somebody else on the throne, but we will give them all credit on our website which I am sure is just as good," said Dr Borman. Better, really, but for the lack of a funny hat.
  • They can't spell Aetheling, for heaven's sake.
  • They needn't have gone to such trouble. All they had to do was ask me. /ascends
  • Oh, I see. The lowly rank of Baroness Koko Moon Von Fascination not good enough for you, eh? Nothing but Queen Koko will do now?
  • No. THIS GUYis the real king of England -- assuming that Edward IV was illegitimate and that all royals descended from him are pseudo-royals, too. So an Australian forklift operator should be on the throne now.
  • We are not amused.
  • According to a channel 4 documentary I once saw, there's a fair amount of evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate, and in the alternative line of royal descent, the rightful king of England is a bloke in Australia called Michael. He's a Republican (in the old sense of the word).
  • Or, what Possum said. Ooops.
  • Or, what Possum said. Ooops.
  • and thrice ooops 
  • God save Koko -
We mean it maaaaaan
There is no future 
In England's !
Scheming!

Noooooooo filter
Noooooooo filter
Noooo filter for yooooou
    *spits*
  • ok, my medieval historian bone is ringing. first of all, if the evidence of Edward VI's illegitimacy is based on time of conception, I consider it complete poo, as we do not know the exact date of conception and his birth date in no way confirms or denies the possibility that he was spawned one week instead of another.... more importantly, Edward himself USURPED the throne. altho a scion of the Plantagenet family he was not the heir, nor was his father. he was a USURPER!! based on a quick read of the article I did not see the mention of whom this Mike is supposedly descended from that he becomes the rightful heir??? is he descended from Henry VI, the king from whom Edward won the throne? he had a son (Edward) who died in battle, before, as far as I know, having spawned any (legitimate) offspring. or should we have one of Edwards' brothers as the "rightful" heir. they would still have been usurpers. or we could get "technical" and go back a bit. Henry VI's grandfather (you got it! Henry IV!) was himself a USURPER, having stolen the throne from his cousin Richard II (who he then killed). so perhaps we should look there for the rightful line of descent?? oh, but Richard never had any children either, as far as I have ever heard. certainly no legitimate or recognised ones...and he had no surviving siblings... so, one of his numerous uncles? well as you can see merely analyzing the period 1350ish-1450ish we already have a complete ball of confused and competing "rights" to the throne. to claim that we can extrapolate some 500 years and identify an individual as "the" anything is specious poo.
  • Goo' GAWD! Unplumbed depths.
  • The documentary's historian Michael Jones found documents in Rouen Cathedral he believes show that Edward IV, who ruled from 1461 to 1483, was illegitimate because when he was conceived his parents were 124 miles apart. Another clear-cut case of FLYING BULLETS OF MIND SEMEN.
  • I mean seriously, how many of your mothers claim to know the exact date of yr conception???
  • Virgin birth, in my case. (I sayeth unto you.)
  • I'm concepting right now. And it's going to rule.
  • Hereditary "rights" to the throne are bollocks anyway-- I mean, Owen Tudor? What's up with that? But Henry VII (like Edward IV and Henry IV before him) (and William the Conqueror, for that matter) got the throne by "right" of conquest, supposedly a sign that God had withdrawn his blessing from the other guy. When I get back to London I will personally Rochambeau Prince Charles for the throne. Best of three, winner take all. Wish me luck.
  • Dude, you're a chick! Oh! . . Right!
  • well, if we're playing by those rules, it'll be even easier!
  • Wasn't Hugh Capet an usurper, too? PA, you would know better than me. And anyways-- silly monkeys, don't you know that John Goodman is the rightful king?
  • Medusa: If memory serves (and it frequently doesn't), for Edward IV to be legitimate, Mrs Edward the IV would have to have been pregnant for eleven months. King Mike follows the line from from Edward's brother, George Duke of Clarence. The 'alternative' link in my redundant post above has the full line of descent. But you're right, with all the usurping and whatever going on, it's a fairly academic exercise.
  • bobboggis, I am pretty sure that George's legitimate son was put to death during the reign of Henry the VII. it is unlikely he would have procreated by this point, as he was still a young man, and more importantly had been a prisoner of one king or another since childhood. ok according to wikipedia George's only daughter, Margeret survivied into the reign of H8, at which time she was executed. she did have one son, who went into the church and became Archbishop of Canterbury. no mention of kids, but of course they would have been illegitimate :P
  • not to be a ranting pedant but I just find it ridiculous to imagine we can figure these things out 500 years later when they couldn't even decide who should be king then. There are many points thruout British history that the dynastic trajectory took a sharp turn. being descended from the disgraced, executed, younger brother of a possibly illegitimate usurper isn't very impressive in my book... or like the guy I used to work with who told me he was descended from Richard the Lion-hearted. O rly? I guess that would have been from the illegitimate son (gervase?) that he had with that prostitute, as Richard was primarily gay and never bothered knocking up his wife/wives....ok. I am sure history keep close track of gervase thru the ages...hmmm
  • Richard The Enemy-Flaying Dirty Shagger more like...
  • MonkeyFilter: to be a ranting pedant C'est magnifique!
  • Pete, ascend to the throne! MonkeyFilter: We are not amused. MonkeyFilter: not to be a raving peedant I mean I was, but...oh, never mind not to be a ranting pedant but I just find it ridiculous to imagine we can figure these things out 500 years later when they couldn't even decide who should be king then What about NOW? This is the major question. Focus, people, FOCUS! Elect me, your most worthy Queen, for a day, minimum. Believe me, I could get a few things done.
  • Medusa: I've got Margaret with four sons and a daughter, the eldest of which spawning a couple of sprogs. No mention of legitimacy. I still agree with you, however, that this line of alternative history is at best a bit of academic wankery.
  • Medusa wins. Edward IV had the throne in his own right of conquest; he won it, not Richard of York, so George wasn't heir to anything (except an unfortunate first initial). But mostly, I have to say - how the hell do they expect to do this? It's not impossible to trace back that far, but it's damn unlikely. There were no registers (the main resource for family history), so you would have to go on stuff like wills, charters, etc exclusively. My prediction is that the only families they will be able to trace back into the middle ages, let alone before the conquest, will be a few noble families, with strong continuity of lands or titles or something. But even then, those nobs used to fake their own geneologies all the time; you can't trust what they wrote. But maybe there is enough evidence in land records (do we have those for the 11th century?) and wills to confirm the identity of individuals. But still, lots and lots of ifs, and if you lose the trail once, you may never get it back.
  • Monkeyflter: Owen Tudor? What's up with that? My first act as Queen will be to change the term "Queen" to "Supreme Foxy Potentato." Then, free minced tripe for all!
  • Speaking of right of conquest, TUM, I think if you want to be Queen, you might have to arm-wrestle Koko for the throne...
  • I don't think anyone has ever claimed the throne by "right of conquest" - not even Bill the Bastard, who was a cousin of Edward the Confessor and claimed to have been named as his heir. Not even sure the "right of conquest" was a recognised legal concept in the Middle Ages, any more than it is now.
  • Some of the commonwealth documents are interesting on this:
    And it is hereby enacted, that if any person or persons shall endeavour to attempt by force of arms or otherwise, or be aiding, assisting, comforting, or abetting unto any person or persons that shall by any ways or means whatsoever endeavour or attempt the reviving or setting up again of any pretended right of the said Charles, eldest son to the said late King, James called Duke of York, or of any other the issue and posterity of the said late King, or of any person or persons claiming under him or them, to the said regal office, style, dignity, or authority, or to be Prince of Wales; or the promoting of any one person whatsoever to the name, style, dignity, power, prerogative, or authority of King of England and Ireland, and dominions aforesaid, or any of them; that then every such offence shall be deemed and adjudged high treason
    --Act abolishing the office of King. The Humble Address and Remonstrance, the first draft of the Humble Petition and Advice was going to offer Cromwell the crown, presumably because he took it by force of arms, but dressed up as God's providence having chosen him:
    ...it hath pleased the same gracious God to preserve your person in many battles, to make you an instrument for preserving our peace, although environed with enemies abroad, and filled with turbulent, restless and unquiet spirits in our own bowels, that as in the treading down the common enemy, and restoring us to peace and tranquillity, the Lord hath used you so eminently...
    Not really sure about all this, just a thought.
  • And let's be honest, any remedy for "unquiet spirits in [y]our own bowels" has to be seriously considered.
  • Another authority (looking over my shoulder) tells me that while Bill used the Edward the Confessor stuff to justify his invasion, he did assert a right of conquest as the basis for his expropriation of the native aristocracy and setting up of a Norman-style feudal system. Hm
  • how the hell do they expect to do this? There's actually geneology software you can buy to trace your family tree back as far as you want to. This was my dad's hobby for a while. This is how we found out we're related to Richard I (or II, I forget ... one of the Richards ... not the crazy one though, that's for certain). Also to George Washington. *points skyward suddenly to distract GramMa, Pallas Athena and TUM, races to throne, grabs orb & scepter, licks them* Hah! They're mine now!!!
  • *realizes each prior monarch has undoubtedly done the same thing, feels nauseous*
  • I think there's a piece of William of Orange's chewing gum under there.
  • You heredity geeks!
  • There's only one rightful King
  • That was discreet, alright.