A few nights ago there was a programme on TV with the bald guy from time team about whether our monarchy is illegitimate because of Edward the 4th or 3rd (?? cant remember) they found he was illegitimate making from the Tudor age the wrong line of monarchy to now, and in the end they traced the true king of England to a guy which lived in Australia.

Does anyone think this will have any effect on our monarchy now do you think anyone will challenge them???

Well when you've got a TV station behind you with irriputable evidence I dont think the monarchy can argue the facts.

However, removing the Monarchy based on this would now be silly as it's a long time ago.

I think nothing will change!

Of course nothing will change!

But it was a great idea...I really enjoyed the whole concept.
Pity the royals are so firmly entrenched it won't make them even bat an eyelid. I'd love it to have stirred up a proper hornets nest.

Prince Jet! Lol

Cosy:P

I don`t believe a word of it.
I watched the whole programme and the one before and if Shakespere got the details Richard iii wrong who can say if the transcript stating the sordid affair actually happened and someone had not altered it.

I don`t for one minute think the royals would not know of this if it was true and then not say something about it.

I for one am glad the monarcy is as it is and I am taking the programme with a pinch of salt.

And I thought I was the King, or was that God?

Now let me see....

I read a good article in the paper about the historical evidence prooving that he was not born to the king and it seems to be good evidence (i.e. the king was away fighting in a war at the time of conception and the queen would have been pregnant for way more than 9 months if it was the kings baby, so it couldn't have been his). If this can be prooven as they say it can then I believe by law, the austrailian guy has a right to challenge. He isn't insterested, however, I think he should kick up a fuss and threaten to take them to court and get a load of money out of them to shut him up!!! Its worth a shot!

Didn't see the TV programme so can't comment on that.

i would have a go at the Queen just to get some action into the monarchy and rustle things up a "bit"!!

There must have been loads of illegitimate Kings and Queens over the centuries. "King Michael" seemed like a great bloke though. God save the King!


I think the most interesting thing to come out of that series was how one small fact in a centuries old book, discovered accidentally, could have such potentially far reaching consequences. It makes you wonder what else is out there waiting to be found.


Any history buffs out there? Did the program change your perception of Richard III?

I didn't see the program you are refering to, but if we're discussing the monarchy, I don't think the Germans or the Greeks have ever combined in history before to create anything quite as powerful in Britain as the current "British Monarchay". Its good to see an internationalist approach from the top down.

Its good to see an internationalist approach from the top down.

erm i dont understand, sorry im simple

Originally posted by Fletch
A few nights ago there was a programme on TV with the bald guy from time team about whether our monarchy is illegitimate because of Edward the 4th or 3rd (?? cant remember) they found he was illegitimate making from the Tudor age the wrong line of monarchy to now, and in the end they traced the true king of England to a guy which lived in Australia.

Does anyone think this will have any effect on our monarchy now do you think anyone will challenge them???

We are all mongrels and that includes the Royalty, no one can truthfully say that they are not illegitimate, or, come from someone who was. Everyone knows who their Mother is but no one knows who their Father is!!!

Originally posted by Funky Dave
Any history buffs out there? Did the program change your perception of Richard III?
I missed the programme. What picture did it paint of Richard III?

If his elder brother Edward was illegitimate, and the middle brother Clarence was dead, that gave Richard more of a claim to the throne than Edward V and his brother (the Princes in the Tower). The fact that Edward IV was illegitimate was well known at the time, (eg: his Christening was discreet and on the cheap, compared with the lavish ceremonies given to his brothers), so Richard did not usurp the throne in so tyrannical a manner as has often been portrayed.

Technically the throne should have gone to Clarence's children, but even so, I think under the new evidence, it's not fair to judge Richard as harshly as we do. He wasn't exactly a saint, but neither was he the monster that we find portrayed in Shakespeare.