General Chat

Those of you who read The Daily Mail will already know about this but there was an article about a guy, Michael Hastings, born in England but now living in Australia, who according to historians is our "rightful" monarch. The claims are that Edward IV, who was crowned monarch during The War Of The Roses, was in fact illegitimate, and hence his younger brother, George, Duke of Clarence should have been king. Michael Hastings descends from this line and does hold a title but spends his days driving a fork-lift truck in the outback! Although, I suspect that there may be holes in this evidence, I found the article a fascinating read and there is a programme being shown on Channel 4 on January 3rd dedicated to it. Should be interesting for both those who like ancestry and history.

Thanks for that Andy. I haven't had time to read the Mail yet but I'll take a look. Has it started snowing up your way yet? Jeanette

Not yet, Jeanette but it's pretty miserable! It's in Saturday's edition, btw - page 4, I think.

The illigitimacy of Edward IV has been long banded about and dismissed as totally false. I assume it is being raked up again for sensationalism. The fact that Edwards mother Cecily Neville was known for her piety, had a deeply religious life and she lived happily with her husband giving him eight living children will be once again ignored. Gary

Questions about the paternity of Edward IV had been raised by Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick in 1469 and repeated by George, Duke of Clarence shortly before his death in 1478, but with no evidence. Parliament seems to have addressed this rumour in Titulus Regius (the text of which is believed to come word-for-word from the petition presented by Buckingham to the assembly which met on June 25, 1483, to decide on the future of the monarchy). It describes Edward's brother Richard III as "the undoubted son and heir" of Richard, Duke of York and "born in this land" -- an oblique reference to his brother's birth at Rouen and baptism in circumstances which could have been considered questionable. Dominic Mancini says that Cecily Neville, King Edward's and King Richard's mother, was herself the basis for the story: When she found out about Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, in 1464, "Proud Cis" flew into a rage. One of the things she said then was that she was of a good mind to declare he was illegitimate and so have him kicked off the throne for his foolishness. As historical novelist Sharon Kay Penman explains, paid propagandists for Henry Tudor, after he became Henry VII (and King Richard was dead), concocted out of whole cloth the story that Richard III had said his brother Edward was illegitimate: "Tudor's official historian, Polydore Vergil, . . . contend[ed] that Richard based his claim to the crown upon his brother Edward's illegitimacy. This was, of course, an out-and-out lie."

Cor!!!! Haven't we got some clever folk on GC!!!! And there was me thinking Vera Duckworth was our rightful monarch! ;-)) Dierdre X

If you believe what you read in the tabloids you will believe anything. In the recent past they have found it far too expensive to write scurrilous rubbish about the living because of the libel laws. Its much safer to muck-rake in the distant past. It matters not to them that this has been investigated and disproved. They will print it over and over at intervals(as they do with other old-hat circulation boosters) in order to keep the shareholders happy.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with that viewpoint. Just because something is part of history doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. Although I learned a bit about The War Of The Roses at school, I read the article as a neutral observer and will be interested to see the evidence put forward by those who claim that Edward IV was illegitimate.

I read the article Andy found it fascinating. who knows ? I wil watch the tv prog thanks for mentioning that.