The Real Royals
- Lifestyles
- Special Interest
Author: Britney B.
Released 11 January 2004
Whatever your opinion on the recent conspiracy theories regarding the death of Princess Diana, it must be admitted that the British royal family do have a tough time being permanently in the public eye, and must sometimes yearn to be just like any other normal dysfunctional family! So what if the spotlight was taken off them permanently. This, of course, isn’t an option but could have been the case if history had followed a completely different course.
Edward IV
Aramco expatriates living in or visiting the UK recently may have been lucky enough to catch two very good television programs last week on Channel 4. The first was an investigation into the life of the 15th-century English king, Richard III, who history has labeled one of our most grotesque monarchs both in physique and character. He was reputedly a hunchback and the king who killed his nephews, “the princes in the tower”, in order to usurp the throne. (Though the hunchback theory is thought most likely the invention of William Shakespeare in order to please Elizabeth I by disparaging one of her grandfather’s adversaries.) Tony Robinson, the historian and presenter of the program, whilst investigating his subject, stumbled upon startling evidence that suggests the current royal line is tainted by the illegitimacy of Richard’s eldest brother, Edward IV, thus throwing the legitimacy of all the kings and queens who followed into question. This evidence formed the basis of the second program, “The Real Monarch”. So, could it be that by right of succession someone else should be sitting on the British throne today?
Historian Michael Jones, whilst in France researching the hundred years war, uncovered what appears to be strong proof that Edward IV was illegitimate. It appears the royal line should have extended, not through Edward IV, but through his brother, George, Duke of Clarence, and his heirs. According to the archbishopric records at the cathedral in Rouen where their father, Richard Duke of York, and his wife, Cecily Neville, were based at the time, Richard was away fighting at the battle of Pontoise for a crucial five weeks in the summer of 1441 during which time his eldest son must have been conceived. Edward was born in Rouen on 28th April 1442.
Edward’s real father was believed to be one of the royal archers. Although rumours abounded at the time of the birth and after, up until now the suggestion that Edward IV was illegitimate has never been taken seriously. It was reported though that Cecily herself once admitted it and stated she would be prepared to testify before a public enquiry that it was indeed the case. Then why have historians dismissed this incredible revelation? Michael Jones believes that because Edward was born abroad slanders of this kind attached themselves more easily to a birth outside the country. But for the mother herself to make the acknowledgment was unprecedented. It has previously been dismissed on two grounds. Some have believed Cecily’s disclosure was mischievous, vindictive and intended to discredit her son the king because of his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, a liaison she could never accept or forgive. Others assume that Richard III callously intimidated his mother into making the admission, or even worse, disparaged her behind her back in his ruthless pursuit of a crown not rightfully his.
Edward IV’s reign was clouded by the Wars of the Roses, the power struggle between the houses of York and Lancaster for the English throne. He had his brother George, Duke of Clarence, murdered for treachery, allowing George to choose his method of dying. This was the duke who infamously chose to die by drowning in a vat of malmesbury wine. Edward died suddenly in 1483, leaving behind two sons aged 12 and 9, the tragic Princes in the Tower, and five daughters. But should Edward have been king at all? George, Duke of Clarence, had two surviving children, Margaret and Edward. Edward and George’s younger brother was Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who became king as Richard III, but Richard left no children and his closest heirs would have been Clarence’s children.
The king who succeeded Richard was Henry VII, the victor at the battle of Bosworth Field and founder of the Tudor dynasty. His mother was Lady Margaret Beaufort, a descendent of John of Gaunt, son of Edward III. However, Henry's descent from John of Gaunt was through the latter's mistress, Katherine Swynford. Because Henry knew his claim to the throne was questionable, he married Elizabeth of York to legitimize himself, but she was a daughter of Edward IV and if Edward was illegitimate that invalidated Elizabeth's claim and consequently the claims of Henry VII, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and so on up to the present House of Windsor.
Tony Robinson, with the help of Debretts Peerage, has compiled a family tree of the Hastings family, the descendents of George, Duke of Clarence, and the Plantagenet kings of England. The alternative king, and possibly the rightful king of England, is Michael Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudon. As a 17 year old in 1960 he migrated to Australia where he today works at the Australian Rice Research Institute. He has five children and five grandchildren. The family tree of the royal family and the alternate royals, together with the more information about the relevant characters in this story can be found at www.channel4.com/history.
Whichever way you look at it, there are probably quite a few claimants to the English throne and if we traced our family trees back that far, who knows - maybe you or I should be sitting there!