Talk:Britain's Real Monarch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Television Portal This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 "Problems with the theory" 1.1 Essay 2 Is it even accurate? 2.1 Problems with the documentary (subtitled "de la Pole mistake")

[edit] "Problems with the theory"

This section seems really poor, besides it being unsourced, the manner in which it is written does not sound right for an encyclopedia. It seems more like a chatty, personal essay or something... "though an interesting exercise in alternative history" and "Henry VII, and, being the devious.." don't get me wrong, I don't like Henry VII but this doesn't really seem apropriate language. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting this part here until it's put in a more proper manner... - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Essay

Though an interesting exercise in alternative history, there are many problems with the theory. The question of whether Edward was illegitimate had been widespread in historical circles for many years before the documentary aired, and no decisive conclusion has ever been reached. Furthermore, under English law, the child of a married woman is automatically considered the child of her husband unless he is disclaimed at birth. Since Richard did not do this, Edward remained his legal son and heir, whether or not he was actually Richard's biological son.

It has also been pointed out that George, Duke of Clarence and his heirs could not have succeeded to the throne of England, principally as they were barred from the throne by Parliament under a Bill of Attainder, and only another Act of Parliament could ever rescind this. Indeed, it was only this exclusion of George's descendants that allowed Richard III to ascend the throne, and after the death of his son Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, Richard considered his nephew John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, to be his heir, again excluding the Clarence branch. In the absence of an Act reversing the attainder, the Plantagenet-Hastings line were in the same situation as the male Stuart line after the overthrow of James II of England with no legal avenue to the throne short of conquest. Supporters of the Hastings claim counter-argue that as Edward IV was not the legitimate king, the attainder passed by his Parliament and given the Royal Assent by him had no legal validity.

Then the Lancastrian heir was Henry VII, and, being the devious and careful monarch he was, he had parliament pass an act which among other things stated that he was king 'by right of conquest', which was perfectly true. As king he married the Yorkist heiress Edward IV's daughter for political reasons, but he would not have been too worried if it came out her claim was illegitimate - any rebellion based on this point would have been quickly and firmly put down - which he did for at least 2 other rebellions based on Lancastrian heirs (both real and impostors). It can thus be argued that in consequence of Henry VII's conquest it is his heirs who had a right to inherit the throne.

Moreover, though the theory is that the line of succession should be linear and unbroken, the historical reality is that the 'rightful' heir to the throne tends to be the person who is crowned and has the strength to hold on to it. The succession to the English crown has been muddied many times over the years, and quite often, the next in succession was not the one crowned king. One might just as well argue that no monarch has been legitimate since Harold Godwinson was usurped by William the Conqueror, in which case Hastings would have no better claim to the throne than Elizabeth. Other examples of the rightful next in line not taking the throne include Henry Bolingbroke (usurping the rightful Richard II, and the Mortimer family who were also in front of Bolingbroke in the line of succession); Henry Tudor (usurping Richard III, who in turn had usurped Edward V); William of Orange, who took the crown in the Glorious Revolution; or George I, who was 42nd in line to the crown, but was invited to become king since the 1701 Act of Settlement decreed that no Catholics could take the throne.

[edit] Is it even accurate?

The "Problems with the documentary" section claims that the headship of the house of York would pass to the second son of Margaret, but even if her eldest son Henry had passed away, his line would remain ahead of his younger siblings', so his children would in fact succeed Margaret as monarchs in pretense, and presumably as head of the house of York if it follows the same inheritance laws. If this section is not cited or otherwise proven in the next week or so, I'm just going to go ahead and delete it (I suppose I'll leave it on this page, at least) because it seems to be completely faulty. Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Headship of a house, is different to a situation such as the "Line of succession to the British throne", which is regulated by a 1701 act; for example in that strange law Catholics are not allowed to be monarch, while in the headships of royal houses such as the House of York and House of Stuart, they are present. Also, Henry's only children were females[1], while Reginald was the senior Yorkist male still living at the time (as a son of Margaret). - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand my error in assuming that headship of the House of York follows the same rules as succession to the throne, but even if Ursula Pole has claim to this headship of the House, the traditional inheritance of the throne (which has nothing, of course, to do with the Act of Settlement 1701 at this point) would pass through Margaret's eldest son Henry to Henry's daughter. It is arguable that there was no precedent for a queen regnant and that Katherine could not inherit the throne (in pretense), but her eldest son could have, even if he was a boy at the time.

In conclusion, the "Problems" section is not accurate. I have removed it and placed it here in case it can be amended or proven correct. Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It would have passed to Henry and then his daughter, but as he had died before his mother Margaret then it passes to one of Margaret's living children who are more senior, which was her son Reginald. That is how succession of headships of houses happens, only when there is no close senior male to pass it on to does it go to a female. The only way it would have gone through Henry's daughter is if Henry himself had outlived all of his siblings and mother. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Andrei is right. Precedent for inheritance via female line was set with Henry II. It was this precedent that precipitated the whole of the War of the Roses (Henry IV's usurpation vs legitimate descent via Philippa Plantagenet's senior line). As such, Margaret Pole's great-grandson was the real heir apparent of the House of York even though he was only 4 or 5 at the time of the death of his great-grandmother.

Another illustration of the incorrectness of Yorkshirian immediately above is the historical example of Richard II. The picture Yorkshirian paints above would have had John of Gaunt becoming king upon the death of Edward III. This did not happen. Though Richard II was only a young boy at the time, he was still of senior line to his elder uncle John. Richard's right to inherit via that senior line did not cease when Edward, the Black Prince--the then Prince of Wales and Richard II's father--predeceased Edward III. Foofighter20x (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the documentary (subtitled "de la Pole mistake")

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 geneological 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 decendent 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 decendent 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.