News Is the British Monarchy Based on a Historical Error?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
A documentary by Channel Four suggests that Mike Hastings, an Australian forklift operator, may be the rightful heir to the British throne due to claims that Edward IV was illegitimate. Historians found evidence indicating Edward's parents were too far apart to have conceived him, which could challenge the legitimacy of the current royal lineage. The discussion raises questions about the role and relevance of the British monarchy today, with many asserting that the royal family serves primarily ceremonial functions and lacks real political power. Some participants argue that the monarchy is more of a tourist attraction and a historical relic than a governing body, while others acknowledge its ceremonial duties, such as signing laws and meeting with the Prime Minister. The conversation also touches on the monarchy's influence in international relations and its cultural significance, suggesting that while it may not wield direct power, it plays a role in national identity and tradition.
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
22,340
Reaction score
7,138
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051011/wl_uk_afp/australiabritainroyals;_ylt=AsXgDqZGxZmdpM96Eosn6RcfYhAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--
JERILDERIE, Australia (AFP) - If Australian forklift operator Mike Hastings is, as genealogists contend, the rightful heir to the British throne, then he really needs to brush up on his tea-making skills.

A documentary team from Britain's Channel Four conducted extensive research and concluded Hastings' ancestors were cheated out of the crown in the 15th century, meaning he should rightfully be the British head of state.

"I thought he was drunk to be honest ... then he came here and laid out his evidence, it came as a total surprise to me, it left me stunned.

The documentary's historian Michael Jones found documents in Rouen Cathedral he believes show that Edward IV, who ruled from 1461 to 1483, was illegitimate because when he was conceived his parents were 200 kilometres (124 miles) apart.

Edward's "father" Richard of York was fighting the French at Pontoise, while his mother Cecily was five days' march away at Rouen, allegedly enjoying the attentions of an archer, according to Jones' research.

The 64-year-old is a real-life aristocrat, born the 14th Earl of Loudoun, who moved to Australia in 1960 in search of adventure. "The family had the titles but we never had any money ," he said. "I never used the titles when I got over here, they'd have eaten me alive, it was bad enough being a Pom (British)."
Talk about rewriting history.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
What exactly is the point of the British Monarchy anyway? Do the members of the royal family serve any state function? Do they make any decisions about how the government executes its job? Are they even part of the government?
 
loseyourname said:
What exactly is the point of the British Monarchy anyway? Do the members of the royal family serve any state function? Do they make any decisions about how the government executes its job? Are they even part of the government?
Tourist attraction. No. No. No.


I think that about sums it up.
 
What exactly is the point of the British Monarchy anyway? Do the members of the royal family serve any state function? Do they make any decisions about how the government executes its job? Are they even part of the government?
The Queen is the head of state of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northen Ireland, or UK for short... Great Britian consitiutes of England, Scotland and Wales. Which are countries in there own right.
Scotland has its own parliment, Wales has its own assembly. The Laws in scotland are different than in England, and so is the education system. (The last part is what fueled Edinburgh to become "Athens of the north")
She has very limited power, and is more cerimonial than anything. But any Law that is passed needs to be signed by her to take effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom

Tourist attraction.
Yup.. and history and pomp.. Plus she is VVEERRYYY wealthy, Give me Mary Queen of Scots any day!
 
Last edited:
loseyourname said:
What exactly is the point of the British Monarchy anyway?
They exist so that we don't forget Elgar's music.
 
A documentary team from Britain's Channel Four conducted extensive research and concluded Hastings' ancestors were cheated out of the crown in the 15th century, meaning he should rightfully be the British head of state.
wouldnt have been the first
 
Anttech said:
She has very limited power, and is more cerimonial than anything. But any Law that is passed needs to be signed by her to take effect.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume she plays the same role as the governor general does in Canada. She has 0 power, and if she ever refused to sign a bill that parliament passed they'd kick her out on her ass in a second and re-write that part of the constitution.
 
For the record, I have always admired the Royal Family, for being...Royal.

I believe that the planet needs a Royal Entity.

However, while the current Royal Family is an entity based on style with little or no substance, a true monarch (for the entire planet), preferably male, would be the ultimate combination of style and substance.

He, by default, would be granted a physicality that, to say the least, presents an image of strength. He would be in the best shape he is able to be in, in terms of muscularity (beefy), flexibility (bendy), and cardiovascular (breathy? :smile:) fitness, be at least 6 feet tall, if not exactly 6 feet tall, and weigh at least 200 pounds, if not exactly 200 pounds, so as to be classified as a 'heavyweight', literally and figuratively.

Indeed, his physicality would be topped off with a full head of hair that is deep dark brown, and have facial features that may be considered "handsome" by either the trained or un-trained eye. His facial skin would be the envy of many females; smooth, glowing, and flawless. His face would be accented with a smile filled with only real teeth that are straight, bright, and reminiscient of QEII's smile. He is always clean-shaven.

His body, however, is merely a package for the product; substance, and that is where the rubber hits the road.

His mental capacity would be greater than what could be considered "average"; he is, what is known as, "smart".

His emotions are always in check, because he understands that what was "out" there, does not affect what is "in" here.

His spirituality capacity is the icing on the cake. Indeed, it is his spirit, the icing, that holds together the cake, his body and all that it contains, including his soul.

His personality has been fired in the oven for a long period of time; he has been 'cooking', tested by many obstacles that only he could survive, so as to prepare him for his true purpose: claim his rightful place on the Throne, and Rule.

He would find joy in ALL children, and many but not all adult individuals. He would find joy in ALL animals, except mosquitoes that are "annoying", and ALL mosquitoes are an annoyance. He is not fond of talking, and is always polite to individuals that intend to be polite.

As for individuals that intend to not be polite, he understands that only those individuals will not be permitted into his universal kingdom, and hence, only a temporary annoyance.

That is my idea of a Royal Entity/King.

o:)
 
Smurf said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume she plays the same role as the governor general does in Canada. She has 0 power, and if she ever refused to sign a bill that parliament passed they'd kick her out on her ass in a second and re-write that part of the constitution.
Most of the monarch's powers were taken by the lower house (house of commons) of parliament but they still have a few left. They can still award titles (birthday and new year's honours lists). Lords they appoint are entitled to sit in the upper house (house of lords) where bills passed by the lower house can be amended or even held up for a time.
They also have to sign new acts that have passed both houses of parliament into law. The threat has always been that the commons would abolish the monarchy if the monarch were to exercise the royal perogative, as it is called, and refuse to sign. The only instance in modern times off this happening was under Queen Victoria. She refused to sign a law making lesbianism illegal as she didn't believe such a practice existed. For that reason only male homosexuality was ever illegal in Britain.
As a non-political body (as the monarchy are deemed to be above politics) the royal family are useful for conducting trade talks or other negotiations with foreign governments particularly where the government of the day might not wish to seem to be associated directly.
The institution of royalty is certainly more than just a tourist attraction. The prime minister of the day has to meet with the monarch each week to discuss proposed legislation and key issues and so during these discussions it is likely that the monarch has some influence. Obviously the prime minister can ignore any input from the monarch but it is not in their interest to promote a constitutional crisis and so it is likely there are compromises made.
 
  • #10
I still think the Kennedeys (Ted and that whole lot) should overthrow the British crown...
 
  • #11
You know you have spent too much time in this forum when after a quick glance you think you've found a thread titled:

Bushist Monarchy Illigitimate? :smile:
 
  • #12
So Edward IV was illegitimate. Well you have to allow for a few 'mistakes' in the royal line. But then William IV's 'family' would have a perfectly good claim. In which case...
Adam Hart-Davis for King​
 
  • #13
The Queen is the head of the Church of England, Queen in Parliament and commander of the armed forces. And a huge money-making tourist attraction. If you're CoE I guess she is required. Technically she has the right to disallow any bill passed by MPs. If she ever did this, the monarchy would probably be abolished. Also, if we ever need to go to war against the government, she'll be in charge. But this has only ever happened twice before, and both times the monarchy lost. Of course, she is also a figurehead, something for those suffering from post-empire depression to think they are proud about.

The function of the royal family is largely the same as runners-up from Big Brother now - selling tabloids. And swindling tourists out of their holiday budget, of course.

What else..? Protecting swans.
 
  • #14
Protecting swans.
And ravens
 
  • #15
Anttech said:
And ravens
Yes, and ravens, for bizarre historical reasons. Although only their own ravens if memory recalls, whereas all swans are protected.

The Royal Family also produces over-priced, not very nice sausages as well as documentaries that no-one wants to see about... the Royal Family.

Then there's the sheer comedy value of Princes Phillip and Harry.

And we wouldn't know it was Christmas without the Queen.

In fact, come to think of it, they're all right really.

EDIT: just suddenly realized the fault in my post: ALL swans are the Queen's. But not all ravens, I think.
 
  • #16
yeh there needs to be at least 6 raven kept at the tower of london. If there number fall under this, the myth is, the tower and Monarchy will fall...
 
  • #17
Anttech said:
yeh there needs to be at least 6 raven kept at the tower of london. If there number fall under this, the myth is, the tower and Monarchy will fall...
And they worry that Harry is on drugs. :rolleyes:
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top