Talk:Britain's Real Monarch

"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)

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.

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, 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)

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. 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.

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.

I don't understand this argument at all. The child of the oldest sibling always takes precedent over a younger sister. I see no reason at all why Ursula Pole would be the rightful heir to the Headship of the House of York as the oldest figure. Pacomartin (talk)

For the record: there is a difference between the de la Pole claims and the Pole claims to the English throne. Those are two entirely different families, but with similar sounding names, and living in exactly the same time frame and both with Plantagenet claims to the throne against the Tudors. So a mix-up of their names is easily done:
 * The de la Pole family were the Earls and Dukes of Suffolk. They were of high nobility and one of the main threats to Henry VII's throne and he spent much of his reign trying to get their hands on them. By 1540 the last of them had died without descendents. Their claim to the English throne stemmed from the fact that Richard III had (due to his lack of own heirs) designated them as his heirs as the de la Pole boys (especially the Earl of Lincoln, the Earl of Suffolk, sir William, and sir Richard are notable) were the sons of his older sister, Elizabeth of York, Duchess of Suffolk. After all Richard III's elder brother George of Clarence had been attainted and executed (in which Richard III played a role) and his descendents were legally barred from the throne and thus no option for Richard III as his heirs. The fate of the de la Pole boys was in the end not a pleasant one:
 * Lincoln - the designated heir of Richard III - after his uncle's death at Bosworth in 1485 raised the first big rebellion against the Tudors and he was defeated and killed at the Battle of Stoke Field in 1487, which is widely regarded as the last battle of the War of the Roses.
 * His brother Suffolk fled to the continent, tried to find support for an invasion but was in the end bartered to Henry VII by Philip and his father Emperor Maximilian I, then jailed by Henry VII and after Henry VII's death he was ultimely executed on the orders of Henry VIII in 1513.
 * His brother sir William died in the Tower in 1539 after having been jailed nearly 40 years.
 * His brother sir Richard died in Italy in 1525 in the battle of Pavia.
 * The Pole family stemmed from a lowly Lancastrian knight Sir Richard Pole but who was married to George of Clarence's daughter Margaret. Sir Richard Pole may have been chosen by King Henry VII as husband for his wife's cousin Margaret on the basis that he was "safe" because his mother was a half-sister of Henry's own mother, Margaret Beaufort. Margaret and her sons were seen as a threat by the increasingly paranoid Henry VIII and percecuted by him. It is through them that the documentary tracks the claim to the current day Earl of Loudon. -- fdewaele, 22 September 2020, 23:43 CET.

What is this article really about?
I have done a rather serious edit on the article. As introduced, it is about a television show. That is fine. A television show that received significant media coverage merits a page. However, after the introduction, the article changes direction, and focuses on the minutia of an alternative interpretation of history. That turns the article into a content fork - an article created solely to present an alternative point of view. This is a legitimate basis for deleting a page: if there are legitimate conflicting points of view, they are to be presented on the same page, not have different pages for each. There are further problems with the historical analysis. In order to be verifiable, it needs be more than just a fringe theory (see WP:FRINGE). It should have been peer reviewed by experts in the field, and that is not the case with this descent.

The article is basically presenting alternative history - what would have happened had this one change been made (and it is a change - at the time in question, a child born to a married woman was legally the legitimate child of the husband unless paternity was explicitly and legally denied by the father). Further, Jones must invent a new legal framework for succession, one not explicit at the time, again introducing alternative history aspects. Any listing of the 'real' line of descent does not represent a historical reality, but rather just genealogical trivia: no one between the de la Poles and the modern time was even aware that they embodied this supposed claim. Thus it is not history at all, just wouldda, couldda, shouldda. The criticism of the descent is likewise inappropriate, as it is both POV and OR.

What are the consequences? If this is to be an article about the TV program, then it should be about the TV program. The basic theme, when aired, the ratings, etc. This is not the place to lay out the actual minute details underlying the hypothesis. If the hypothesis about Edward IV's birth meet the standards of verifiability, then to avoid POV fork issues the controversy over Edward's birth belongs on the page(s) for Edward IV, Cecily Neville, and/or Richard, Duke of York. As to the consequences, the list of 'real kings', Henry VII made himself the Real King after Bosworth. That Jones has invented a legal framework for succession that would exclude Henry VII is not historical - he was king. If there was a recognized claim at the time, as was the case for the Carlist claim, that would be different, but there never was a King Ferdinando of England (let alone of Britain, which is another problem, as none of this entire line here had claim to Scotland and if legitimate inheritance is prerequisite, then they cannot claim Wales either), nor did Ferdinando Hastings ever make such a claim nor know there was a claim to be made based on a legal theory not invented for another 300 years that allowed a retrospective (supposed) claim to attach to him. While the actual genealogical connections are mostly well attested, the application of this to the Jones alternative history is not verified in the scholarly historical literature, which seems largely to have ignored the whole thing. It has no place here. Agricolae (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep this about the actual show
This is not the best place to give an entire survey of the arguments for and against the legitimacy of Edward. This page is about a TV show. If we start talking about the actual issue in question, with all of the previous instances of people making the claim and all of the arguments used too refute these other arguments it devolves into a quagmire of accusations of original research by synthesis, on both sides. If the show reviewed previous such accusations, it is sufficient to say, "the show reviewed previous such accusations", but as this is about the show and not about the debate, it is out of place to detail all of these, all the more so if the show did not give such coverage. My own interpretation is that the whole issue is nothing but a fringe content fork of Edward IV of England, but if the issue merits coverage, then it merits coverage in its own right with both pro and con, not as a one-sided recounting of every previous such claim in the midst of an article theoretically about just one such claim. Agricolae (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Royal Line
The alternative royal line is the one presented in the BBC documentary. I feel it deserves inclusion because it is based on the documentary. It does not challenge the show in any way, but helps to explain the argument.Pacomartin (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW I don't think you can challenge the legitimacy of Edward IV after the fact. As I understand it under British law a man is assumed legitimate if he is raised by his parents. In any case the Act of Succession essentially overrides any previous claims of legitimacy or illegitimacy. But that is not the argument made by the TV show.


 * The list just doesn't belong. There is a page which covers the alternative line of descent, this is a page about the show. The show doesn't name most of these people at all, and it certainly doesn't discuss the other material that has now crept in, like the "great fire" at Loudon. It is original research to present the entire line with commentary when the show never included such details. Agricolae (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why it's not appropriate
I have again deleted the following:
 * It should be noted that the alleged illegitimacy of Edward IV would only affect the right to the throne of Henry VII's descendants if they chose to base their claim on descent from Edward IV via Henry's marriage to Edward's daughter, Elizabeth of York. Henry VII himself made his claim based on his descent from John of Gaunt, son of Edward III of England.

Here is why. 1) "It should be noted", says who? Do you have a source that brings up this point in specifically addressing the TV show, or is it your opinion that this should be noted?  If the latter, then it is inappropriate.  2) ". . . would only affect the right to the throne of Henry VII's descendants if they chose to base their claim on descent from Edward IV via Henry's marriage to Edward's daughter, Elizabeth of York.  Henry VII himself made his claim based on his descent from John of Gaunt, son of Edward III of England." This is just wrong. The full argument of the 'scholar' behind this theory is not just that Edward IV was illegitimate. It is that all illegitimacy bars the right to succession (and also that no woman can succeed, although the right to succeed can pass through a maternal line). They argue explicitly that the Beauforts were ineligible from birth, and their parents' subsequent marriage did not change this, nor did the Parliamentary act that legitimated them except as regards succession. This means that according to them, Henry had no claim one way or the other. Thus the addition is factually erroneous, and given that both the illegitimacy of Edward and the alternative claim to the throne are covered elsewhere, this is not the place to present every editor's personal opinion, all in violation of Wikipedia standards, of the show's arbitrary rules of succession. Agricolae (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case there should be some mention in the article that the documentary argues that the illegitimacy of the Beauforts makes the claim of Henry VII and his descendants invalid. At the moment it only refers to the (largely discredited) claim that Edward IV was illegitimate. You may not agree with my addition to the page, but simply removing it does nothing to improve the accuracy of the article. As for your claim that my comment regarding the basis of Henry VII's claim is 'just wrong', I'd call that more than a little spurious. Whether you or the makers of this programme think the claim is valid is irrelevant - the point was that this his descent from Edward III through John of Gaunt was the basis of his claim. If you can update the article to clarify that the programme argues that the undisputed illegitimacy (at the time of their birth) of the Beaufort family makes Henry VII's claim invalid, I will not make any further edits to the article. But it clearly isn't accurate at present. Smurfmeister (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not an argument in the show, but an underlying argument of the 'scholar', but we should not faultily portray their position when we know better. As to what I was calling 'just wrong' it is not Henry's claim or your summary of Henry's claim, but the fact that such a claim would negate the succession presented by the show, it would not as such a claim is rejected. The page perfectly accurate at present, because it summarizes the show's argument with respect to Richard of York. If you are suggesting that the show itself is inaccurate, that is no more relevant that Hobbits really don't exist, and that there is no secret Ministry of Magic at Whitehall. If you want to argue about the theory, then there is a page that covers the theory, but this isn't it. The subject of this page is the show. As editors, we don't get to have our own opinion, and we don't get to draw conclusions. In suggesting that I view the show and extract from it its argument, you are asking that I do original research in a primary source, which is a no-no.  This is a bit of a problem, in that I know its silly, and you know its silly, and most historians think its silly, but none of that is relevant to Wikipedia.  All that matters is whether we can find a historian who has published the fact that he thinks the show is silly, and unfortunately, I am unaware of any historian who thought such an exercise was worth their time (and I have specifically looked in some places where such a review would likely have appeared). Agricolae (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Agricolae, I have a couple of issues. Firstly, the "Baldrick documentary" isn't the same as Harry Potter or Lord of The Rings or The Hobbit. The "documentary" presents itself as historical fact, and many people who know comparatively little about the history of the period, including the issues of the Wars of the Roses, or Henry Tudor's claim to the throne, probably imagine that it is fact. Indeed Robinson's show has him chatting away with serious historians making it look like they supported his theory (although none specifically endorsed it of course). Considering this article is the prime location for anyone checking up on the Robinson claims to look to (someone who doesn't have much historical background i.e. the bulk of the population!) some mention of this should be made, particularly since the Edward IV page links to this article with respect to the Robinson assertions! It is a fact that with the assassination of Edward Prince of Wales (son of Henry VI) and the presumed murder of Henry VI that there were no members of the House of Lancaster in the main succession, and hence the House of Lancaster, such as it was, went to the more distant Henry Tudor. I think it should also be pointed out here that the exclusion of the Beauforts from the succession was a political sop to the Yorkists. Prior to the birth of Edward Prince of Wales, Richard Duke of York had been the acknowledged heir to the throne (indeed he only "remembered" that he was the rightful King when the Henry' VI's son was born, and he was being supplanted from both the succession by the boy, and the Government by the Queen and her faction). Excluding them from the succession was most probably an attempt to avoid an open breech with the Duke of York! With the main Lancastrian contenders eliminated, the claims then centred on Henry Tudor, which is why he had to remain in exile! He probably wouldn’t have been able to make those claims stick were it not for the fact that Richard III had spilt the Yorkist camp by usurping the throne! But the point is that the proposed marriage to Elizabeth of York wasn’t made to provide Henry Tudor with his claim to the throne, but to reach out to the disgruntled Yorkists. Henry was already Crowned as Henry VII (and was thus king) before he married Elizabeth! Furthermore, no one seriously doubts that Elizabeth was daughter of Edward IV, and was thus the eldest daughter of the Yorkist King! I haven’t heard of any real evidence that Richard III claimed his brother was illegitimate, he just claimed that his brother’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalid, and hence his nephews were illegitimate. It is surely necessary to challenge the assertions made in the show, particularly since they are mostly, as you say, silly. But surely the point of Wikipedia is to make it easier for “Joe Public” who’ve seen the show, and want to check to see if “Baldrick” is right to find out the truth. In this case, I think we can confidently say that the premise of the show is little more than nonsense. First, it is normal for a pregnancy to be either up to 2 weeks too long, or 2 weeks short of the 9 months. Edward may have simply been overdue. Secondly, we cannot prove that the Duchess was really separated from Richard that whole time. It isn’t like she was in England and he in France! Thirdly, the show brushes aside Henry VII and his claims a bit to readily – particularly that he claimed the throne by virtue of the Beaufort/Lancastrian claim, and right of conquest, and not because his wife was the daughter of Edward IV (BTW Edward IV had effectively won the crown by conquest, since the legitimately crowned king Henry VI still lived, as did his legitimate son and heir!). No one seriously challenges the fact that Elizabeth was the daughter of Edward IV – even Richard III based his claim on the basis that the marriage was invalid, not that the children weren’t his brother’s. Finally, it totally ignores the fact that Richard Duke of York wasn’t King anyway, strictly speaking Edward Prince of Wales should have succeeded instead of either Richard or Edward IV, indeed Edward IV assumed the crown and title whilst the already crowned Henry VI (son of the previous King) still lived. The show is a concoction, and doesn’t even establish that Richard III even claimed his brother was illegitimate other than an oblique reference to Shakespeare’s play. Given the documentary is supposed to be a factual presentation, a rebuttal of its erroneous assertions, and misrepresentation needs to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.89.1.33 (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that Henry had another claim is not why the show is wrong. Agricolae (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to fly in the face of good sense? You assert that 'The full argument of the 'scholar' behind this theory is not just that Edward IV was illegitimate. It is that all illegitimacy bars the right to succession (and also that no woman can succeed, although the right to succeed can pass through a maternal line)'. This ignores the fact that the theory the programme presents is that Edward IV was the result of an extra-marital affair. The problem would not be illegitimacy - it would be the fact that he was not royal. The Beauforts may have been illegitimate (although later legitimised) but no one has argued that they were not the descendants of John of Gaunt, son to Edward III. That is the difference. Smurfmeister (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the theory that the program presents is that Edward IV is illegitimate. This has absolutely nothing to do with Henry VII's claim as a Beaumont descendant, and to introduce this claim here just opens the whole thing up to the counterargument that the historical theory in question also rejects that claim.  Henry's claim does nothing to address the issue of Edward's legitimacy, and it actively obfuscates the conclusion that there is a Real King of Britain (sic) independent of the descendants of Henry VII.  Further, nothing 'should be noted' unless there s a source that says this specific aspect of the question should be noted - I don't see any such source. Agricolae (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is also some evidence that Edward IV's grandfather (Richard, Earl of Cambridge, who was officially the youngest son of Duke Edmund of York, the fourth son of King Edward III) was illegitimate as well. Ironically Cambridge was executed in 1415 for plotting against king Henry V in the Southampton Plot (a precursor to the war of the roses, as it was meant to push the claim to the throne of Edmund Mortimer, as the Mortimer family's claim to the throne came through female descent of the second surviving son of Edward III: Lionel of Antwerp. This line would be senior to both the Lancaster and York line but was in female descent. A claim which was later inherited by the Yorks as Mortimer's sister Anne was Edward IV's grandmother. That would be the base of the York's challenge to their Lancastrian cousin (aided by the fact that Henry VI was feeble minded)). Richard of Cambridge is rumoured to have been the child of an illicit liaison between his mother and king Richard II’s maternal half-brother John Holland (the Duke of Exeter). That would effectively barr the entire York line of the Plantagenets from the throne as illegitimate, including the descendants from Baldrick’s hypothesis. Because in those days illegitimacy would taint the entire descendants and it would not be sure if the Mortimer claim would be enough to overcome that.
 * But the main and biggest historical error of the “documentary” by Baldrick is neglecting the fact that the current Queen doesn't get her right to the throne through claiming descent of the medieval Plantagenets, but through the Tudor claim. The House of Tudor is a dynastic reset just as the Norman conquest was. Henry VII, who was linked through close family bonds to the Lancastrian kings and their cause (both through his mother Margaret in the illegitimate but legitimized Beaufort line, as through his father who was a maternal halfbrother of King Henry VI), explicitly claimed the throne through RIGHT OF CONQUEST and not through right of inheritence. At the time, right by conquest was still widely accepted, with the most famous example being William the Conqueror and his conquest 400 years earlier. Henry VII later used his marriage to Elizabeth of York to pacify those warring clans and their adherents, but he specifically made sure to be crowned, secure parliamentary recognition of his title and be proclaimed king before marrying her. Given the Tudor reset, the entire documentary, although entertaining, is moot. -- fdewaele, 22 September 2020, 22:56 CET.

Bad link
The pros and cons of the argument or the program notwithstanding, one of the two links at the bottom -- "Family tree showing the descent from George, Duke of Clarence" -- is now bad. It links only to the general Channel 4 website. Anyone have an alternative? -- Michael K Smith Talk 01:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

George's attainder
As George was attainted at the time of his death his descendants could not claim the throne - and made no claim when attainder was abolished.

Edward IV and Henry VII based their claims to the throne partly 'by right of conquest' - and were also generally recognised as the monarch at the time and since. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant - the claim here cares little for legal niceties. I mean, seriously, they claim this represents Britain's Real Monarch even though under this alternative-reality formulation would they would have no basis at all for ruling Scotland.  The article is fundamentally about the programme, not about the claim, which was the only way to keep it from descending into a quagmire of competing Original Research over the precise details.  Agricolae (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Just noting some of the more obvious inherent flaws in the argument. Jackiespeel (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I realize that, but making an argument not explicitly found in a reliable source is problematic, and almost no real historians took this seriously enough to bother even addressing it in print. Agricolae (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably 'tracing George's actual direct heir' was the most interesting part of the activity (and there are probably quite a few more 'alternative theoretically better heirs' - eg those skipped over between Queen Anne and George I). And is probably a better place to discuss such things. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)