Britain's Real Monarch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Britain's Real Monarch was an historical documentary presented by Tony Robinson shown on Channel 4 on January 3, 2004, and again on November 20, 2004.[1] This documentary presented evidence that the present monarch, Elizabeth II, does not have a valid claim to the throne of England that she has occupied since 1952 and that the legitimate King should be Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun. This theory is based on the assumption that a legitimate claimant to the English throne must be descended from Henry II (1154-1189) in an unbroken line of descent in which all members were born legitimately, that is, their parents were married at the time of their birth. If a line of descent passes through someone who was born out of wedlock then no descendant of that person has a legitimate claim to the throne.

The program based its claim on the theory that Edward IV was illegitimate, and therefore as his direct heir, Elizabeth has no rightful claim either.

1 Historical evidence
2 An alternative heir?
3 Problems with the documentary
- 3.1 de la Pole mistake
4 References
5 External links

[edit] Historical evidence

Although she was later known for her piety as well as her pride, it was rumoured at the time that, in the summer of 1441, Edward's mother, Cecily Neville had an affair with an English archer named Blaybourne based in the Rouen garrison in Normandy while her husband was elsewhere in France fighting.

In the documentary, Dr Michael Jones revealed previously overlooked evidence from Rouen Cathedral, discovered while researching the Hundred Years' War. In the cathedral register, an entry in 1441 records that the clergy were paid for a sermon for the safety of the Duke of York, going to Pontoise (near Paris) on campaign. He would have been on campaign from July 14 to August 21, 1441, several days' march from Rouen.

If a child with a claim to the throne was born small or sickly it would normally have been recorded, and there is apparently no such record; consequently, proponents of the theory of illegitimacy claim it is unlikely that Edward was born prematurely. By calculating back from Edward's birth on April 28, it seems apparent that Richard was not present at the time of Edward's conception around the first week of August 1441.

Unlike the rest of the House of York Edward was a giant for his time at 6 feet 4 inches tall and (unlike his younger brother Richard of Gloucester) did not resemble his father, Richard of York, in physical appearance.

According to research by Dr Michael Jones based on documents in Rouen Cathedral, there was a 5-week period when Richard was 100 miles away from his wife, leading a military campaign against the French, during which Edward was conceived Thus, Richard could not have been Edward's father, and so Edward was illegitimate. Therefore, Edward IV had no legitimate claim to the English throne, and so none of his descendants, including the present Queen, have had either.

Additionally, the cathedral records reveal that Edward's christening took place in private in a side chapel, whereas for the christening of Richard's second son the whole cathedral was used for a huge celebration, again suggesting to proponents of the theory that Edward was indeed illegitimate, although in spite of this, the Duke never disclaimed his paternity of his wife's eldest son.

Some historians have raised the criticism that it is logistically possible for Richard Duke of York to have returned briefly from battle to Rouen because often military leaders led their forces from the rear.

According to Dominic Mancini, an Italian visitor to London from 1482 - '83 and thus writing long after the fact, Cecily Neville 'fell into a frenzy' at the news of the marriage of her eldest surviving son Edward to Elizabeth Woodville and, in her rage, made the astounding accusation that he was a bastard, adding that she would be prepared to testify before a public enquiry that this was indeed the case. There is no record of such a statement by Cecily Neville dating to 1464.

[edit] An alternative heir?

Dr Jones argues that, if it were true that Edward IV was illegitimate, this would have invalidated his claim to the throne of England thus rendering the existing royal family path as illegitimate. Tony Robinson asked the question: if the succession of kings and queens from Edward IV to Elizabeth II is illegitimate, is there an alternative, legitimate line of descent? And if so, has it persisted to the present day?

He traced the descendants of Richard and Cecily's second son, George, Duke of Clarence, down to the 14th Earl of Loudoun, Michael Abney-Hastings (born 1942), who emigrated to Australia in 1960, married, fathered five children, and currently lives in Jerilderie, New South Wales. Since the line of descent from Henry II to Abney-Hastings is legitimate, and the line of descent from Henry II to Elizabeth II is not, Robinson claims that it follows that Abney-Hastings is England's legitimate king, and the present occupant of Buckingham Palace has no valid claim to be Queen.

[edit] Problems with the documentary

[edit] de la Pole mistake

Blessed Margaret Pole, mother of Henry and Ursula.

Within the documentary and articles pertaining to it, there is a geneological inaccuracy in regards to the seniority of the House of York after the period of Margaret Pole's death and the official line which the Headship of the House should follow. Margaret Pole was the Head of the House of York from 1525 to 1541, through the official line of heirs which Richard III of England had proclaimed before his death.^[1] Margaret bore six children, in order of birth; Henry Pole (1492–1539), Reginald Pole (1500–1558), Geoffrey Pole (1501–1535), Arthur Pole (1502–1535) and Ursula Pole (1504–1570).

Margaret was martyred during 1541 under the reign of Tudor king Henry VIII of England; following her death, the most senior figure and heir of the House of York was her second child Reginald Pole, who would later become the Archbishop of Canterbury, Yorkist seniority was passed on to him instead of Henry Pole because Henry (her oldest child) had died two years before Margaret's execution. After the death of Reginald, who had no children because he was a religious man, his only sibling still alive was Ursula Pole, thus she was the rightful heir to the Headship of the House of York as the most senior figure. However, in the documentary Britain's Real Monarch and the articles pertaining to it a mistake is made, for reasons unknown and unexplained, instead of headship being passed onto the most senior living member Ursula Pole, it instead passes the headship onto the children of Henry Pole in the form of his daughter Catherine Pole.^[2]

This mistake then changes the entire outcome of the line presented in the documentary and who is the most senior Yorkist figure after that period. The correct genealogical and official line after Ursula Pole's death, passed mostly through people connected to the Lord Stafford title, Ursula herself was titled Baroness Stafford through her marriage with Henry Stafford; at the time of making the documentary the modern heir and descendent through the official and correct line was Englishman Francis Fitzherbert, 15th Baron Stafford. The line presented in the documentary with the mistake, goes through Henry Pole's daughter Catherine Pole and her most senior descendent at the time of the documentary's release, Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun a British Australian man holding the title Earl of Loudoun. This inaccuracy wouldn't make invalid the general theory which is presented within the documentary, it merely identifies the incorrect modern senior Yorkist which the theory as a whole would apply to.