It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

British Monachy is fake

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   
After hearing about this I had to research further into the matter, and here's a summary of what I've found.

Firstly we need to look at the fact the Edward IV was born on the 28 of April 1442 and yet history records the time of his conception as May 1441, no this works out as an 11 moth pregnancy. Now I’m now doctor but 11 months pregnancies are medically impossible to my knowledge. So where was he conceived? History also places his mother (Cecily Neville) in Rouen at September to August 1441, while his father (Richard Duke of York is off elsewhere fighting the French. It is at this time she has a fling with a French archer, and gives birth amazingly 9 months later??? What is also apparent is the fact that Edward is very different in appearance to his supposed father. (A massive 6 feet tall) Edwards christening is also a very hushed up affair unlike his brothers (Richard III) who had a large banquet and celebration to commemorate the event.

So now we move forward to 1483 when Edward dies and his (rightful) brother takes over until his death in 1485. At this point the only rightful contender to the throne is Henry VII a descendant of John of Gaunt, whose line was barred from the throne. Henry takes Edwards daughter as a bride to legitimize his claim to the throne. So technically at this point all further monarchs are false, as it is generally accepted that to lay claim to this title you must be the next in line from your predecessor and that you must all come form “royal” blood.

So now the only true heir to the throne is the last of the Plantagenet line, Margaret countess of Salisbury who is killed as she poses a threat to the throne, but not before she has had children. These are all killed in time by the Tudor line to prevent a strong claim to the monarchy, however one grand daughter of Margaret survives to marry into the Hastings family line. Next we move forward further to Henry Hastings III earl of Huntingdon a descendant of Margaret. Who was suggested to Queen Elizabeth I as a potential successor when she fell very ill with no heir, at the mention of his name and heritage she was said to have a miraculous recovery. Later despite being pushed away from his rightful title Henry dies fighting loyally at the side of Charles I in the civil war against Cromwell.

The Hastings family now takes the title of Earl of Lowden in Scotland at the beginning of the first year of Queen Victoria’s reign. Another of Margaret’s descendants Flora Hastings takes a job as a lady in waiting for Queen Victoria’s mother, however her linage is exposed in a paper by Sir John Conroy, when this comes to light Victoria destroys flora’s reputation and she eventually dies of illness. Her brother George Hastings then challenges the queen’s representative to a duel (only as it would be impossible to challenge the queen being a woman) this was metaphorically a coup attempt on the throne, however the duel never takes place. In 1827 the Last remaining Hastings gambles the last of the family fortune (5.5 million of today’s money) on a single horse race and loses the lot. The family’s estate is then sold off to repay massive debts and the Hastings family becomes a shadow of its former self. After years of normal living the last of the Hastings emigrates to Australia in 1961.

So who is the rightful king of England? Well it’s a 61 year old guy called Michael Hastings, he lives in Jerilderie New South Wales, Australia. Just to cap the whole thing off, he voted for the country to become a rebuplic in the referendum…..




posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   
www.channel4.com...

www.channel4.com...

bit better to understand on these sites here

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by SE7EN]



posted on Jan, 5 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Here's a great well organized article on the whole situation from an aussie paper.

NEWS.com.au



posted on Jan, 5 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
It's been a well known fact in the uk for years that the monarchy is illegitimate. However the channel 4 programme has now shown us who the rightful king is a rice technician from Austrailia who is actually against austrailia remaining under the uk monarchy's rule.



posted on Jan, 5 2004 @ 02:35 PM
link   
It's a real shame the guy's a rebuplican, as it would be a great sight to see him a Buckingham palace gates telling the windsors their evicted.



posted on Jan, 5 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by feygan
It's a real shame the guy's a rebuplican, as it would be a great sight to see him a Buckingham palace gates telling the windsors their evicted.


I'd pay to see that!!



posted on Jan, 5 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Reminds me of an apophrycal tale...

A miner and a "Lord of the Land" met somewhere in the country. The miner is doing some poaching. The Lord approaches him and says "Clear off!! This is *my* land".

The miner looks at him and says "Why is it *your* land?" to which the Lord replies "Because my ancestors fought for it!!"

The miner rolls up his sleeves and says "Well, *I'll* fight *you* for it then!"

On such, dynasties were established!!



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   


So now the only true heir to the throne is the last of the Plantagenet line, Margaret countess of Salisbury who is killed as she poses a threat to the throne,



There are still Plantagenet descendants alive today.

King Edward I and Eleanor of Castile had many children, 15 I think. One of their daughters, Princess Elizabeth, married a man named Humphrey VIII de Bohun, Earl of Hereford.

Elizabeth and Humphrey also had many children. At least two of those children, Margaret and Eleanor have descendants who are alive now.
.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I just don't understand why any plantagent should be consider the rightful heir. THe brits invited William of Orange to be their Sovreeign. Its not allways required that the sovereign be the "first male son of the current king", and the brits have made Parliament superior to the Throne, so whatever Parliament says is what goes.

I mean, after all, the real english royals were killed by William the Conqueror anyway.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
All monarchs are fakes.

No man/woman is above any others.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
Here's a great well organized article on the whole situation from an aussie paper.

NEWS.com.au


The link sends me to an error page, do you have another?

-- Boat



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
The link sends me to an error page, do you have another?



Ummm, the link (and the post) is over two years old...



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Very interesting, and I've no reason to doubt any of its veracity. But I dont think the situation is in any way unique. I would think that there are at least a dozen monarchs who came to the throne in dubious circumstances, and there are many celebrated 'pretenders' to the throne, the most famous of which is probably 'Bonnie Prince Charlie'.

So how far back do you go? Nygdan makes the point that the incumbent rulers of England were usurped as way back as 1066. Or are we talking about Great Britain, which only came into existence in 1707? or how about the United Kingdom which came into being in 1800? The first king of Great Britain was James IV of Scotland, the Acts of Union effectively swept away prior claims to the throne.

The history of the British Crown is fertile ground for conspiracists - as we know money and power attracts greed and corruption.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowEyes
There are still Plantagenet descendants alive today.

King Edward I and Eleanor of Castile had many children, 15 I think. One of their daughters, Princess Elizabeth, married a man named Humphrey VIII de Bohun, Earl of Hereford.

Elizabeth and Humphrey also had many children. At least two of those children, Margaret and Eleanor have descendants who are alive now.
.

It is estimated that there are about 1 million descendants of Edward III alive today (and presumably therefore more of Edward I). But interestingly none of Henry VIII



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 05:53 AM
link   
true but if you look far enough back you see that the monarchy has not followed the proper succesion many times.. and does it rearly matter, the monarch has virtualy no power anymore and makes the uk money through tourism etc.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by kipman725
true but if you look far enough back you see that the monarchy has not followed the proper succesion many times.. and does it rearly matter, the monarch has virtualy no power anymore and makes the uk money through tourism etc.


Exactly. Although its surprising how misunderstood the role of the Crown is in modern Britain - even by some of its own citizens. Americans have a 'special relationship' with the British Monarchy, as it represents something quite specific in that countries formation, and this too can create confusion sometimes.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join