GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-12 > 1072577229


From: "T. Stanford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne" <>
Subject: Fw: Re:The Real Monarch of England
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:07:09 +0800


----- Original Message -----
From: "T. Stanford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Re:The Real Monarch of England


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 8:33 AM
> Subject: Re:The Real Monarch of England
>
>
> > We have had several posts on this subject, yet somehow one inescapable
> fact
> > has eluded all of us, that of Edward IV`s taking the throne by conquest
in
> > 1471, this one fact negates all arguments that the it wasn`t his by
right,
> > whether his father were Duke Richard, Blaybourne the archer, the
butcher,
> the baker
> > or the candlestick maker
>
>
> As I posted earlier, Henry IV had usurped the throne by 'right' of
conquest.
> The Wars of the Roses were predicated on the rightful inheritance through
> the House of Mortimer, not York. Someone else, however, pointed out that
> Parliament used other criteria to assign the throne, and THAT sets
> everything else at naught. It is a point of Common Law, though, that a
> claim not regularly renewed is considered to be abandoned, and therefore
> moot and invalid.
>
>
> ...so far as his parentage goes, My money remains on
> > Duke Richard as I can`t concieve of Henry VI`s Queen Marguerite`s spies
at
> the
> > English court between 1460-1470 not bringing her the story and her
> mobilizing
> > an army and public opinion with it.
> > sincerely,
> > James W Cummings
> >
>

This thread: