Discussion:
Gullibility of the Press or how rediculous stories are kept going
(too old to reply)
Leo
2012-07-22 02:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Tony Robinson in England makes wonderful TV programs about historical sites in England being excavated. If you have the change to see them, they are fascinating and worthwhile.

However, on 23 May 2004 he presented a program "Britain's Real Monarch", in which it was maintained that Edward IV was illegitimate and as a result his descendants should have been excluded from the throne and replaced by those of his brother George, duke of Clarence, and at that time the "rightfull king" was Michael Abney-Hastings, earl of Loudoun, living in Australia.

On my website is a write-up about this with Michael Abney-Hastings, sadly with a small ommission which will be rectified after the next update.

Michael Abney-Hastings died this year and now his son, Simon Abney-Hastings, is the new earl of Loudoun. On 12 July this year in the Herald Sun was an article about him headed with "I should be King". Again the illegitimacy of Edward IV is paraded and "Mr Abney-Hastings takes the status of his newly inherited honorary title and links to royalty very seriously...." "But he hasn't ruled out staking a claim to the monarchy."

I am astounded that Kelly Ryan who produced this article took him seriously. All needed to be asked was "How did Edward IV become king?" Did he inherit the throne from his father? No, he didnt, he became king by conquest twice and so his "illegitimacy" has no bearing on the rights of his descendants.

According to the article "Some historians consider Simon Abney Hastings to be the rightful heir to the throne", no names were given of these historians. And also in the article "A few years ago, noted historian Dr. Michael Jones claimed the Abney-Hastings family should occupy the throne instead of Queen Elizabeth, because the alleged illigitimacy of Edward IV made void the legitimacy of his descendants."

I understand a normal pregnancy is considered two weeks either side of 40 weeks.

The "illegitimacy claim" of Edward IV birth is based on the facts that Edward IV's father, Richard, duke of York, was away from his wife from 14 July till 23 August and Edward IV was born on 28 April. However, if Richard and his wife slept together on 13 July, we would have
18days in July, 31 August, 30 September, 31 October, 30 November, 31 December, 31 January, 28 February, 31 March, 28 April, totalling 289 days. Divide 289 by seven and we get a pregnancy of 41 weeks and two days. Well within 40 weeks with 2 weeks either side.

The long life of wrong and sometimes irresponsible stories I find pretty sad. How can we stop them? When Simon dies, is his son or brother going to claim to be the "real Monarch of Britain"?
I have a scan of the text of the article, if anyone is interested I can send it.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
James Dow Allen
2012-07-23 08:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo
All needed to be asked was "How did Edward IV become king?" Did he inherit the throne from his father?
No, he didnt, he became king by conquest twice and so his "illegitimacy" has no bearing on the rights of his descendants.
Doesn't Kingship by conquest count toward inheritance only if the
conqueror
asserts conquest as his primary right to rule?

And, BTW, in addition to the claim Edward IV's father was cuckolded
there is the separate claim (made by Richard III, IIRC) that Edward's
heirs were
illegitimate because Edward's marriage to Woodville was bigamous.
The claim may be nonsensical, but does give Abney-Hastings another
hook for his claim.

Anyway,I was surprised to read Abney-Hastings takes his claim
seriously.
I think the Jacobite claim is more interesting since it would
eventually lead to
a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Liechtenstein. :-)

James
M Sjostrom
2012-07-23 08:31:20 UTC
Permalink
yet another hook for the claim is that King Henry VI, the last
Lancastrian, once promulgated legislation that in case of Henry VI's
issue going extinct (as it did), George of Clarence and his heirs
would be successors to their claim.
Matt Tompkins
2012-07-24 09:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by M Sjostrom
yet another hook for the claim is that King Henry VI, the last
Lancastrian, once promulgated legislation that in case of Henry VI's
issue going extinct (as it did), George of Clarence and his heirs
would be successors to their claim.
The 1484 Act of Parliament declaring Richard III's entitlement to the
crown had an answer to that line of reasoning:

"George duke of Clarence, brother to king Edward, was convicted and
attainted of high treason, by reason whereof all his issue was and is
disabled and debarred of all right and claim ... they might have ...
to the crown and dignity of this realm"

Matt Tompkins
M Sjostrom
2012-07-24 11:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Tompkins
Post by M Sjostrom
yet another hook for the claim is that King Henry VI, the last
Lancastrian, once promulgated legislation that in case of Henry VI's
issue going extinct (as it did), George of Clarence and his heirs
would be successors to their claim.
The 1484 Act of Parliament declaring Richard III's entitlement to the
"George duke of Clarence, brother to king Edward, was convicted and
attainted of high treason, by reason whereof all his issue was and is
disabled and debarred of all right and claim ... they might have ...
to the crown and dignity of this realm"
Matt Tompkins
(a) in dynastical succession doctrine, there is a general belief that
attainder by a king does not preclude the dynastical heirs, that
attainders are of zero value as to the passage of the throne itself.
For example, because a monarch has no right to make law to give the
throne to someone and thusly not effect the same by depriving
another.... Please see how the enemies of the United Kingdom in the
WWI (Hanover line and Coburg line) still hold the succession right to
the throne today, despite of the fact that the respective Duke in both
branches during the WWI was deprived of, for example, his royal
dukedom, and was declared enemy of HM George V, the man on that throne
at that time. This is a weighty argument generally in what I hobby:
dynastical successions.

(b) even more fatally towards your idea above (where you replied to
the Henry VI succession), His Late Royal Grace, King Henry VI, whose
declaratory promulgation recognizes Clarence's this hook to the
succession, and to whose successorship this Clarence hook is based as
I explained earlier, never ever agreed to this attainder of George;
instead H L R G Henry VI specifically attainted Edward IV (in his
mind, merely a York, not a rightful king) whose action that attainder
against Clarence was. It is totally certain and logical that in the
camp of Henry VI successor doctrine, any attainder from Edward IV has
nada value, actually has sub-zero value :)
Matt Tompkins
2012-07-24 15:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Tompkins
Post by M Sjostrom
yet another hook for the claim is that King Henry VI, the last
Lancastrian, once promulgated legislation that in case of Henry VI's
issue going extinct (as it did), George of Clarence and his heirs
would be successors to their claim.
The 1484 Act of Parliament declaring Richard III's entitlement to the
"George duke of Clarence, brother to king Edward, was convicted and
attainted of high treason, by reason whereof all his issue was and is
disabled and debarred of all right and claim ... they might have ...
to the crown and dignity of this realm"
Matt Tompkins
(a)  in dynastical succession doctrine, there is a general belief that
attainder by a king does not preclude the dynastical heirs, that
attainders are of zero value as to the passage of the throne itself.
For example, because a monarch has no right to make law to give the
throne to someone and thusly not effect the same by depriving
another.... Please see how the enemies of the United Kingdom in the
WWI (Hanover line and Coburg line) still hold the succession right to
the throne today, despite of the fact that the respective Duke in both
branches during the WWI was deprived of, for example, his royal
dukedom, and was declared enemy of HM George V, the man on that throne
dynastical successions.
(b) even more fatally towards your idea above (where you replied to
the Henry VI succession), His Late Royal Grace, King Henry VI, whose
declaratory promulgation recognizes Clarence's this hook to the
succession, and to whose successorship this Clarence hook is based as
I explained earlier, never ever agreed to this attainder of George;
instead H L R G Henry VI specifically attainted Edward IV (in his
mind, merely a York, not a rightful king) whose action that attainder
against Clarence was. It is totally certain and logical that in the
camp of Henry VI successor doctrine, any attainder from Edward IV has
nada value, actually has sub-zero value :)-
Not *my* idea. I wasn't particularly advancing the idea that
Clarence's attainder prevented his heirs succeeding to the throne,
merely pointing out that Richard III had advanced it. However the
effect of attainder on succession to the throne was rather more
uncertain than you present it to be.

I'm not sure whether you realise that attainder required an Act of
Parliament, and was not just a personal act of the king (and the dukes
of Hanover and Coburg were never attainted by Act of Parliament, so
their descendants' place in the line of succession is irrelevant to
this discussion.) Every new regime recognised that the acts of
attainder passed during the previous reign were valid and had to be
reversed by new acts of parliament, however much the recently
overthrown king's right to the throne might be denied.

Henry VII's regime was no different. It admitted the validity of the
attainders passed under Edward IV and Richard III, and reversed them
in its first parliaments, beginning in the one held less than 3 weeks
after Bosworth. In so doing they came up against a problem, that
Henry VII himself had been attainted - how then could he have become
king? A committee of 12 judges was asked to look into the matter and
sidestepped the problem by deciding that it was unnecessary to reverse
his attainder because its effects had been discharged automatically
when he took it upon himself to be king! ('que le Roy fuist personable
et discharge dascun attainter eo facto que il prist sur luy le raigne
et este Roy'). The regime must have recognised how dubious that logic
was, though, because they then passed an Act of Parliament declaring
Henry Tudor to be king.

Matt Tompkins
Matt Tompkins
2012-07-24 16:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Henry VII's regime was no different.  It admitted the validity of the
attainders passed under Edward IV and Richard III, and reversed them
in its first parliaments, beginning in the one held less than 3 weeks
after Bosworth.
3 months, not weeks
M Sjostrom
2012-07-25 00:06:43 UTC
Permalink
In our days, British monarch's power has dwindled to be nominal only,
Parliaments are elected by general suffrage where each adult has one
vote, and thusly it seems normal to us to believe that the Parliament
is the Parliament irrespective of who is the monarch who is on the
throne.

But that is not what Parliaments were in more remote history. Say, two
hundred years ago and earlier, it was very clearly the Parliament of
the monarch who summoned it. (For example, when William IV's
government did not like what the House of Lords was voting about a
matter, he indicated that he will elevate enough Peers to change the
result and thusly the House of Lords saw the light and did vote what
the monarch wanted them to vote... :)

So, in such times, Acts of Parliament were not outcomes from a
separately legitimate power, but Acts of the then King's Parliament.
Consequently, if the King in question was not rightful in eyes of a
camp, then that camp did not and does not recognize the attainder
there procured. See that, Matt? Btw, Matt himself tells the example
of the attainted Henry Tudor rising to kingship despite the attainder
from the usurper Rivchard III :)

So, let me assure you that attainders from Edward IV and his
parliaments were of sub-zero worth in the eyes of the camp of the
succession rights from Henry VI.

Rather, an attainder from Edward IV and his parliament was a
recommendation in the camp of Henry VI succession.

As it happens, Clarence's first attainder was based on him supporting
king Henry VI against Edward IV. To talk about ridiculous
suppositions: Does anyone really think such an attainder having any
value in the eyes of the Henry VI camp ?
Wjhonson
2012-07-25 00:20:32 UTC
Permalink
I think rather, at this point, you had several of the nobility, switching sides and making justifications for doing it.
So any argument that could win you an extra supporter, was probably argued.
Especially if that supporter had a thousand men he could raise to make a convincing case for the need for another argument.



-----Original Message-----
From: M Sjostrom <***@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 24, 2012 5:10 pm
Subject: Re: Gullibility of the Press or how rediculous stories are kept going



n our days, British monarch's power has dwindled to be nominal only,
arliaments are elected by general suffrage where each adult has one
ote, and thusly it seems normal to us to believe that the Parliament
s the Parliament irrespective of who is the monarch who is on the
hrone.
But that is not what Parliaments were in more remote history. Say, two
undred years ago and earlier, it was very clearly the Parliament of
he monarch who summoned it. (For example, when William IV's
overnment did not like what the House of Lords was voting about a
atter, he indicated that he will elevate enough Peers to change the
esult and thusly the House of Lords saw the light and did vote what
he monarch wanted them to vote... :)
So, in such times, Acts of Parliament were not outcomes from a
eparately legitimate power, but Acts of the then King's Parliament.
onsequently, if the King in question was not rightful in eyes of a
amp, then that camp did not and does not recognize the attainder
here procured. See that, Matt? Btw, Matt himself tells the example
f the attainted Henry Tudor rising to kingship despite the attainder
rom the usurper Rivchard III :)
So, let me assure you that attainders from Edward IV and his
arliaments were of sub-zero worth in the eyes of the camp of the
uccession rights from Henry VI.
Rather, an attainder from Edward IV and his parliament was a
ecommendation in the camp of Henry VI succession.
As it happens, Clarence's first attainder was based on him supporting
ing Henry VI against Edward IV. To talk about ridiculous
uppositions: Does anyone really think such an attainder having any
alue in the eyes of the Henry VI camp ?

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message
Matt Tompkins
2012-07-25 13:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by M Sjostrom
In our days, British monarch's power has dwindled to be nominal only,
Parliaments are elected by general suffrage where each adult has one
vote, and thusly it seems normal to us to believe that the Parliament
is the Parliament irrespective of who is the monarch who is on the
throne.
But that is not what Parliaments were in more remote history. Say, two
hundred years ago and earlier, it was very clearly the Parliament of
the monarch who summoned it. (For example, when William IV's
government did not like what the House of Lords was voting about a
matter, he indicated that he will elevate enough Peers to change the
result and thusly the House of Lords saw the light and did vote what
the monarch wanted them to vote... :)
Perfectly true, but only up to a point. Most of the time late
medieval and early modern Parliaments did do the king's bidding, but
not all of the time - there were always occasions when they
successfuly defied him (usually involving taxation). However this is
not relevant to the present question because what follows in the rest
of your post is simply wrong.

An act of Parliament was an act of Parliament, whichever reign it was
passed in, and if a new regime didn't like any acts of the previous
reign then it had to pass a new act reversing them - this included
acts of attainder. To give just one example: in Henry VII's first
Parliament in November 1485, before the committee of 12 judges decided
that Henry VII's attainder had been automatically reversed by his
seizure of the crown, they first dealt with another problem. This was
that many of the parliament's members had been attainted by Edward IV
or Richard III, and were consequently disqualified from acting as
MPs. The judges' solution was that that the attainted members should
abstain from participating in the parliament's first business, which
would be to pass an act reversing the attainders - then the newly -de-
attainted MPS would be legally free to take part in all subsequent
business.

'Un question fuit mouve des Justices. Quel ordre sera en ce parlement
de proceder de anuller certain attaindors, en tant que plusors que
furent in le Parlement, furent attaints. ... Justiciarij ...
accorderent, que touts ceux qui furent attaints, et furent nomes
Chevalers de Counties ou Citizens ou Burgesses a ce Parlement, ceo
Acte de attainder sera primes revoque ou anulle; et que ceux mesme
attaints ne seront in le Parliament ale reversel dele Acte, et tantost
come les Acts de attainder vers eux furent reverses et anulles, ils
tout et chescun de eux, cestassavoir, Seigniors et Communs viendront
in lour lieus, et donc procederont loialment ...

Matt
Post by M Sjostrom
So, in such times, Acts of Parliament were not outcomes from a
separately legitimate power, but Acts of the then King's Parliament.
Consequently, if the King in question was not rightful in eyes of a
camp, then that camp did not and does not recognize the attainder
there procured. See that, Matt?  Btw, Matt himself tells the example
of the attainted Henry Tudor rising to kingship despite the attainder
from the usurper Rivchard III  :)
So, let me assure you that attainders from Edward IV and his
parliaments were of sub-zero worth in the eyes of the camp of the
succession rights from Henry VI.
Rather, an attainder from Edward IV and his parliament was a
recommendation in the camp of Henry VI succession.
As it happens, Clarence's first attainder was based on him supporting
king Henry VI against Edward IV. To talk about ridiculous
suppositions: Does anyone really think such an attainder having any
value in the eyes of the Henry VI camp ?
M Sjostrom
2012-07-25 15:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Perfectly true, but only up to a point.  Most of the time late
medieval and early modern Parliaments did do the king's bidding, but
not all of the time - there were always occasions when they
successfuly defied him (usually involving taxation).  However this is
not relevant to the present question because what follows in the rest
of your post is simply wrong.
An act of Parliament was an act of Parliament, whichever reign it was
passed in, and if a new regime didn't like any acts of the previous
reign then it had to pass a new act reversing them - this included
acts of attainder.  To give just one example: in Henry VII's first
Parliament in November 1485, before the committee of 12 judges decided
that Henry VII's attainder had been automatically reversed by his
seizure of the crown, they first dealt with another problem.  This was
that many of the parliament's members had been attainted by Edward IV
or Richard III, and were consequently disqualified from acting as
MPs.  The judges' solution was that that the attainted members should
abstain from participating in the parliament's first business, which
would be to pass an act reversing the attainders - then the newly -de-
attainted MPS would be legally free to take part in all subsequent
business.
'Un question fuit mouve des Justices.  Quel ordre sera en ce parlement
de proceder de anuller certain attaindors, en tant que plusors que
furent in le Parlement, furent attaints.  ...  Justiciarij ...
accorderent, que touts ceux qui furent attaints, et furent nomes
Chevalers de Counties ou Citizens ou Burgesses a ce Parlement, ceo
Acte de attainder sera primes revoque ou anulle; et que ceux mesme
attaints ne seront in le Parliament ale reversel dele Acte, et tantost
come les Acts de attainder vers eux furent reverses et anulles, ils
tout et chescun de eux, cestassavoir, Seigniors et Communs viendront
in lour lieus, et donc procederont loialment ...
Matt
Henry Tudor was such a usurper that I find it plausible that since his
accession, things changed, dynastical legitimacy was lost (and some
shade of pragmatism replaced it). Actually, I once read that he wanted
to condemn all his opponents for treason against him, those who fought
at Bosworth, but was compelled to give up that desire. So, that point
could have been a real watershed...

But, earlier, surely Yorkist kings held Lancastrian attainders null,
and Lancastrians of course held Yorkist attainders null. They seem to
not have accepted the parliaments summoned by the opposing pretender,
usurper.
Actually, in legitimist literature, I have read swathes about how a
Parliament summoned by non-rightful monarch cannot enact anything
validly, and that for example in Jacobite view, marriage law stopped
as such when James II was exiled, so any later changes in marriage and
birth laws do not affect how the legitimate line of Jacobite kings
passes....

So, rather than relying on your notion of supremacy of parliament (a
too modern view and anachronistic to apply to Wars of Roses -
originated claims to the kingship), I rather regard that internal
legitimacy in any camp needs to follow only its own set of rules,
since the rivals' laws and actions are disregarded.


By the way, the found doctrine of the new king's own attainder being
AUTOMATICALLY reversed by his seizure of the crown,
is a cute one, and says essentially the same doctrine as I indicated
already several posts ago to be a rather accepted view in dynastical
successions: an attainder is not held as obstacle to ascend to the
throne itself.
Matt Tompkins
2012-07-26 10:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by M Sjostrom
Perfectly true, but only up to a point.  Most of the time late
medieval and early modern Parliaments did do the king's bidding, but
not all of the time - there were always occasions when they
successfuly defied him (usually involving taxation).  However this is
not relevant to the present question because what follows in the rest
of your post is simply wrong.
An act of Parliament was an act of Parliament, whichever reign it was
passed in, and if a new regime didn't like any acts of the previous
reign then it had to pass a new act reversing them - this included
acts of attainder.  To give just one example: in Henry VII's first
Parliament in November 1485, before the committee of 12 judges decided
that Henry VII's attainder had been automatically reversed by his
seizure of the crown, they first dealt with another problem.  This was
that many of the parliament's members had been attainted by Edward IV
or Richard III, and were consequently disqualified from acting as
MPs.  The judges' solution was that that the attainted members should
abstain from participating in the parliament's first business, which
would be to pass an act reversing the attainders - then the newly -de-
attainted MPS would be legally free to take part in all subsequent
business.
'Un question fuit mouve des Justices.  Quel ordre sera en ce parlement
de proceder de anuller certain attaindors, en tant que plusors que
furent in le Parlement, furent attaints.  ...  Justiciarij ...
accorderent, que touts ceux qui furent attaints, et furent nomes
Chevalers de Counties ou Citizens ou Burgesses a ce Parlement, ceo
Acte de attainder sera primes revoque ou anulle; et que ceux mesme
attaints ne seront in le Parliament ale reversel dele Acte, et tantost
come les Acts de attainder vers eux furent reverses et anulles, ils
tout et chescun de eux, cestassavoir, Seigniors et Communs viendront
in lour lieus, et donc procederont loialment ...
Matt
Henry Tudor was such a usurper that I find it plausible that since his
accession, things changed, dynastical legitimacy was lost (and some
shade of pragmatism replaced it). Actually, I once read that he wanted
to condemn all his opponents for treason against him, those who fought
at Bosworth, but was compelled to give up that desire. So, that point
could have been a real watershed...
Dynastic legitimacy had been lost long before, when Henry IV overthrew
Richard II. He and his advisers discussed at length what legitimate
authority he could claim as the basis for his usurpation but in the
end were reduced to proclaiming in an act of Parliament that he was
king by an unspecified 'hereditary right', vindicated by god as
evidenced by his military success and further justified by the need to
provide good government.
Post by M Sjostrom
But, earlier, surely Yorkist kings held Lancastrian attainders null,
and Lancastrians of course held Yorkist attainders null. They seem to
not have accepted the parliaments summoned by the opposing pretender,
usurper.
No, that wasn't the case, or at least, not most of the time.

When Edward IV seized the throne in 1461 the first business of his
first parliament was the reversal of the attainders of Yorkists
enacted by the 1459 Coventry Parliament (notwithstanding that Edward's
claim to the throne depended on the assertion that all three
Lancastrian kings had been usurpers and that Edward and his father had
been the rightful kings all along, by inheritance from Richard II).

We're not entirely sure what was done by Henry VI's Readeption
Parliament in 1470, because that parliament's rolls have been lost,
but the chronicler Warkworth and Polydore Vergil say it reversed the
attainders of Lancastrians enacted during Edward IV's reign. (Some
historians do not believe that attainders were reversed by this
parliament, though not because they were regarded by the Readeption
regime as ineffective, but rather for reasons of political expediency
- because too many supporters of the Readeption had benefitted from
the attainted estates, and so the attainders had to be allowed to
remain in force.)

When Edward IV returned to power 7 months after the Readeption no
attainders were reversed - though we don't actually know that any had
been enacted by the Readeption Parliament. Robert Fabyan did say in
his chronicle that it attainted Edward IV and his brother Richard,
though. It seems that on this one occasion a decision may have been
made to just ignore the previous regime and its acts of parliament, a
feasible approach since it had been such a temporary interlude.

As mentioned yesterday, when Richard III was overthrown by Henry VII,
the first act of Henry's first parliament was to reverse attainders
imposed during the previous Yorkist reigns.
Post by M Sjostrom
Actually, in legitimist literature, I have read swathes about how a
Parliament summoned by non-rightful monarch cannot enact anything
validly, and that for example in Jacobite view, marriage law stopped
as such when James II was exiled, so any later changes in marriage and
birth laws do not affect how the legitimate line of Jacobite kings
passes....
So, rather than relying on your notion of supremacy of parliament (a
too modern view and anachronistic to apply to Wars of Roses -
originated claims to the kingship), I rather regard that internal
legitimacy in any camp needs to follow only its own set of rules,
since the rivals' laws and actions are disregarded.
If that ever happened, it was only the once, after Henry VI's brief
readeption. On all other occasions (including the usurpation which
established the Lancastrian dynasty) the opposite occurred.
Post by M Sjostrom
By the way, the found doctrine of the new king's own attainder being
AUTOMATICALLY reversed by his  seizure of the crown,
is a cute one, and says essentially the same doctrine as I indicated
already several posts ago to be a rather accepted view in dynastical
successions: an attainder is not held as obstacle to ascend to the
throne itself.-
I think it was not so much a statement of the law as it was then
believed to be, as a not very successful attempt to give the
appearance of legality to a naked usurpation of power.

But then of course all these changes of regime were exactly that -
Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII all came to the throne
by the exercise of military force and then scrabbled around for a
legal justification. However what they always did was to accept the
legal validity of the acts of the previous regime (with the one
possible exception of Edward IV after the Readeption - but then the
Readeption had been so brief, and had not had time to make any
substantial changes, so it could easily be ignored without threatening
society's legal underpinning) . After all, any acts of a previous
regime which were inconvenient were easily dealt with, since the
usurpation of power had conferred the ability to pass new acts
reversing them.

Matt

PS will you not tell us your first name? We can't call you 'M.', but
'Sjostrom' is rather rude, 'Mr Sjostrom' is too formal (and possibly
also offensively anglo-centric), and addressing you as 'M. Sjostrom'
is just silly.
r***@yahoo.com
2012-07-26 17:40:09 UTC
Permalink
M. for Madame ...?
PS will you not tell us your first name? We can&#39;t call you &#39;M.&#39;, but
&#39;Sjostrom&#39; is rather rude, &#39;Mr Sjostrom&#39; is too formal (and possibly
also offensively anglo-centric), and addressing you as &#39;M. Sjostrom&#39;
is just silly.
Wjhonson
2012-07-26 17:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Snostorm is a man



-----Original Message-----
From: ravinmaven2001 <***@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 26, 2012 10:45 am
Subject: Re: Gullibility of the Press or how rediculous stories are kept going


M. for Madame ...?
PS will you not tell us your first name? We can&#39;t call you &#39;M.&#39;, but
&#39;Sjostrom&#39; is rather rude, &#39;Mr Sjostrom&#39; is too formal (and possibly
also offensively anglo-centric), and addressing you as &#39;M. Sjostrom&#39;
is just silly.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message
l***@yahoo.com
2012-07-27 22:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Tompkins
Dynastic legitimacy had been lost long before, when Henry IV overthrew
Richard II. He and his advisers discussed at length what legitimate
authority he could claim as the basis for his usurpation but in the
end were reduced to proclaiming in an act of Parliament that he was
king by an unspecified 'hereditary right', vindicated by god as
evidenced by his military success and further justified by the need to
provide good government.
Ironically, when English colonists in North America discarded much of the British system, this was one of the odd items they kept. They gave it a name: manifest destiny. Bronwen
Wjhonson
2012-07-24 16:35:42 UTC
Permalink
If the monarch "has no right to give the throne to someone" how could H8 deprive his elder sister Margaret, over the heirs of his younger sister Mary ?
Or am I not understanding you on that point.




-----Original Message-----
From: M Sjostrom <***@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 24, 2012 4:18 am
Subject: Re: Gullibility of the Press or how rediculous stories are kept going
Post by M Sjostrom
yet another hook for the claim is that King Henry VI, the last
Lancastrian, once promulgated legislation that in case of Henry VI's
issue going extinct (as it did), George of Clarence and his heirs
would be successors to their claim.
The 1484 Act of Parliament declaring Richard III's entitlement to the
crown had an answer to that line of reasoning:

"George duke of Clarence, brother to king Edward, was convicted and
attainted of high treason, by reason whereof all his issue was and is
disabled and debarred of all right and claim ... they might have ...
to the crown and dignity of this realm"

Matt Tompkins

(a) in dynastical succession doctrine, there is a general belief that
ttainder by a king does not preclude the dynastical heirs, that
ttainders are of zero value as to the passage of the throne itself.
or example, because a monarch has no right to make law to give the
hrone to someone and thusly not effect the same by depriving
nother.... Please see how the enemies of the United Kingdom in the
WI (Hanover line and Coburg line) still hold the succession right to
he throne today, despite of the fact that the respective Duke in both
ranches during the WWI was deprived of, for example, his royal
ukedom, and was declared enemy of HM George V, the man on that throne
t that time. This is a weighty argument generally in what I hobby:
ynastical successions.
(b) even more fatally towards your idea above (where you replied to
he Henry VI succession), His Late Royal Grace, King Henry VI, whose
eclaratory promulgation recognizes Clarence's this hook to the
uccession, and to whose successorship this Clarence hook is based as
explained earlier, never ever agreed to this attainder of George;
nstead H L R G Henry VI specifically attainted Edward IV (in his
ind, merely a York, not a rightful king) whose action that attainder
gainst Clarence was. It is totally certain and logical that in the
amp of Henry VI successor doctrine, any attainder from Edward IV has
ada value, actually has sub-zero value :)

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message
M Sjostrom
2012-07-24 19:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wjhonson
If the monarch "has no right to give the throne to someone" how could H8 deprive his elder sister Margaret, over the heirs of his younger sister Mary ?
Or am I not understanding you on that point.
alternative justifications

(a) Margaret was not deprived by Henry, instead Margaret's children's
foreignness precluded them. I think this is the explanation most in
concert with what 16th-century Englishmen saw their country's
customary law to be.

(b) The background of the Will of Henry VIII having that power was the
unique thing that the Parliament had passed the law that Henry's will
has that power. So, Henry made the testamentary disposition under an
explicit delegated power from the Parliament.
Afaik, the Parliaments never ever gave that delegated power to any
other monarch of England than to Henry VIII. Not to Edward VI, who
anyway deceased somewhat underage. Not to Good Queen Bess.
(In light of this constitutional argument, if Bess had ever named
clearly her successor, that would not have been a constitutive action
but merely a declaratory action from her. As it turned out, the
declaratory action was done by the Council of the just-deceased Bess
within hours from her death.)
Indeed, there has long been a doctrine that the rightful monarch under
Tudor laws was not James but the Mary line since 1603. The equally
late WAR of Wargs talks about 'Henrician' line of succession. I think
the contemporaries would have raised Viscount Beauchamp up to the
kingship, had James' support from the Ministers of Bess not been that
strong.
Matt Tompkins
2012-07-24 09:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Dow Allen
Post by Leo
All needed to be asked was "How did Edward IV become king?" Did he inherit the throne from his father?
No, he didnt, he became king by conquest twice and so his "illegitimacy" has no bearing on the rights of his descendants.
Doesn't Kingship by conquest count toward inheritance only if the
conqueror
asserts conquest as his primary right to rule?
Quite. I don't think there's ever been a king of England whose formal
claim to rule explicitly derived from conquest. In several cases that
was the de facto situation, but it has never been the de jure basis
for a claim to the throne. Even William the Conqueror claimed to be
the rightful king, by Edward the Confessor's designation of him as his
heir and even 'by hereditary right' (through his connection to Edward
the Confessor via the latter's mother Emma, who was William's great-
aunt - a tenuous connection, of course, but he based his claim to rule
on it).
Post by James Dow Allen
And, BTW, in addition to the claim Edward IV's father was cuckolded
there is the separate claim (made by Richard III, IIRC) that Edward's
heirs were
illegitimate because Edward's marriage to Woodville was bigamous.
The claim may be nonsensical, but does give Abney-Hastings another
hook for his claim.
Yes, Richard III claimed to be the rightful king on the basis that
Edward IV's marriage was invalid due to a previous marriage to Eleanor
Butler. This was one of the justifications stated in the Act of
Parliament Richard had passed in 1484, settling the crown on himself
and his descendants. The curious thing, though, is that it was the
least of various arguments given in the Act against the validity of
the marriage. It was also alleged that the marriage was invalid
because (i) it had been made without the consent of the lords of the
land, (ii) it had been procured by sorcery and witchcraft (by
Elizabeth Woodville and her mother, the dowager duchess of Bedford),
and (iii) it took place privately and secretly, without banns, in a
private chamber. The previous marriage was only tacked on afterwards
as a fourth objection, almost as a makeweight. Which is odd, as a pre-
existing marriage would undoubtedly have invalidated the Woodville
marriage, whereas the other grounds were not actually legal
impediments to a valid marriage (and the sorcery allegation is absurd,
of course). The small prominence given to the previous marriage
argument suggests to me that it was not actually given credence, even
by Richard.

But Richard's Act of Parliament points up a more substantial obstacle
to these silly claims that so-and-so is really the rightful king of
England - the various Acts of Parliament which have been passed at
various times over the last few centuries to determine the legal
succession to the throne. The rightful king (or queen) is whoever the
most recent of these Acts says it is.

Matt Tompkins
M Sjostrom
2012-07-24 13:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Tompkins
the various Acts of Parliament which have been passed at
various times over the last few centuries to determine the legal
succession to the throne.  The rightful king (or queen) is whoever the
most recent of these Acts says it is.
Matt Tompkins
Amusing re-enactment of Wars of Roses, etc.

When a winning side disenfranchises enough of its opponents and holds
a parliament, then comes into being the newest 'most recent Act'.
And then the next camp tries the same, and if they fail they are
traitors but if they win, there is then the newest Most Recent Act.

The power of the Parliament to determine who is the monarch, reduces
the things to be Elective Monarchy.

In a system of what effectively is Elective Monarchy, the genealogy
and genealogical rights are like placebo pills.

above aforisms presented by: Sjöström
wjhonson
2012-07-25 02:28:26 UTC
Permalink
I have plotted how this new Earl of Loudoun descends from Richard Cecil. At least one line

https://sites.google.com/site/ceciltree/simon-abney-hastings-15th-earl-of-loudoun
lostcopper
2012-07-27 22:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo
Tony Robinson in England makes wonderful TV programs about historical sites in England being excavated. If you have the change to see them, they are fascinating and worthwhile.
However, on 23 May 2004 he presented a program "Britain's Real Monarch", in which it was maintained that Edward IV was illegitimate and as a result his descendants should have been excluded from the throne and replaced by those of his brother George, duke of Clarence, and at that time the "rightfull king" was Michael Abney-Hastings, earl of Loudoun, living in Australia.
On my website is a write-up about this with Michael Abney-Hastings, sadly with a small ommission which will be rectified after the next update.
Michael Abney-Hastings died this year and now his son, Simon Abney-Hastings, is the new earl of Loudoun. On 12 July this year in the Herald Sun was an article about him headed with "I should be King". Again the illegitimacy of Edward IV is paraded and "Mr Abney-Hastings takes the status of his newly inherited honorary title and links to royalty very seriously...." "But he hasn't ruled out staking a claim to the monarchy."
I am astounded that Kelly Ryan who produced this article took him seriously. All needed to be asked was "How did Edward IV become king?" Did he inherit the throne from his father? No, he didnt, he became king by conquest twice and so his "illegitimacy" has no bearing on the rights of his descendants.
According to the article "Some historians consider Simon Abney Hastings to be the rightful heir to the throne", no names were given of these historians. And also in the article "A few years ago, noted historian Dr. Michael Jones claimed the Abney-Hastings family should occupy the throne instead of Queen Elizabeth, because the alleged illigitimacy of Edward IV made void the legitimacy of his descendants."
I understand a normal pregnancy is considered two weeks either side of 40 weeks.
The "illegitimacy claim" of Edward IV birth is based on the facts that Edward IV's father, Richard, duke of York, was away from his wife from 14 July till 23 August and Edward IV was born on 28 April. However, if Richard and his wife slept together on 13 July, we would have
18days in July, 31 August, 30 September, 31 October, 30 November, 31 December, 31 January, 28 February, 31 March, 28 April, totalling 289 days. Divide 289 by seven and we get a pregnancy of 41 weeks and two days. Well within 40 weeks with 2 weeks either side.
The long life of wrong and sometimes irresponsible stories I find pretty sad. How can we stop them? When Simon dies, is his son or brother going to claim to be the "real Monarch of Britain"?
I have a scan of the text of the article, if anyone is interested I can send it.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Tony Robinson in England makes wonderful TV programs about historical sites in England being excavated. If you have the change to see them, they are fascinating and worthwhile.
However, on 23 May 2004 he presented a program "Britain's Real Monarch", in which it was maintained that Edward IV was illegitimate and as a result his descendants should have been excluded from the throne and replaced by those of his brother George, duke of Clarence, and at that time the "rightfull king" was Michael Abney-Hastings, earl of Loudoun, living in Australia.
On my website is a write-up about this with Michael Abney-Hastings, sadly with a small ommission which will be rectified after the next update.
Michael Abney-Hastings died this year and now his son, Simon Abney-Hastings, is the new earl of Loudoun. On 12 July this year in the Herald Sun was an article about him headed with "I should be King". Again the illegitimacy of Edward IV is paraded and "Mr Abney-Hastings takes the status of his newly inherited honorary title and links to royalty very seriously...." "But he hasn't ruled out staking a claim to the monarchy."
I am astounded that Kelly Ryan who produced this article took him seriously. All needed to be asked was "How did Edward IV become king?" Did he inherit the throne from his father? No, he didnt, he became king by conquest twice and so his "illegitimacy" has no bearing on the rights of his descendants.
According to the article "Some historians consider Simon Abney Hastings to be the rightful heir to the throne", no names were given of these historians. And also in the article "A few years ago, noted historian Dr. Michael Jones claimed the Abney-Hastings family should occupy the throne instead of Queen Elizabeth, because the alleged illigitimacy of Edward IV made void the legitimacy of his descendants."
I understand a normal pregnancy is considered two weeks either side of 40 weeks.
The "illegitimacy claim" of Edward IV birth is based on the facts that Edward IV's father, Richard, duke of York, was away from his wife from 14 July till 23 August and Edward IV was born on 28 April. However, if Richard and his wife slept together on 13 July, we would have
18days in July, 31 August, 30 September, 31 October, 30 November, 31 December, 31 January, 28 February, 31 March, 28 April, totalling 289 days. Divide 289 by seven and we get a pregnancy of 41 weeks and two days. Well within 40 weeks with 2 weeks either side.
The long life of wrong and sometimes irresponsible stories I find pretty sad. How can we stop them? When Simon dies, is his son or brother going to claim to be the "real Monarch of Britain"?
I have a scan of the text of the article, if anyone is interested I can send it.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Tony Robinson in England makes wonderful TV programs about historical sites in England being excavated. If you have the change to see them, they are fascinating and worthwhile.
However, on 23 May 2004 he presented a program "Britain's Real Monarch", in which it was maintained that Edward IV was illegitimate and as a result his descendants should have been excluded from the throne and replaced by those of his brother George, duke of Clarence, and at that time the "rightfull king" was Michael Abney-Hastings, earl of Loudoun, living in Australia.
On my website is a write-up about this with Michael Abney-Hastings, sadly with a small ommission which will be rectified after the next update.
Michael Abney-Hastings died this year and now his son, Simon Abney-Hastings, is the new earl of Loudoun. On 12 July this year in the Herald Sun was an article about him headed with "I should be King". Again the illegitimacy of Edward IV is paraded and "Mr Abney-Hastings takes the status of his newly inherited honorary title and links to royalty very seriously...." "But he hasn't ruled out staking a claim to the monarchy."
I am astounded that Kelly Ryan who produced this article took him seriously. All needed to be asked was "How did Edward IV become king?" Did he inherit the throne from his father? No, he didnt, he became king by conquest twice and so his "illegitimacy" has no bearing on the rights of his descendants.
According to the article "Some historians consider Simon Abney Hastings to be the rightful heir to the throne", no names were given of these historians. And also in the article "A few years ago, noted historian Dr. Michael Jones claimed the Abney-Hastings family should occupy the throne instead of Queen Elizabeth, because the alleged illigitimacy of Edward IV made void the legitimacy of his descendants."
I understand a normal pregnancy is considered two weeks either side of 40 weeks.
The "illegitimacy claim" of Edward IV birth is based on the facts that Edward IV's father, Richard, duke of York, was away from his wife from 14 July till 23 August and Edward IV was born on 28 April. However, if Richard and his wife slept together on 13 July, we would have
18days in July, 31 August, 30 September, 31 October, 30 November, 31 December, 31 January, 28 February, 31 March, 28 April, totalling 289 days. Divide 289 by seven and we get a pregnancy of 41 weeks and two days. Well within 40 weeks with 2 weeks either side.
The long life of wrong and sometimes irresponsible stories I find pretty sad. How can we stop them? When Simon dies, is his son or brother going to claim to be the "real Monarch of Britain"?
I have a scan of the text of the article, if anyone is interested I can send it.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Tony Robinson in England makes wonderful TV programs about historical sites in England being excavated. If you have the change to see them, they are fascinating and worthwhile.
However, on 23 May 2004 he presented a program "Britain's Real Monarch", in which it was maintained that Edward IV was illegitimate and as a result his descendants should have been excluded from the throne and replaced by those of his brother George, duke of Clarence, and at that time the "rightfull king" was Michael Abney-Hastings, earl of Loudoun, living in Australia.
On my website is a write-up about this with Michael Abney-Hastings, sadly with a small ommission which will be rectified after the next update.
Michael Abney-Hastings died this year and now his son, Simon Abney-Hastings, is the new earl of Loudoun. On 12 July this year in the Herald Sun was an article about him headed with "I should be King". Again the illegitimacy of Edward IV is paraded and "Mr Abney-Hastings takes the status of his newly inherited honorary title and links to royalty very seriously...." "But he hasn't ruled out staking a claim to the monarchy."
I am astounded that Kelly Ryan who produced this article took him seriously. All needed to be asked was "How did Edward IV become king?" Did he inherit the throne from his father? No, he didnt, he became king by conquest twice and so his "illegitimacy" has no bearing on the rights of his descendants.
According to the article "Some historians consider Simon Abney Hastings to be the rightful heir to the throne", no names were given of these historians. And also in the article "A few years ago, noted historian Dr. Michael Jones claimed the Abney-Hastings family should occupy the throne instead of Queen Elizabeth, because the alleged illigitimacy of Edward IV made void the legitimacy of his descendants."
I understand a normal pregnancy is considered two weeks either side of 40 weeks.
The "illegitimacy claim" of Edward IV birth is based on the facts that Edward IV's father, Richard, duke of York, was away from his wife from 14 July till 23 August and Edward IV was born on 28 April. However, if Richard and his wife slept together on 13 July, we would have
18days in July, 31 August, 30 September, 31 October, 30 November, 31 December, 31 January, 28 February, 31 March, 28 April, totalling 289 days. Divide 289 by seven and we get a pregnancy of 41 weeks and two days. Well within 40 weeks with 2 weeks either side.
The long life of wrong and sometimes irresponsible stories I find pretty sad. How can we stop them? When Simon dies, is his son or brother going to claim to be the "real Monarch of Britain"?
I have a scan of the text of the article, if anyone is interested I can send it.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Suzan Martin
2021-03-30 07:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo
Tony Robinson in England makes wonderful TV programs about historical sites in England being excavated. If you have the change to see them, they are fascinating and worthwhile.
However, on 23 May 2004 he presented a program "Britain's Real Monarch", in which it was maintained that Edward IV was illegitimate and as a result his descendants should have been excluded from the throne and replaced by those of his brother George, duke of Clarence, and at that time the "rightfull king" was Michael Abney-Hastings, earl of Loudoun, living in Australia.
On my website is a write-up about this with Michael Abney-Hastings, sadly with a small ommission which will be rectified after the next update.
Michael Abney-Hastings died this year and now his son, Simon Abney-Hastings, is the new earl of Loudoun. On 12 July this year in the Herald Sun was an article about him headed with "I should be King". Again the illegitimacy of Edward IV is paraded and "Mr Abney-Hastings takes the status of his newly inherited honorary title and links to royalty very seriously...." "But he hasn't ruled out staking a claim to the monarchy."
I am astounded that Kelly Ryan who produced this article took him seriously. All needed to be asked was "How did Edward IV become king?" Did he inherit the throne from his father? No, he didnt, he became king by conquest twice and so his "illegitimacy" has no bearing on the rights of his descendants.
According to the article "Some historians consider Simon Abney Hastings to be the rightful heir to the throne", no names were given of these historians. And also in the article "A few years ago, noted historian Dr. Michael Jones claimed the Abney-Hastings family should occupy the throne instead of Queen Elizabeth, because the alleged illigitimacy of Edward IV made void the legitimacy of his descendants."
I understand a normal pregnancy is considered two weeks either side of 40 weeks.
The "illegitimacy claim" of Edward IV birth is based on the facts that Edward IV's father, Richard, duke of York, was away from his wife from 14 July till 23 August and Edward IV was born on 28 April. However, if Richard and his wife slept together on 13 July, we would have
18days in July, 31 August, 30 September, 31 October, 30 November, 31 December, 31 January, 28 February, 31 March, 28 April, totalling 289 days. Divide 289 by seven and we get a pregnancy of 41 weeks and two days. Well within 40 weeks with 2 weeks either side.
The long life of wrong and sometimes irresponsible stories I find pretty sad. How can we stop them? When Simon dies, is his son or brother going to claim to be the "real Monarch of Britain"?
I have a scan of the text of the article, if anyone is interested I can send it.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
I watched the documentary; it was lighthearted and not to be taken completely seriously was my impression. At no time did the Michael Hastings family give the impression they were staking claim to the throne! They were laughing during the filming, good grief, watch it again, and quit misjudging this nice family. Michael Hastings said they were happy and were staying in Australia! I found them delightful.

Anyway, at this point, it's too late to do anything even if a Monarch were illegitimate, only perhaps a DNA test could prove if they had all-male heirs and the Kings yDNA. At this point, so many years later, it too late to do anything about it, and really the only thing they found was one document, then guessing about the pregnancy I carried a baby myself 10 months, he was a large baby, and it's documented. I'm sure there were a few monarchs that were illegitimate, so what do we do to try to re-write history. I say, just leave it alone and let them rest in peace. Too many people try to misinterpret the documentation as Leo said.
Chris Dickinson
2021-03-31 13:19:29 UTC
Permalink
This is a very old thread, and Leo is no longer with us.
Ian Goddard
2021-03-31 14:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Dickinson
This is a very old thread, and Leo is no longer with us.
Unfortunately those who can't read a date (an odd omission for
genealogists) still are.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...