England should actually be ruled by a man who is a rice farmer in Australia say Historians.

After uncovering evidence that Edward IV was the illegitimate son of an Archer historians followed the bloodline of who should have been the rightful ruler of Britain.
At the time when Edward IV was concieved his supposed parents were 200 miles apart so the crown should have gone to Edward's brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The team of historians, including Tony Robinson, followed the bloodline down and found that the real ruler of England should infact be Mr Hastings, or King Mike I as he should be known. Mr Hastings moved to Australia in 1960, him and his wife had five children. Mr Hastings is a modest wife farmer who lives in Jerilderie, 60 kilometres north of the Victorian border.

Despite being told that he is of Royal Decent, and that he should in fact be the King on England, Mr Hastings has no desire to rule. "I feel sorry for poor old Liz. I think she has a very hard life because it is so regimented. I do what I want, but if Liz wants to sit in and watch Fawlty Towers on TV, she can't."

I saw this on tv earlier, thought it was quite interesting.

Source: Source

First of all, having Baldrick show up at your front door and telling you you should be king sounds a lot like the first episode of a new series of Blackadder.

Second of all, most historians know that there have been enough gay and bi kings to suggest this isn't the first time that's happened.

--Jaylemurph

I want to find out how to become a wife farmer. That sounds like fun. hehe

Well i dont think anyone is under the delusion the british monarchy is some unbroken bloodline spanning the centuries. There have been many conquests and many times of political intriege that has decided who rules.

edit to add: i do think it's cute though that he'd rather stay home and watch faulty towers. Plus I liked hte blackadder reference

You do know England has a German connection and not auzzie?

If it was a few centuries ago, do you suppose that the Queen would have dispatched some agents to do away with Mr. Hastings?

yep current royal family are basically origonally german. then again we are only english becuase of when the angles jutes and saxons invaded (ever notice poeple always forget the jutes there) Not meaning to ramble but if you look England and America cling so much to their identity and heritage when we are all mongrel nations of history. not saying you shouldn't be patriotic and all thats a different can of worms altogether

Lol, yeah it is pretty funny how the jutes are always left out of the equation. Poor jutes...no respect.

NumberOneSon

To heck with it all.

Lizzie2 has tried hard, but her offspling are hardly inspiring.

Lets get some good old Aussie blood back into the Line.

I'm sure King Mike I wouldn't take no rubbish from the Prime Minister... and would give Gordon a black eye to boot.

You may not WANT this Y'r Majesty, but your people are crying out under the yoke of a Tyrant (the president of the EU).

Take the Sword out of the Sheep, Come Back, and DELIVER US FROM EUVIL:D

Gosh - where do I start... an Aussie King would be SO cool for SO many reasons.

Meow Purr.

Well, they weren't /completely/ German. The House of Hanover began with George I, whose grandmother (Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of James I) was English. He was pretty well distant from Salique succession, inasmuch as England was ever down with Salique law. But he wasn't Catholic!




I don't know -- Bess 2's kids weren't all that great, but Diana did any wonder of good for the bloodline. William stands to be the first attractive monarch in centuries.

--Jaylemurph

Ahahaha u got me, I must admit I was pretty tired when I wrote that up so you'll have to give me, I did infact mean rice farmer.

However if you want the details on becoming a wife farmer I could post the details elsewhere if you like

The British Royal family has just about every other nationality in it. However I think King Mike would throw one hell of a party at Buckingham Palace. I would attend that. I've never been to Australia but I've heard they know how to party.

How different do you think the monarchy would be had the proper bloodline been followed?

At the moment they are a nice Saxe-Coburg/Macedonian cross...Windsor my a**e.

BTW William is almost completly bald on top at 23, I fear a royal comb-over will soon be established.

I know how to become an ex-wife farmer, damn alamony. The pay sucks, trust me

I wonder if this throws some more light on the fate of the 'two princes' (Edward 1V's sons) who were imprisoned
in the tower? And murdered?
I've come across a book recently. It's called 'Perkin' (A Story of Deception)...by Ann Wroe.

The eldest Prince was Edward V for a short while...although he didn't last long enough to be coronated.
He was probably bumped off.(?) But someone emerged from abroad and claimed to be Prince Richard
Duke of York....(the youngest prince) a few years later....and tried to claim the English throne....
had quite a lot of support and gave Henry V11 a run for his money!

I should imagine the history of the royals would be very different if they had DNA testing then!




He IS a very attractive young man....and you get the feeling he's also a nice person.




Awwwww...leave him alone.....shame he's going thin on top so young, though.

Baldness comes from the mother's side. He should ask the Earl of Spencer what he did, as it is obvious now that he must have had something done.

And I am the last queen of Egypt !

Perkin Warbeck was the one who claimed to be Richard,Duke of York. I seem to recall there is a castle in England that he is supposed to haunt.
The bodies of two children (bones) were found one day when repair work was being done on the Tower of London. These were assumed to be the bones of the two little princes and were reburied in I think Westminster Abbey. It would be interesting to learn what any DNA results are,providing that one coul;d get the royal family to agree to exhume the bones and would be willing to submit to a DNA Test.

Perkin Warbeck was well-known at the time /not/ to be Richard, Duke of York -- both his parents were known. And not English.
And he certainly didn't give a popular monarch like Henry VIII a run for his money.

Check it out: Wikipedia has a good article.

--Jaylemurph

The real bllod line is traced back to an iris guy named Shaymus O Windy hoor.
So the real king is Irish.lol.

I wonder which castle that is....

Yes....if it was possible to do a DNA test...that would decide things one way or another.
I.e.....the princes DID die in the Tower...or...there is still an element of mystery.




Thanks for that.....although on the Wiki site they do say this....

Perkin reportedly resembled Edward IV in appearance, which has led to speculation that he might have been Edward's illegitimate son. Some historians have even gone as far as to claim that Warbeck was actually Richard, Duke of York, although this is not the consensus.

I actually still have the book....Perkin...A Story of Deception...by Ann Wroe...out of the library.
My reading of it has kind of stopped around half way..(although I might finish it).....I think Henry V11 was
supposed to have quite a weak claim to the throne (??) and the claims of Perkin/Richard....who-ever he
was .....worried him because it was all tied up with old loyalties to Edward 1V....I don't know if Henry V11
was ever seriously threatened.....militarily he was always on top of it, I believe.

From...Ann Wroe's book...page 159....

"At the core of the conspiricy were people who had been at King Edward's Court. Their motivation was
loyalty to the house and the regime, sometimes reinforced by land ownership or marriage and now
sharpened immeasurably by the shift of power, offices and land to the party of the red rose."

and...

"Up and down the country, other old Yorkist servants and receivers of Edward's favour rallied to the cause."


Heaven knows....I don't want to start arguing with you over THIS...all I'm saying is that at the time...all
this MIGHT have been more of a big deal than history now reports?

Well, it's only a few people who seem to think Warbeck had any decent claim -- like it says, we know who his parents were (and they weren't royal OR English).
But I know the restraints of conventional knowledge aren't proof against your fancy sometimes.

Both John Ford and Mary Shelley wrote about Warbeck. Ford's play is... well, dark and depressing and Carolinian. Shelley's is.. well, dark and depressing as well, but (interestingly) they both take for granted that Perkin was not Richard.

[Although, I do like the idea of somebody showing up with a young Richard at the door of a nice, random Flemish couple saying "Here. Take a prince. He's only slightly used." Very Blackadder.]

--Jaylemurph

Correct...

Don't want to tease you with mystery....but I do have a PERSONEL interest in the 'two princes'...
presumed to have BOTH been murdered in the Tower.....it would take far too long to explain...
(and make me look like a real nutcase) but I would love for the younger prince, Richard....
to have survived....but then....if it was him who re-appeared....he only got executed in the end,
anyway!

If 'Perkins' has bodily remains anywhere.....perhaps a DNA test could decide it one way or another?

Don't suppose that will happen though.

Just for you, then: I read quite some time ago an article in a dullish history journal whose premise was that those two skeletons weren't the two princes. Seems to me they were early Victorian child workers, from a decade or two from before the bodies were found. The article said as damp as the bones were, it would be unlikely they wouldn't have rotted away, so the bones must have been more recent that the 15th Century.
It ended up with the same premise you said: even if it wasn't Richard York, York died unknown anyway.

--Jaylemurph

I have heard what you said about the bones, somewhere before...and it seems more logical than
them being 'the Princes'....

Such high-profile murder/s.....I doubt that 'they' would have done the dastardly deed in the Tower...
and even if they did....burying the bodies there would have been a bit risky.

er...i thought richard of york died in battle and had his corpse sodomised or am i thinking of a different richard of york? Are you on about the one from the war of the roses????

All i know or remember of Richard of york is that thing to remember the rainbow colours. Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain ... Red Orange Yellow Grreen Blue Indigo Violet.

I have embarrasingly big gaps in my history there is too much of it out there for one little head

That was King Richard (Plantagenet) III, and he did die at the Battle of Bosworth Field, although I've never heard of his corpse being sodomised. And believe me, with my job, I'd've heard of that.

There were lots of Richards and several Dukes of York.

Confusingly, King Richard was previously the Duke of Gloucester. His father, also a Richard Plantagenet, was a Duke of York -- the third one. After his death, the title was re-created and given to Richard of Shrewsbury, the boy we've been talking about.

--Jaylemurph