Edward IV illegitimate!

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
C4 Documenatry

Landshark said:
A British Channel4 documentary is claiming that Edward IV was illegitimate and that Britain's real monarch is a decendant of the Duke of Clarence.

I'd take what Channel 4 says with a pinch of salt...they are hardly unbiased, having a quite openly republican stance here in the UK. I saw the program, and it was indeed quite interesting..even claiming the entire Tudor dynasty was illegitmate, and that the present Royal family should not be reigning. However, legitimacy can be argued in many ways throughout history, what ultimately counts is who wins the battles :)

It would make for some interesting AH though. KIng Richard III always claimed that Edward IV was illegitmate, and we all know that after Henry Tudor's victory, Richard was tarred very heavily...that's where all the 'Crookback Dick' stuff comes from it seems. The show did explore some AH, theorising that it could be a Catholic country today. There's certainly some interesting PODs there. How would a victorious Richard III have changed things? Would there have still been a Cromwell later on, setting the fioundations of parliamentary government? Might not have been, so it's an interesting thought!

However legitimacy can be claimed in many ways, and depending on how things are juggled. Legitimate in bloodline or not, Henry VII won by force of arms, and sometimes that's all the legitimacy a ruler needs...


Sargon
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Its mildly diverting - I hadn't realised that Margaret had had descendants

But, really, what IS legitimacy ? It seems something unnecessary to get a hang-up on. After all, William The Conqueror before he BECAME the Conqueror was known to all as William The Bastard. Are we going to say that only descendants of thingy Aetheling should be sat on the throne ?

The Beauforts were retro-legitimised. This may not make much sense in a purely strict way of looking at things, but it was certainly not an unknown practise and made them acknowledged descendants of John of Gaunt, hence the number of titles and honours they were able to hold over the subsequent decades. As for the other side of Henry VII's family tree, the marriage of Owen Tudor to Katherine of France was highky irregular but the granting of hoonours to their two sons again recognised it in retrospect.

What is the story about Edward IV being illegitimate ? One must assume that he came OUT OF his mother, or nobody would have thought him legitimate in the first place. Are we saying she was having a fling, perhaps when Richard of York was in Normandy ?

Grey Wolf
 
Too many POD's but a fun one would definitely be a catholic England that turned out a lot like France maybe even with a similar revolution? :eek:
 
Its mildly diverting - I hadn't realised that Margaret had had descendants

But, really, what IS legitimacy ? It seems something unnecessary to get a hang-up on. After all, William The Conqueror before he BECAME the Conqueror was known to all as William The Bastard. Are we going to say that only descendants of thingy Aetheling should be sat on the throne ?

Grey Wolf

William was descended via his father, his mother didn't matter. And he completely usurped the previous dynasty anyway - by invading.
 
OK - but Henry VII wasn't descended from Edward IV - his right to the throne was dependant upon being the great-great grandson of John of Gaunt - and so nothing to do with Edward IV. That he married Edwards daughter was a piece of political theatre done to bind together white and red roses, and did nothing to add legitimacy (in a legal sense) to his grab for the throne. It doesn't need Edward IV to be a bastard for the Tudors to be illegitimate, however, as one of the links was through the disinherited Beuforts.

And, as has already been said, the right to the throne of both Edward and Henry was based on force - might making right. Their blood got them into a position to claim the throne, their swords got them the crown.
 
What is the story about Edward IV being illegitimate ? One must assume that he came OUT OF his mother, or nobody would have thought him legitimate in the first place. Are we saying she was having a fling, perhaps when Richard of York was in Normandy ?

Grey Wolf

The story is that Cecily Neville spent a night with an archer while Richard, Duke of York was on campaign in France - Cecily is known to have been in England at this time and tracing 9 months before his birth leads you to a date in the middle of a period of about 7 weeks when Richard was away, which according to the Channel 4 documentary was near-incontravertible evidence of Edward's true paternity, completely ignoring the possibility that he could have been born early or late. To my mind, though, the supposed true claimant line lost their rights to succession when the Tudors seized the throne, unless they want to contest that my right of conquest now. And I have little doubt that Channel 4 had an anti-monarchist agenda when they produced the program. Heck, ALL British news sources have some agenda or other when they commission documentaries like this. The most galling thing to me was when they gleefully traced the line of "true claimants" to the current "King", who is an Australian republican, and then proceeded to comment on the irony repeatedly.
 

Susano

Banned
Its mildly diverting - I hadn't realised that Margaret had had descendants

But, really, what IS legitimacy ?
Well, at the minium descant from the last monarch or at least a relative of him. If the Queen simply fucked somebody else and has a son by thatthat, then the problem isnt even as much that hes a bastard but that hes just no son of the King!
 
Well, at the minium descant from the last monarch or at least a relative of him. If the Queen simply fucked somebody else and has a son by thatthat, then the problem isnt even as much that hes a bastard but that hes just no son of the King!
1) No one was supposed to be fucking the Queen; that was petty treason on her part and out and out treason for any subject of the realm.

2) Therefore as only the King could have been fucking her any child must be his.

That fact that guys might have been doing so is beside these legal points.

On the Tudors, Henry VIII wrote more than one will in which at least one his daughters Mary and Elizabeth bastards and thus Lady Jane Grey heir after Edward IV. In addition Edward IV is supposed to have overruled the Third Act of Succession and confirmed this. You can question all the legalities of what was done, but the fact is that Mary won because she got enough nobles and leading commoners to back her, as did Elizabeth I. And as Charles I eventually failed to.

Legitimacy and legality were fine, but at that time nothing beat a large army except another one!
 
Yes and as usual the documentary was incorrect - the descendants of Margaret Plantagenet have no claim to be "Britains" real monarch, they might have a claim to be "Englands" real monarch. Since The Plantagenets were not Kings of Scotland.
Moving on - Edward IV whether his father was Richard of York or an obscure archer he was still through his mother a descendant of Edward III (though a pretty lowly one). The allegations that he was illegitimate were spouted throughout the 1460's and were revived again in the 1480's - legitimacy or lack of it was a common way of attacking a monarch. However Richard III's usurpation was based on the allegation that Edward IV's marriage was invalid not that his brother was illegitimate.
Another point to bear in mind - Henry VII never claimed the throne of England by descent from anyone he knew that his claim was weak so he claimed the throne by conquest (his marriage to Elizabeth of York strengthened his position and the rights of his children but he was careful not to marry her until after Parliament had confirmed his crown).

There are numerous people around who can claim to be the legitimate heir of the English throne - the descendants of Lady Margaret Plantagenet (if you accept the illegitimacy of Edward IV's children), the descendants of Ferdinando Lord Strange 5th Earl of Derby (if you accept the validity of Henry VIII's will and the illegitimacy of Catherine Grey's sons) are the two principle claims.
 
Yes and as usual the documentary was incorrect - the descendants of Margaret Plantagenet have no claim to be "Britains" real monarch,
Legally there is no Britain's monarch. They in in fact the monarch of England, Scotland, , Wales etc. England being the richest of the kingdoms is naturally main prize.

they might have a claim to be "Englands" real monarch. Since The Plantagenets were not Kings of Scotland.
Edward the First was. He stripped John Balliol of his crown and ruled Scotland through viceroys. That makes him as much King of Scotland as William I was of England. :D No doubt any Scots reading this would disagree :D
 
Legally and officially there is no Kingdom of England or Kingdom of Scotland - they ceased to exist when the two parliaments ratified the Act of Union. There is now only the United Kingdom of Great Britain ("and Ireland" from the Irish Act of Union following the creation of the Republic the style was changed to "And Northern Ireland")

Legally there is no Britain's monarch. They in in fact the monarch of England, Scotland, , Wales etc. England being the richest of the kingdoms is naturally main prize.
 
Top