Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I watched the following 2004 documentary, Britain's Real Monarch, which asserts that the contemporaneous rumors that Edward IV was an illegitimate son of Richard Duke of York were true. If so, then the entire subsequent lineage of British monarchs are illegitimate as well.

And if this is true, then the legitimate (Plantagenet) heirs are currently living in New South Wales, Australia, in the middle of nowhere.

50 minutes:

The show discusses this from relatively recent discovered documentary evidence that Richard Duke of York and his wife were separated by 100 miles for 5 weeks during which Edward should have been conceived. And that Edward's portraits look nothing like his father or brothers (including Richard III). And claims of Edward protesting his legitimacy a bit too much.

The Tudor claim to the throne was sealed by Henry VII's marriage to Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV. And so if Edward IV was illegitimate then so was Elizabeth, and so on down the line till today.

Tell them, when that my mother went with child
Of that unsatiate Edward, noble York
My princely father then had wars in France

And, by just computation of the time,
Found that the issue was not his begot;
Which well appeared in his lineaments,
Being nothing like the noble duke my father: ...

And so there were two very interesting items that also were discussed. First was the passage in Shakespeare's Richard III, which mentions the claim of illegitimacy, being placed into the mouth of brother Richard III, who allegedly killed Edward's two sons to gain the throne. This claim about the murders, supports the Tudor claims, but did the Tudors and/or Shakespeare understand the consequences of the claims of Edward's illegitimacy or not?

The show discusses that Elizabeth I was indeed aware of the problem, and that several Plantagenet claimants were executed prior.

The show then goes on to discuss the surviving Plantagenet lineage (now in Australia) and discusses a contemporary of Elizabeth I, Henry Earl of Huntingdon. Elizabeth kept Henry in her employ, and so did Henry understand the claims. I would think so, but the show claims that he appeared ignorant.

Curiously, this Plantagenet scion not only loses his Catholic tradition, but ironically becomes a Calvinist Puritan. He supposedly personally killed a woman for hiding a Catholic priest, by a rather unusual means. The Puritans were Separatists from not only the Tudor's Church of England but the Catholic Church as well, of which it was illegal. I'm guessing that this means that Henry was more than just a congregant, but some sort of instigating sponsor. Somewhat like the House of Savoy sponsored the foundation of the Congregationalists.

Of course, the Puritans go on to form the Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts. The Bush family claims descent from these Puritans, and as well were Congregationalists, whose ministers were also early leaders of the Skull and Bones Society.
Last edited:
Elizabeth I could also claim descent through Henry III of England (Henry III->Beatrice of England...->Mahaut of Chatillon...->Jacquetta of Luxemberg->Elizabeth I).

Edward IV's mother Cecily Neville was descended from Edward III via John of Gaunt and Joan Beaufort.

Richard Duke of York's claim to legitimacy was also subject to debate, as his father Richard of Conisburgh may have been the "bastard" son of John Holland rather than a true descendant of Edward III.

But supposing we accept this claim that the English royal line was cuckolded by some unknown partner of Cecily Neville, what was the effect? Are we going to be told next that Edward IV was a crypto-Jew? If only those Tudors hadn't taken over, would righteous orthodox and uncorrupted Catholicism still reign supreme?

Or is this simply evidence that competition between members of the elite can occur on a very personal level, and that one or another faction can emerge victorious without causing any obvious long-term changes of royal policy?
Or shouldn't we be checking which ones are red-heads?

Dropping the sarcasm for a moment, shouldn't we say that there is no such thing as a legitimate claim to royal status?
Last edited:
Yes, I think you're right. The entire monarchy and aristocracy business is essentially a form of mafia in my opinion. One founded upon conquest of lands.

The portraits that were revealed were mostly all red and orange haired people, except for the Stuarts. Even Catherine of Aragon was red-headed and pasty faced.

The now late king of England, Michael Hastings, was filmed with grey hair, so we don't know what his original color was. In any case, he stated he was a firm Aussie 'republican' and not a monarchist. But this was before Donald Trump rose to the Republican throne.

But supposing we accept this claim that the English royal line was cuckolded by some unknown partner of Cecily Neville, what was the effect?
My questions about the calm nature of Elizabeth I's relationship to her potential rival, Henry Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon, were meant to question whether there might be something more to the Lancaster / York family feud than meets the eye. There sure were a lot of marriages between the two branches all during these troubled times. And the Tudors had been so taken to execute all the Yorkist rivals, but Henry Hastings. Hastings's Puritanism, in and of itself, was an otherwise state crime against the Church of England and thus the stability of the Tudor dynasty.

Are we going to be told next that Edward IV was a crypto-Jew?
Barbiero would say that as a Norman yes indeed. Nicholas DeVere, would say that they and the DeVeres were but one step up from the Biblical Jews or later crypto-Jews.

If only those Tudors hadn't taken over, would righteous orthodox and uncorrupted Catholicism still reign supreme?
Well, Henry VII left it that way, and only the odd divorce led to the Church of England, which was and functionally still is Catholicism, albeit with its curious KJV Bible.

Henry Tudor, who was only one quarter Welsh, also bolstered his claim with that the Welsh legend was that they claimed descent from a 'Brutus', but which one? The one that helped kill Julius Caesar, or the ancestor that killed the last Roman king, just before the founding of the Republic? So, more Romans versus Jews, or pseudo-Romans versus pseudo-Jews. In any case, I was struck when searching through the script for Richard III by how many curious references to Julius Caesar there were. It would seem that the Shakespearean fascination for the Roman emperors went beyond the works focused explicitly on them. And we must also remember that Constantine's father ruled his quarter of the Roman empire from .... York.