LONDON-L Archives

Archiver > LONDON > 2005-01 > 1106256525


From: "Ron Lankshear (Sydney Aust)" <>
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] RE: [Lon] Coat of Arms
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:28:45 +1100
References: <MFEMIKEKLGOAONODHPGNKEKKCKAA.bbuckland@rogers.com>
In-Reply-To: <MFEMIKEKLGOAONODHPGNKEKKCKAA.bbuckland@rogers.com>


As Edward IV was crowned etc then he was the legal King regardless of
any birth problem

The story that his father was off on same campaign and that the Duchess
spent some time with an archer seems so dubious anyway - how do you
prove that plus knowing that that weekend was the exact time of conception.

The strange thing is that Richard III did not use that story when he
deposed Edward V - instead he used the line that Edward IV when he
married Edward V's mother was already bethrothed (perhaps even married)
to someone else (some historians reckon several ladies are possible).
Actually quite a practice in those times to whisk a girl off to the
priest for a secret ceremony and then forget all about.

Mind you if Dickon had said that about his mother than he would have
been in trouble
Ron Lankshear - many Links at http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~lankshear/
Our thoughts are with the people of South and SE Asia at this terrible time

Bob Buckland wrote:
> To add to what Eve said, I believe that the male heir had to be legitimate
> or no claim would be allowed.
>
> Talking of which there was a program on the tellie a few days ago which said
> that Edward IV was illegit, and therefore all his descendents and cousins
> etc. that followed him on the throne, including the current incumbent had no
> real claim and that the true King of England was some bloke in Oz.

This thread: