Please anybody tell me if I am wrong: even if what is beeing said here is true, the current Royal Family in the UK is the Windsor Family ( in fact the German House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha ). Before them there were the Tudors and The Stuarts. There are three different dinasties after the Plantagenets. So why Edward IV being not a real royal would change things right now ?
obviously this video is biased as well as the user. republics arent all that perfect as others believe. infact republics arent all that stablizing in regards to governance, seeing many of them either resorts to socialism or even dictatorship. Constitutional monarchy on the otherhand is just right for unifying and stablizing a country as well as making politics secured. the english fought long and hard through politics and wars to retain the constitutional monarchy in england.
@liverpoolmatt87 plus england was once a republic, but it didnt work out and oliver cromwell died and there was nobody else to take over his position. So charles II was brought back from exile to revert the country back to constitutional monarchy.
RepublicUK - you're description is a bit ridiculous. Not your opinions on monarchy, but your idea that the current Royal family is somehow responsible for what their ancestors may or may not have done centuries ago. If your great-grandad was an axe murderer, what would that have to do with you?
Honestly, the UK should never become a Republic. The same goes for the Scandinavian countries, and Low Countries. And thank God that the Monarchist movement in my country are getting bigger, because the crippled and corrupted Portuguese Republic has lived for long enough.
And why are Monarchies "absurd"? Republics can be as absurd as some Monarchies are. If the "excuse" is that it's backwards - my friend, Republics were regarded as backwards in the beginning of the century as well. Just because the majority of the nations on Earth are Republics, it doesn't mean it is the best regime made by men. Honestly, it's up to each country to decide - taking in attention its history, culture, people's way of thinking, etc, etc.
the stated demand was to have Henry VIII name Exeter his Heir Apparent, thus disinheriting his own children. Then Courtenay himself was found in correspondence with the self-exiled Cardinal Reginald Pole. Sir Geoffrey Pole, younger brother of the Cardinal, came to London with the information that a Roman Catholic conspiracy was preparing a new uprising. Both Poles were accused of heading this conspiracy and Cromwell convinced Henry VIII that Exeter was part of it.
They were unaware, they are not legit. I know who I am and have my complete lineage of legit marriages. I am the true King but I go by the name Prince Corey and you can find me on Facebook or see my matched marriages on Geni.com
Maybe they should dig up some of the old bloodline, search for genetic material in, say, the bone marrow, and do genetic tests to see if the current line has the same genetic markers...
If not, then send 'em packing, with a lifetime of back rent due!
Imagine how the history of the British Isles would have been so different had this been discovered in the past. The British Civil Wars may never have happened, the Anglo Irish War may never have occured. All because of the wrong man becoming King of England.
Um did anyone think to check the other registries from other churches from the same time. If the King was on a military campaign at the time, most likely all the churches in the area where dedicating services to him. Maybe the church got the wrong information or the dates wrong, or maybe this is a bunch of horse shit drummed up by archeology whores who want to make books sell :) just a thought
Henry VII was a direct descendant of Edward III thru John of Gaunt. Even if Edward IV was not Richard Planatgenet's son, Cecily Neville was a descendant of the Plantagenets herself. If Catherine of Aragon begat a son with Henry VIII, that son would be the truest heir since Catherine herself was a Plantagenet descendant thru Catherine Lancaster, Queen of Castile and Philippa Lancaster Queen of Portugal - daughters of John of Gaunt and great grannies of Catherine. James II was just the GREATFOOL.
maybe the king couldn't have children. no man can ever be certain his wife is completly honest or faithful and the same can be said about husbands having children outside their wives.
To say that the royal family isnt legit by going on rumours that this one or that one 500 years ago had an affair is pretty pathetic. For one thing, even if someone were sired by someone other than a royal parent, that whole class of people married within their own ranks. The bloodlines of Alfred the Great and Robert the Bruce have been redundantly preserved in the current royal family. Once Parliament confirms succession of a monarch, it is fully legitimate and constitutional.
The brilliance of hereditary succession is that it picks someone almost at random to be the keeper of the keys of the consitution. This person's claim is supported by heredity, however its ultimate authority is derived from the fact that Parliament confirms the succession. In theory, Parliament could name anyone monarch. In reality the choice is based on a long-established line of people who have been excluded from having any political interest.
One glaring error here is in regards to Henry VII: he, and everyone else, was well aware that he did not have a legitimate claim to the throne due to his dodgy bloodline. Instead, he based his claim on "right of conquest". He was desperate to make the House of Tudor stable, and "legitimate". This neurosis carried over to his heir, Henry VIII, who desperately desired a male heir to help stablize and "legitimize" the dynasty. No great "scandal" here!
Monsieur, nous voulons bien échanger nos "nababs" nous voulons avoir une Reine comme votre souveraine EIIR, a glorious Queen, contre notre M. SARKOZY, vous pouvez aussi avoir sa femme!!!! ECHANGEONS SVP
Well done Tony -Now all we need to is get rid of them-parliment -congress, president and get a Catholic King of the English speaking world. Thus meeting the Islamic world with a united catholic english speaking world. Before we go the way of the Byzantines and Constantinople. If it is not to late already. John
Both of Edward's parents were great grandchildren of Alfred the Great, so legitimate or not, the end result is that Elizabeth II is still the 32nd great granddaughter of Alfred the Great, so it doesn't really matter 500 years after the fact, I think.
Robinson's methodology is absolute bunk, but makes for an entertaining bit of television. Edward IV took the throne by right of conquest, so it ultimately doesn't matter who he's related to. The Yorks were similarly pitched by Henry VII, which means that the dink they interview here has no legal right to anything.
Henry VII became King through victory in politics and battle, the line of royal succession was just a pretense. So has it been through much of the history of royalty and politics.
America has showed a sad and disgraceful part in our history voteing in presidents that hurt us but the monarchy has shown burtaity to their people to. we are sisters and brothers its time to throw off the chains each one has put on us. but i dont know how.that is the only reason they can still treat us like crap and we take it.but if we dont do it while the knowlage is shown our children will reap what we have through the centruiers.
Someone decided to stop inbreeding at that time voided their rights to be the rulers? If everything would have been legit, man I could only imagine the prince and princesses competing in every annual special olympics as honorary participants. Inbreeding is bad in h evolution afaik. LMAO
I am descended from a bloodline of English Peerage and it took me years to realize it is NOTHING more than a random crap shoot. In fact due to the closeness of these lines there are problems of health that have shown to be evident. These problems have ranged from hemophilia to insanity. The lesson is clear.....all that glitters is not of value
His whole argument is mute. Henry Tudor claimed the throne through right of conquest not through Elizabeth of York. Therefore this programme is rubbish.
I think it is absolutely rediculous that you are making such a fuss about who is the real Quen/ King.. just look at all the othe monarchies in Europe in the world. no monarchy, or royal family is really entitled to the throne. Monarchy is not only the family... it is about an entire history which is represented, which is still kept alive.
We,as arundells,can quarter the plantagenet arms. R1b1b2a1a Oman R1b1b2a1b Israel R1b1b2 Israel R1b1b2 Syrian Arab Republic Arab R1b1b2a Lebanon R1b1b2 Spain Sephardic R1b1 Netherlands Ashkenazi-Levite(ASSISTANT PRIESTS TEMPLE SOLOMON)Salman 12/12 solomon? R1b1b2a1a1 France Normandy(william 1st"conqurer") R1b1b2a1a Unknown Origin Canada(PRINCE HENRY SINCLAIR TO AMERICA 1398) Robert Treat Paine,(MY COUSIN) Thomas Nelson, of Virginia descent from Donald O'Neill, Prince of Ulster
I can trump this.Lord arundell of wardour is my ancient grandfather through howard dukes of norfolk and thomas of brotherton"legitimately"
Thomas Nelson, Chamberlain of York in 1442; Sheriff, 1447-8; M.P. 1452; Lord Mayor, 1454 and 1465. Will d. 4 Nov. 1478; pr. 22 March 1483-4. (Reg. Test. v. 212.) Sep. (us visitations northern counties 1530)
Arms: Per pale argent and sable a chevron between three fleur-de-Ks countercharged.
This film is absolute rubbish. Tonly Robinson knows nothing about English history. Henry VII's claim to the throne came from his mother, who was descended from Edward III. Robinson is talking through his hat.
Also, he is making assumptions on an incorrect standpoint that clerics, scribes, and nobles writing these accounts did not have events colored by their own opinions and contemporary gossip of their time.
Except Henry VII's claim to the throne was not "dodgy" as John of Gaunt married his mistress Katherine Swynford, and officially legitimized all of his offspring by her. Regardless of the possibility of Edward IV being illegitimate, thereby negating Elizabeth of York's claim, Henry VII is still a legitimate claimant to the throne of England.
It can be taken further. The Stuart line should have never been the Monarchs either. As of the Will of Henry VIII, Mary Tudor Brandon's line should have succeeded Elizabeth. Not Margret Tudor Stuart's line.
there is a third condition to becoming the Monarch, and that is by conquest. Henry VII Tudor did just that against Richard III. Another was William I against Harold. Also Steven against Matilda. So the line holds true, threw the Tudors and beyond. according this reasoning. Other wise the Plantagenet Line would have had no claim as well. So out with this guy as well. To keep by the rules entirely, the direct decedents of Edward the Confessor are the true Monarchs. It is still all in the family
I guarantuee you that England will have a Catholic monarch in the future and will convert to catholicism the whole of England will, so Russia, and so China.
With all the unhealthy inbreeding going on between the royal families of Europe, a little fresh blood from time to time would have only helped those stodgy bloodlines.
Tony has neglected to mention the occasion when George, Prince of Hanover in Germany, became King of England jumping 46 direct Roman Catholic heirs to the throne in favour of the Protestant George, who spoke no English. His court was mostly German from Hanover, and bcos G. cd not understand English there were many insults to his face he was blissfully unaware of! This was in Dr Samuel Johnsons time and Johnson had some very funny observations on this 'ring in' German court. 46 RC heirs skipped!
I think this guy should have shown the real book not a print from copy machine if he want to brings some real evidence. Second of all any monarchy in 21 century is the hindrance for humanity.
We humans look in the rear window says Nassim Taleb. Just think more fluidly about who we are, who we COULD have been, what other fascinating routes history COULD have taken. Also if a royal's consort gives him a "jacket" (some else's kid) that's life. Just think of the what-ifs of history and not be too agitated if anyone dares to speculate. It's not treason.
don't take it too seriously, at the end of the program the exercise's about what-ifs of life.
There are many situations (e.g., was it Rizzio or Lord Darnley as James VI's dad? what-ifs of Battle of Hastings? what-ifs of commmercial feuds with the Dutch and then finding a set of colonies). Look at the quirks of history, viking/saxons/norman/glorious revolution, history gets redefined all the time by the "experts" with labels that weren't there at the time.
even if it's true there would of been a good reason. This is disrepectful of the Experts.
they're not experts they think they are but they didn't trace it properly this is a scam!. Long Live Queen Elizabeth II Our Queen. How do I know? because I'm, Distant cousin to The Queen.
Bullshit experts should shut the fuck up and Leave the Queen alone she is the rightful Queen the Experts should butt out they are not even part of that Family This is fuckin scam
i seek a video named uk monarchy... where i can see at the end the england and the irland with uk flag colour,can you help me for the name of this video?
I'm sad for anyone 'un-nerved' by the prophecies in the bible.
I don't understand this as I'm not in the slightest un-nerved by people who choose to follow alternative paths.
I believe I have the right to realise all the Bible prophecies which are being fulfilled, just as those who don't notice have the right to be ignorant of them.
I've been through alot in my life, and in my personal experience, Im not sure I would have come through everything I did without faith in God. In my case, quite probably my faith saved my life.
Everyone is different though, and has differing opinions.
Get my story straight? what story? i have no story - sorry to dissapoint you.
The Bible is full of prophecies - I'll assume you've never read it?
It is also only used as a 'tool' as you put it when you are part of an 'organised' group.
I am not part of any organised group.
I'm sorry that some people are 'unnerved' as you put it by the bible, but that is not my problem. They should be more unnerved by evil people doing evil things.
I don't belong to any religious group, but yes, I do believe there is a creator. I accept that the Bible has been greatly edited.
I've always noticed (since being a child) that religious groups (I was baptised a R.C)are often behind killings. That's part of the reason why I wanted to be no part of them.
I also actually get on with some athiests lol....Im related to many. We just have a difference of opinion when it comes to there being a creator, thats all ;)
He has to say he doesn't want to be king. Think about it. The moment he said he wanted his rightful throne back, they'd kill both him and his family. They've killed everyone else, why not him? Especially as they can control the media and ensure the truth won't get out.
Im suprised the people in this documentary haven't already been hounded for treason to be honest. Anything said against the fake royal family is treason - they are totally paranoid for the fact that they know they shouldn't be where they are
From what I can make out - this actually affects us all if you think about how it is...........from what I keep reading, the queen has power over the US.......the US is controlling the world almost........take the top men away and we have freedom. Not that easy though unfortunately.
Aye, Britain's real Monarch, The Black Pagan Pope Pedophile the pissant has everyone shaking in their boots. If that old fugger showed up at my bar he'd get his ass kicked. There lies the problem, he won't come to our place and we can't get in to his place. That makes it easy for them to just keep lying, stealing and killing anywhere to anyone at anytime they please
I've got to put some blame on the Tell Lie Vision for telling people they are weak and helpless It's not news it's marching orders
sorry but you're still missing the point - 'her harvests' as you put them are there under false pretences. They would have had nothing if their ancestors had been able to keep their underpants on and be faithful in marriage. Looks like they passed the trait down through that part of the family doesn't it?
Watch the whole documentary - the rightful king is a much better person than the lot from Germany we've got.
The royal family stopped pretending they are somehow special a very long time ago. This is just puerile propaganda. What do the actions of monarchs centuries ago have to do with retaining the current monarchy?
Well, the obvious thing: they're a blood line. The actions of monarchs centuries ago are of-course entirely relevant to the nature of the current monarchy, especially since the Royalists are usually ill-informed and have a romanticised view of the whole topic.
Well you can prefer whatever you want, the problem is that you're expecting me and everybody else to pay for it. If you like the Royal Family that much, YOU can pay my share. I have no interest in maintaining them, I don't benefit from them in any way, and their very existence disgusts me right to the core. Fuck 'em, if they want a free ride they can go on the dole like everyone else.
I never said I wanted a Republic, did I? I said I DIDN'T want a monarchy. If we're going to have a figurehead they might as well be elected. Currently our taxes are supporting an elitist bloodline who look down on us as expendable filth. Fuck 'em, and you too.
tony robinson is a wank every time he does these docs he says britain they would hav ruled england not scotland we would still be ruled by stewarts and there wouldnt be no britain for the crowns would never have been joined he says the same about the druids the romans wiped them out no they didnt there was still druids in scotland up till mcalpine
I suppose you're right, if this line had been followed there wouldn't have been the uniting of the crowns as it happened. The point of uploading the video really though was to show the absurdity of a hereditary system (especially this one where they claim 'divine rights' through the blood line). Neither Scotland,England,Wales nor any part of Ireland should be a part of any monarchy.
In Germany the head of government is the Chancellor who is the actual ruler of the country and yet the still choose to have a President as head of state? Why do you think that is, if the role of a figure head head of state is oh so unimportant. It is because while many people percieve the monarch (and non head of government presidents) as unimportant they actually do quite a lot. They do not merely smile and wave. They represent the state and do loads more...Check The Times on Jan 1st!
I love the fact you are now using an elected leader to back up your position. I agree then, we should have an elected president, if the people then decide someone else would be better we elect someone else. Ah Democracy, radical idea but it might just work.
This is getting more amusing as we get along. One can't compare historical monarchs with the ones of today (at least not in UK). Since the middle ages considerable changes have been made to the monarchy, incase you hadn't noticed! I suppose you would be in favour of a President? President Blair...just the thought makes one shudder..or would you disagree?
The very idea of the people of the country being able to choose, crazy!
PS, Since all the present incumbant does is wave,the country doesn't need a President either. It can operate as it does at the moment, minus the freeloader.
My history is fine,thank you.I never said I would blindly follow ANY Monarchs.I know of many(past &present) Monarchs that have been murdering autocratic tyrants and whom I thouroughly dislike. Fact is though that the Queens line werent responsible for any murders.They inherited the throne due to blood.Our current Queen is a wonderful woman &an even better Queen.There arent any reasons what so ever to dislike her.Edward & Wallis deserved each other.They werent worthy of the throne.
Contradicting yourself there. First you say Britain has never had a hitler, mussolini etc. Now you say you "know of many Monarchs that have been murdering autocratic tyrants" Since you don't get to vote for a monarch, next time one comes along, you have no vote, no say in it. A good system? Don't think so.
the hanoverian or windsor as it is now werent responsible for murders give yourself piece glencoe for one they had soldiers sent to highlands regularly just to slaughter and rape whole clans were wiped out
Citizens of every country are inferior to their rulers. Democracy doesnt work in practice. Some people are always going to be higher than others. The Queen keeps all the corrupt politicians in check! Thats why Britains has never had a hitler,stalin,mussolini....
You're clearly a bit lazy with your history. Britain has had plenty of Monarchs happy to murder their countrymen (not to mention invasion of other countries) on mass, that's how they got the position they are in. I mean these are people that have continuously murdered their own family members over the years!
As for Hitler, Edward VIII was a supporter, Was he removed because of this? No, he was removed for the horrible crime of marrying a divorced woman :0
Well yes that is where I would disagree. Though not elected they make a pretty good (and cheap) job of their duties. And besides... A president rarely has more than 50 per cent approval rate (except in the US, but things are different there, they only have 2 serious parties). Her Majesty The Queen currently has an approval rate of over 80 per cent! I'd say that is pretty impressive...especially for an "non-elected" head of state..dont you think?
80%?, I must have missed that election...oh wait there wasn't one because we don't live in a Democracy. If you want to consider yourself an inferior subject then be my guest. I,however, am not.
The text I added is not my own reseach but I felt it had to be added. I assume you are atheist then? By the way I dont believe that sovereigns are divinely appointed either... Am glad you took the time to read wiki though : )
OK, so they're not divinely appointed (although that's exactly what they claim to be) and they're not elected hence they should be removed. Glad we sorted that out.
The current line of the British monarchy is appointed (after the deposing of James II) and exists in law whether or not stringent legitimism is applied. The rights of conquest should also be applied even in the unlikely even that Edward IV was illegitimate. In any case this does not provide an argument for republicanism, it simply presents an argument for a legitimist monarchist line if anybody decided to follow it up.
...his legal son and heir, whether or not he was actually Richard's biological son.
This is but the beginning of a list of fatal flaws to this programme. I recently posted this list in the article about "Michael Abney-Hastings" on wikipedia if you are interested.
And besides...If "King Mike" is o so republican why is he still the 14th Earl of Loudoun?
On the bit you have written on Wikipedia you say:"The succession to the English crown has been muddied many times over the years" and "One might just as well argue that no monarch has been legitimate since Harold Godwinson".
So at least you admit the line is a farce, none of them had/have any 'divine' right to their positions and as such should be removed.
Though an interesting exercise in alternative history, there are many problems with the theory. The question of whether Edward was illegitimate had been widespread in historical circles for many years before the documentary aired, and no decisive conclusion has ever been reached. Furthermore, under English law, the child of a married woman is automatically considered the child of her husband unless he is disclaimed at birth. Since Richard did not do this, Edward remained
waste of time, go get a life
noorland 4 weeks ago
Please anybody tell me if I am wrong: even if what is beeing said here is true, the current Royal Family in the UK is the Windsor Family ( in fact the German House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha ). Before them there were the Tudors and The Stuarts. There are three different dinasties after the Plantagenets. So why Edward IV being not a real royal would change things right now ?
caiotb 1 month ago
TOTAL FOOLISH IDIOTIC STINKING GARBAGE.
sallymaggiespotty 1 month ago
What a load of complete and utter bullshit ... I couldn't even watch the first minute to completion before tuning out!
roseanne74 2 months ago
This is completely wrong, Henry VII claimed the throne through Right of Conquest, not by his marriage to Elizabeth of York.
09connorr 4 months ago 2
obviously this video is biased as well as the user. republics arent all that perfect as others believe. infact republics arent all that stablizing in regards to governance, seeing many of them either resorts to socialism or even dictatorship. Constitutional monarchy on the otherhand is just right for unifying and stablizing a country as well as making politics secured. the english fought long and hard through politics and wars to retain the constitutional monarchy in england.
liverpoolmatt87 5 months ago 2
Comment removed
liverpoolmatt87 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@liverpoolmatt87 plus england was once a republic, but it didnt work out and oliver cromwell died and there was nobody else to take over his position. So charles II was brought back from exile to revert the country back to constitutional monarchy.
liverpoolmatt87 5 months ago
RepublicUK - you're description is a bit ridiculous. Not your opinions on monarchy, but your idea that the current Royal family is somehow responsible for what their ancestors may or may not have done centuries ago. If your great-grandad was an axe murderer, what would that have to do with you?
mrlopez2681 5 months ago
Honestly, the UK should never become a Republic. The same goes for the Scandinavian countries, and Low Countries. And thank God that the Monarchist movement in my country are getting bigger, because the crippled and corrupted Portuguese Republic has lived for long enough.
AvatarMarxon90 5 months ago 2
And why are Monarchies "absurd"? Republics can be as absurd as some Monarchies are. If the "excuse" is that it's backwards - my friend, Republics were regarded as backwards in the beginning of the century as well. Just because the majority of the nations on Earth are Republics, it doesn't mean it is the best regime made by men. Honestly, it's up to each country to decide - taking in attention its history, culture, people's way of thinking, etc, etc.
AvatarMarxon90 5 months ago
the stated demand was to have Henry VIII name Exeter his Heir Apparent, thus disinheriting his own children. Then Courtenay himself was found in correspondence with the self-exiled Cardinal Reginald Pole. Sir Geoffrey Pole, younger brother of the Cardinal, came to London with the information that a Roman Catholic conspiracy was preparing a new uprising. Both Poles were accused of heading this conspiracy and Cromwell convinced Henry VIII that Exeter was part of it.
BCFalls1 6 months ago
Exeter Conspiracy
BCFalls1 6 months ago
They were unaware, they are not legit. I know who I am and have my complete lineage of legit marriages. I am the true King but I go by the name Prince Corey and you can find me on Facebook or see my matched marriages on Geni.com
BCFalls1 6 months ago
Maybe they should dig up some of the old bloodline, search for genetic material in, say, the bone marrow, and do genetic tests to see if the current line has the same genetic markers...
If not, then send 'em packing, with a lifetime of back rent due!
sleeplesseye 7 months ago
So, that makes Prince Charles Edward's great great great great great great great bastard grandson?!
sleeplesseye 7 months ago
The true divine line - not just war title monarchs, are a long line of hairdressers from Accrington.
modeleagle 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'woe!'siredwardthefourthgod'sfather'swife.siredward'sgreatgrand'sdaughter!!!'not'fucking!!!'libra'sfuta!!!'
orthe'may10'1941===='sorrow'sliarvirgo'sbulldragger'liar!tookdiane'slife!!!outof'jealousandproverty!!!bastardsofbastards.brucewardwardtonya'idiotsex'smixer1984wiltonavenuegayfreakoweirdoliarbetweenfiressins
QUEENE4able 7 months ago
WOW, this is amazing!!
KDVx3 7 months ago
In a way, this reminds me of the illegitimate presidency of Barack Obama/ Barry Soetoro/whatever his real name is.
txmt2340 7 months ago
@txmt2340 Ha! Hahahaha!
bennihana123 7 months ago
Imagine how the history of the British Isles would have been so different had this been discovered in the past. The British Civil Wars may never have happened, the Anglo Irish War may never have occured. All because of the wrong man becoming King of England.
ProtestantIRA 8 months ago
@ProtestantIRA
Yeah and we wouldn't have had Princess Di!
modeleagle 7 months ago
The Duke of Bavaria is the true King.The Stuart line MUST return to the throne
gaiuskaiser 8 months ago
Um did anyone think to check the other registries from other churches from the same time. If the King was on a military campaign at the time, most likely all the churches in the area where dedicating services to him. Maybe the church got the wrong information or the dates wrong, or maybe this is a bunch of horse shit drummed up by archeology whores who want to make books sell :) just a thought
TheButtur123 9 months ago
Henry VII was a direct descendant of Edward III thru John of Gaunt. Even if Edward IV was not Richard Planatgenet's son, Cecily Neville was a descendant of the Plantagenets herself. If Catherine of Aragon begat a son with Henry VIII, that son would be the truest heir since Catherine herself was a Plantagenet descendant thru Catherine Lancaster, Queen of Castile and Philippa Lancaster Queen of Portugal - daughters of John of Gaunt and great grannies of Catherine. James II was just the GREATFOOL.
gakusei1028 9 months ago
maybe the king couldn't have children. no man can ever be certain his wife is completly honest or faithful and the same can be said about husbands having children outside their wives.
MySkiesAreBlue24 9 months ago
To say that the royal family isnt legit by going on rumours that this one or that one 500 years ago had an affair is pretty pathetic. For one thing, even if someone were sired by someone other than a royal parent, that whole class of people married within their own ranks. The bloodlines of Alfred the Great and Robert the Bruce have been redundantly preserved in the current royal family. Once Parliament confirms succession of a monarch, it is fully legitimate and constitutional.
yourLoyalBaron 9 months ago
The brilliance of hereditary succession is that it picks someone almost at random to be the keeper of the keys of the consitution. This person's claim is supported by heredity, however its ultimate authority is derived from the fact that Parliament confirms the succession. In theory, Parliament could name anyone monarch. In reality the choice is based on a long-established line of people who have been excluded from having any political interest.
yourLoyalBaron 9 months ago
Edward totally smoked pot.
MrStylus88 10 months ago
One glaring error here is in regards to Henry VII: he, and everyone else, was well aware that he did not have a legitimate claim to the throne due to his dodgy bloodline. Instead, he based his claim on "right of conquest". He was desperate to make the House of Tudor stable, and "legitimate". This neurosis carried over to his heir, Henry VIII, who desperately desired a male heir to help stablize and "legitimize" the dynasty. No great "scandal" here!
dotsr001 10 months ago
Monsieur, nous voulons bien échanger nos "nababs" nous voulons avoir une Reine comme votre souveraine EIIR, a glorious Queen, contre notre M. SARKOZY, vous pouvez aussi avoir sa femme!!!! ECHANGEONS SVP
thequeendiamond100 10 months ago
Tony Robinson should be hired as a detective!!
whpriol1 10 months ago
Well done Tony -Now all we need to is get rid of them-parliment -congress, president and get a Catholic King of the English speaking world. Thus meeting the Islamic world with a united catholic english speaking world. Before we go the way of the Byzantines and Constantinople. If it is not to late already. John
silvestromedia 1 year ago
Both of Edward's parents were great grandchildren of Alfred the Great, so legitimate or not, the end result is that Elizabeth II is still the 32nd great granddaughter of Alfred the Great, so it doesn't really matter 500 years after the fact, I think.
ultrapirtle 1 year ago 2
Robinson's methodology is absolute bunk, but makes for an entertaining bit of television. Edward IV took the throne by right of conquest, so it ultimately doesn't matter who he's related to. The Yorks were similarly pitched by Henry VII, which means that the dink they interview here has no legal right to anything.
levanyzzuf 1 year ago
Henry VII became King through victory in politics and battle, the line of royal succession was just a pretense. So has it been through much of the history of royalty and politics.
skip8619 1 year ago
America has showed a sad and disgraceful part in our history voteing in presidents that hurt us but the monarchy has shown burtaity to their people to. we are sisters and brothers its time to throw off the chains each one has put on us. but i dont know how.that is the only reason they can still treat us like crap and we take it.but if we dont do it while the knowlage is shown our children will reap what we have through the centruiers.
1Littleagger 1 year ago
Someone decided to stop inbreeding at that time voided their rights to be the rulers? If everything would have been legit, man I could only imagine the prince and princesses competing in every annual special olympics as honorary participants. Inbreeding is bad in h evolution afaik. LMAO
BahoUtot 1 year ago
I am descended from a bloodline of English Peerage and it took me years to realize it is NOTHING more than a random crap shoot. In fact due to the closeness of these lines there are problems of health that have shown to be evident. These problems have ranged from hemophilia to insanity. The lesson is clear.....all that glitters is not of value
LilChuckyWoodenHead 1 year ago
Britons are brainwashed and they will be sorry for not overthrowing monarchy!!!
tttfrenetic 1 year ago
I would warn this family, but then again I don't think Austrailians are as creepy as Brazilian southerners.
xxSilverPhinxx 1 year ago
@EspressoFan4Life thanks for the correction very silly of me
12from12 1 year ago
This is great news.. thank you for all of your work..
VictoriaGreyh 1 year ago
His whole argument is mute. Henry Tudor claimed the throne through right of conquest not through Elizabeth of York. Therefore this programme is rubbish.
12from12 1 year ago
Hello,
I think it is absolutely rediculous that you are making such a fuss about who is the real Quen/ King.. just look at all the othe monarchies in Europe in the world. no monarchy, or royal family is really entitled to the throne. Monarchy is not only the family... it is about an entire history which is represented, which is still kept alive.
lasinoschi 2 years ago
first and foremost, the question should be,
"How did the first royal family became royal at all?"
GrandMajesties 2 years ago
@GrandMajesties Brilliant response. The royal is taken in battle, not an inherited right. Golly that they can make claims through persuasion. :)
PoliticalPars 1 year ago
COUNTARUNDELL 2 years ago
I can trump this.Lord arundell of wardour is my ancient grandfather through howard dukes of norfolk and thomas of brotherton"legitimately"
Thomas Nelson, Chamberlain of York in 1442; Sheriff, 1447-8; M.P. 1452; Lord Mayor, 1454 and 1465. Will d. 4 Nov. 1478; pr. 22 March 1483-4. (Reg. Test. v. 212.) Sep. (us visitations northern counties 1530)
Arms: Per pale argent and sable a chevron between three fleur-de-Ks countercharged.
15/20 STEWART[USA-Utah
14/18 SPENCER ENGLAND
15/20 HOWARD [England
COUNTARUNDELL 2 years ago
I just want to hear Baldrick say, "I've got a cunning plan."
bowdenthompson 2 years ago
This film is absolute rubbish. Tonly Robinson knows nothing about English history. Henry VII's claim to the throne came from his mother, who was descended from Edward III. Robinson is talking through his hat.
toxichampster2 2 years ago
Also, he is making assumptions on an incorrect standpoint that clerics, scribes, and nobles writing these accounts did not have events colored by their own opinions and contemporary gossip of their time.
apoloniarose 2 years ago
Except Henry VII's claim to the throne was not "dodgy" as John of Gaunt married his mistress Katherine Swynford, and officially legitimized all of his offspring by her. Regardless of the possibility of Edward IV being illegitimate, thereby negating Elizabeth of York's claim, Henry VII is still a legitimate claimant to the throne of England.
apoloniarose 2 years ago
It can be taken further. The Stuart line should have never been the Monarchs either. As of the Will of Henry VIII, Mary Tudor Brandon's line should have succeeded Elizabeth. Not Margret Tudor Stuart's line.
regszikora 2 years ago
there is a third condition to becoming the Monarch, and that is by conquest. Henry VII Tudor did just that against Richard III. Another was William I against Harold. Also Steven against Matilda. So the line holds true, threw the Tudors and beyond. according this reasoning. Other wise the Plantagenet Line would have had no claim as well. So out with this guy as well. To keep by the rules entirely, the direct decedents of Edward the Confessor are the true Monarchs. It is still all in the family
regszikora 2 years ago
I guarantuee you that England will have a Catholic monarch in the future and will convert to catholicism the whole of England will, so Russia, and so China.
lithopoonwit 2 years ago
With all the unhealthy inbreeding going on between the royal families of Europe, a little fresh blood from time to time would have only helped those stodgy bloodlines.
mmedefarge 2 years ago
Mike Jones...
slessorpr 2 years ago
Tony has neglected to mention the occasion when George, Prince of Hanover in Germany, became King of England jumping 46 direct Roman Catholic heirs to the throne in favour of the Protestant George, who spoke no English. His court was mostly German from Hanover, and bcos G. cd not understand English there were many insults to his face he was blissfully unaware of! This was in Dr Samuel Johnsons time and Johnson had some very funny observations on this 'ring in' German court. 46 RC heirs skipped!
slessorpr 2 years ago
Catholics should be kept off the throne. They are subjects to a foreign ruler (Pope), and thus should not be allowed to claim the Crown.
ProfessorxVile 2 years ago
So its wrong to question those who rule us then?
radicalsystems 2 years ago
I think this guy should have shown the real book not a print from copy machine if he want to brings some real evidence. Second of all any monarchy in 21 century is the hindrance for humanity.
misiobear77 2 years ago
Awesome,very good so far :)
Austenmad24 2 years ago
Think Robinson - at the epilog - suggests he's using it as an exercise in how history is, the what-ifs.
alanskillcole 2 years ago
We humans look in the rear window says Nassim Taleb. Just think more fluidly about who we are, who we COULD have been, what other fascinating routes history COULD have taken. Also if a royal's consort gives him a "jacket" (some else's kid) that's life. Just think of the what-ifs of history and not be too agitated if anyone dares to speculate. It's not treason.
alanskillcole 2 years ago
don't take it too seriously, at the end of the program the exercise's about what-ifs of life.
There are many situations (e.g., was it Rizzio or Lord Darnley as James VI's dad? what-ifs of Battle of Hastings? what-ifs of commmercial feuds with the Dutch and then finding a set of colonies). Look at the quirks of history, viking/saxons/norman/glorious revolution, history gets redefined all the time by the "experts" with labels that weren't there at the time.
alanskillcole 2 years ago
LONG LIVE OUR QUEEN!
Fritz102 2 years ago
even if it's true there would of been a good reason. This is disrepectful of the Experts.
they're not experts they think they are but they didn't trace it properly this is a scam!. Long Live Queen Elizabeth II Our Queen. How do I know? because I'm, Distant cousin to The Queen.
glitterystarify 2 years ago
Bullshit experts should shut the fuck up and Leave the Queen alone she is the rightful Queen the Experts should butt out they are not even part of that Family This is fuckin scam
glitterystarify 2 years ago
"Justice is preëminent only under a Monarch; therefore, that the world may be disposed for the best, there is needed a Monarchy." -- Dante
neothomist1275 2 years ago
Excellent post!!!
apsert 2 years ago
i seek a video named uk monarchy... where i can see at the end the england and the irland with uk flag colour,can you help me for the name of this video?
teenette 2 years ago
Well, the Duke of Edinburgh was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark.
Windsors (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) should really be named after him, but to marry, he had to renounce his titles and accept the new title.
Thus, House of "Windsor" is there to stay.
cuimhnichbasalpin 2 years ago
Monarchy has as many problems as republicanism.
Even democracy has the same type of issues.
All government is flawed.
Power to the people!
But unless the people are willing to govern on a 24 X 7 basis, we need government.
Government, like libido cannot be open ended.
Responsibility to the PEOPLE!
Hkepfer 2 years ago
monarchy is the best form of goverment.and the stuarts are the rightfull line.
thedukeofantioch 2 years ago
The current Royals are Jewish Decendant scum that is turning us all into slaves Gentiles
StickyAnus 3 years ago
god damned republicans. they ought to be burned.
MrCharlesDouglas 3 years ago
Yeah and people like you should be put on the guillotine.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
Ashybasha 2 years ago
THANK YOU! for uploading
katharinethequene 3 years ago
the bastard bit is hilarious!
kilda93 3 years ago 2
if this is true then Hong Kong was ruled by the wrong king and Queen!!!
horselee 3 years ago
edward was a bastard!!!!!!
kamutabe 3 years ago 2
I'm sad for anyone 'un-nerved' by the prophecies in the bible.
I don't understand this as I'm not in the slightest un-nerved by people who choose to follow alternative paths.
I believe I have the right to realise all the Bible prophecies which are being fulfilled, just as those who don't notice have the right to be ignorant of them.
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
I've been through alot in my life, and in my personal experience, Im not sure I would have come through everything I did without faith in God. In my case, quite probably my faith saved my life.
Everyone is different though, and has differing opinions.
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
people without religious ideology get unnerved by others talking of their biblical prophecies.
The bible can make no prophecies, thats not how it works, and the bible is the tool used by the people you said you want to fall.
get your story straight.
naysebtc 3 years ago
Get my story straight? what story? i have no story - sorry to dissapoint you.
The Bible is full of prophecies - I'll assume you've never read it?
It is also only used as a 'tool' as you put it when you are part of an 'organised' group.
I am not part of any organised group.
I'm sorry that some people are 'unnerved' as you put it by the bible, but that is not my problem. They should be more unnerved by evil people doing evil things.
I hope you find peace eventually.
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
I don't belong to any religious group, but yes, I do believe there is a creator. I accept that the Bible has been greatly edited.
I've always noticed (since being a child) that religious groups (I was baptised a R.C)are often behind killings. That's part of the reason why I wanted to be no part of them.
I also actually get on with some athiests lol....Im related to many. We just have a difference of opinion when it comes to there being a creator, thats all ;)
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
i've never found it to be evil - in fact it clearly states that all the organisations I just mentioned are opposed to God.
Sometimes, I think biased people can read things that aren't actually there.
Anyway, sounds like we're on the same side here, so I won't argue lol ;)
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
The Bible LOL - it tells us that the royals, the Govt, and the church end up the losers - but good will prevail. Take care.
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
Don't worry, my book tells me we win in the end lol
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
He has to say he doesn't want to be king. Think about it. The moment he said he wanted his rightful throne back, they'd kill both him and his family. They've killed everyone else, why not him? Especially as they can control the media and ensure the truth won't get out.
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
Im suprised the people in this documentary haven't already been hounded for treason to be honest. Anything said against the fake royal family is treason - they are totally paranoid for the fact that they know they shouldn't be where they are
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
if the people there aren't happy and want a republic like he does maybe they get some dna tests and lawyers..dunno..don't live there?
dellsprospects22 3 years ago
From what I can make out - this actually affects us all if you think about how it is...........from what I keep reading, the queen has power over the US.......the US is controlling the world almost........take the top men away and we have freedom. Not that easy though unfortunately.
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
i know right but we can dream..
dellsprospects22 3 years ago
The Queen doesn't have power over the US.
RivaJane 2 years ago 2
Aye, Britain's real Monarch, The Black Pagan Pope Pedophile the pissant has everyone shaking in their boots. If that old fugger showed up at my bar he'd get his ass kicked. There lies the problem, he won't come to our place and we can't get in to his place. That makes it easy for them to just keep lying, stealing and killing anywhere to anyone at anytime they please
I've got to put some blame on the Tell Lie Vision for telling people they are weak and helpless It's not news it's marching orders
SlaveStorm 3 years ago
now can't we get rid of them?
dellsprospects22 3 years ago 2
OMG! THIS COULD BE GREAT!!HALELUJAH!
dellsprospects22 3 years ago 2
dont talk wet lol
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
sorry but you're still missing the point - 'her harvests' as you put them are there under false pretences. They would have had nothing if their ancestors had been able to keep their underpants on and be faithful in marriage. Looks like they passed the trait down through that part of the family doesn't it?
Watch the whole documentary - the rightful king is a much better person than the lot from Germany we've got.
gangstagrannie 3 years ago 2
what has she ever harvested but misery? you reap what you soe.
rblwoaclu 3 years ago
read the book of wisdom people bastard slips shall not keep fast footing LOL God is great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Give some love to THE MOST HIGH.xoxox
rblwoaclu 3 years ago
You're missing the point - what this documentary is saying is that the money isn't hers to pay to anyone.
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
lol lol lol lol what did I tell yah? ha ha ha ha ha lizzie scrub my loooooooooooo.
rblwoaclu 3 years ago
Not only that, the lot we've got in now are German!
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
Doesn't suprise me at all - seems like the Royal family have a history of not being able to keep their underwear on.
gangstagrannie 3 years ago
I think the 'Royle family' should rule !
:-)
Leibo07 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what a shit! God save the Queen!!! No republic!
Fasan1980 3 years ago
God wouldn't save her.
Hostile 3 years ago 7
The royal family stopped pretending they are somehow special a very long time ago. This is just puerile propaganda. What do the actions of monarchs centuries ago have to do with retaining the current monarchy?
CyrusGuitar 3 years ago
Well, the obvious thing: they're a blood line. The actions of monarchs centuries ago are of-course entirely relevant to the nature of the current monarchy, especially since the Royalists are usually ill-informed and have a romanticised view of the whole topic.
Hostile 3 years ago 3
I´m not exactly ill-informed, but Republic is sheer rubbish...I prefer our Royal family, even with so many defects it´s much better.
peret33 3 years ago
Well you can prefer whatever you want, the problem is that you're expecting me and everybody else to pay for it. If you like the Royal Family that much, YOU can pay my share. I have no interest in maintaining them, I don't benefit from them in any way, and their very existence disgusts me right to the core. Fuck 'em, if they want a free ride they can go on the dole like everyone else.
Hostile 3 years ago 3
If you had a bloody republic you would pay much money. As for the rest, just two words, get stuffed!
peret33 3 years ago
I never said I wanted a Republic, did I? I said I DIDN'T want a monarchy. If we're going to have a figurehead they might as well be elected. Currently our taxes are supporting an elitist bloodline who look down on us as expendable filth. Fuck 'em, and you too.
Hostile 3 years ago
tony robinson is a wank every time he does these docs he says britain they would hav ruled england not scotland we would still be ruled by stewarts and there wouldnt be no britain for the crowns would never have been joined he says the same about the druids the romans wiped them out no they didnt there was still druids in scotland up till mcalpine
scotswahhae1984 4 years ago
I suppose you're right, if this line had been followed there wouldn't have been the uniting of the crowns as it happened. The point of uploading the video really though was to show the absurdity of a hereditary system (especially this one where they claim 'divine rights' through the blood line). Neither Scotland,England,Wales nor any part of Ireland should be a part of any monarchy.
RepublicUK 4 years ago 6
In Germany the head of government is the Chancellor who is the actual ruler of the country and yet the still choose to have a President as head of state? Why do you think that is, if the role of a figure head head of state is oh so unimportant. It is because while many people percieve the monarch (and non head of government presidents) as unimportant they actually do quite a lot. They do not merely smile and wave. They represent the state and do loads more...Check The Times on Jan 1st!
camaeron 4 years ago
I love the fact you are now using an elected leader to back up your position. I agree then, we should have an elected president, if the people then decide someone else would be better we elect someone else. Ah Democracy, radical idea but it might just work.
RepublicUK 4 years ago
This is getting more amusing as we get along. One can't compare historical monarchs with the ones of today (at least not in UK). Since the middle ages considerable changes have been made to the monarchy, incase you hadn't noticed! I suppose you would be in favour of a President? President Blair...just the thought makes one shudder..or would you disagree?
camaeron 4 years ago
In a word, Yes.
The very idea of the people of the country being able to choose, crazy!
PS, Since all the present incumbant does is wave,the country doesn't need a President either. It can operate as it does at the moment, minus the freeloader.
RepublicUK 4 years ago
My history is fine,thank you.I never said I would blindly follow ANY Monarchs.I know of many(past &present) Monarchs that have been murdering autocratic tyrants and whom I thouroughly dislike. Fact is though that the Queens line werent responsible for any murders.They inherited the throne due to blood.Our current Queen is a wonderful woman &an even better Queen.There arent any reasons what so ever to dislike her.Edward & Wallis deserved each other.They werent worthy of the throne.
camaeron 4 years ago
Contradicting yourself there. First you say Britain has never had a hitler, mussolini etc. Now you say you "know of many Monarchs that have been murdering autocratic tyrants" Since you don't get to vote for a monarch, next time one comes along, you have no vote, no say in it. A good system? Don't think so.
RepublicUK 4 years ago
the hanoverian or windsor as it is now werent responsible for murders give yourself piece glencoe for one they had soldiers sent to highlands regularly just to slaughter and rape whole clans were wiped out
scotswahhae1984 4 years ago
Citizens of every country are inferior to their rulers. Democracy doesnt work in practice. Some people are always going to be higher than others. The Queen keeps all the corrupt politicians in check! Thats why Britains has never had a hitler,stalin,mussolini....
camaeron 4 years ago
You're clearly a bit lazy with your history. Britain has had plenty of Monarchs happy to murder their countrymen (not to mention invasion of other countries) on mass, that's how they got the position they are in. I mean these are people that have continuously murdered their own family members over the years!
As for Hitler, Edward VIII was a supporter, Was he removed because of this? No, he was removed for the horrible crime of marrying a divorced woman :0
RepublicUK 4 years ago
Well yes that is where I would disagree. Though not elected they make a pretty good (and cheap) job of their duties. And besides... A president rarely has more than 50 per cent approval rate (except in the US, but things are different there, they only have 2 serious parties). Her Majesty The Queen currently has an approval rate of over 80 per cent! I'd say that is pretty impressive...especially for an "non-elected" head of state..dont you think?
camaeron 4 years ago
80%?, I must have missed that election...oh wait there wasn't one because we don't live in a Democracy. If you want to consider yourself an inferior subject then be my guest. I,however, am not.
RepublicUK 4 years ago
The text I added is not my own reseach but I felt it had to be added. I assume you are atheist then? By the way I dont believe that sovereigns are divinely appointed either... Am glad you took the time to read wiki though : )
camaeron 4 years ago
OK, so they're not divinely appointed (although that's exactly what they claim to be) and they're not elected hence they should be removed. Glad we sorted that out.
RepublicUK 4 years ago
The current line of the British monarchy is appointed (after the deposing of James II) and exists in law whether or not stringent legitimism is applied. The rights of conquest should also be applied even in the unlikely even that Edward IV was illegitimate. In any case this does not provide an argument for republicanism, it simply presents an argument for a legitimist monarchist line if anybody decided to follow it up.
LordAquila 3 years ago
...his legal son and heir, whether or not he was actually Richard's biological son.
This is but the beginning of a list of fatal flaws to this programme. I recently posted this list in the article about "Michael Abney-Hastings" on wikipedia if you are interested.
And besides...If "King Mike" is o so republican why is he still the 14th Earl of Loudoun?
camaeron 4 years ago
On the bit you have written on Wikipedia you say:"The succession to the English crown has been muddied many times over the years" and "One might just as well argue that no monarch has been legitimate since Harold Godwinson".
So at least you admit the line is a farce, none of them had/have any 'divine' right to their positions and as such should be removed.
RepublicUK 4 years ago
Though an interesting exercise in alternative history, there are many problems with the theory. The question of whether Edward was illegitimate had been widespread in historical circles for many years before the documentary aired, and no decisive conclusion has ever been reached. Furthermore, under English law, the child of a married woman is automatically considered the child of her husband unless he is disclaimed at birth. Since Richard did not do this, Edward remained
camaeron 4 years ago
Extremely dodgy claims based on lies. There is no truth what so ever in this mockumentary. It is also High Treason.
camaeron 4 years ago
High Treason? If pointing out flaws in an undemocratic institution is Treasonous then guilty as charged.
If you're going to blindly follow 'Royalty' you should at least follow the right one.
RepublicUK 4 years ago