|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
The Real King of England | from neezy - Saturday, January 17, 2004
accessed 4707 times Here's one for the poms. 
(So much for the royals having 'better blood'. Do any of the peons care? Or will the royal family just cover it up & offer poor Mike a ride in a black BMW through the Sydney Harbour Tunnel.
If anything this might get us some much-needed British tourists :P)
Aussie in claim to throne December 28, 2003 The Sunday Telegraph
A NSW man has been identified as the rightful King of England by a leading historian.
Royal claim: Mr. Abney-Hastings
Medieval scholar, Dr Michael Jones says he can prove Queen Elizabeth's claim to the throne is illegitimate and it should belong to Michael Abney-Hastings.
British-born Mr. Abney-Hastings, who moved to southern NSW as a teenager, is the subject of a British documentary.
Mr. Jones, one of Britain's leading historians, believes he has proved through painstaking research that the Royal Family's right to rule is based on a lie.
He says King Edward IV, who reigned from 1461 to 1483, was not of royal blood; he was the illegitimate son of a French archer.
Sitting in his home in Jerilderie, 640km southwest of Sydney, in a T-shirt and shorts with a can of beer after a hard day at the wheel of a forklift truck, is the man who it is claimed should by rights be King Michael I of England.
But the 62-year-old, who is about to unwillingly step into the world spotlight, has no plans for a change of lifestyle.
Mr. Abney-Hastings was astounded when Mr. Jones and a Channel 4 crew turned up on his doorstep. "When they told me I was surprised all right," he said.
"But I don't think it will worry us too much. Titles don't mean much out here and I have no intention of leaving Jerilderie.
"Why would you want to be king anyway? They can't do anything without someone on their back. This thing will all blow over in a couple of weeks and life will go back to normal."
The British research shows the heirs of King Edward IV's younger brother, the Duke of Clarence are the rightful rulers of England.
Mr. Abney-Hastings has three daughters, two sons and five grandchildren and he works for Rice Research Australia on a 2400ha farm.
Apart from when his wife died a year ago, Mr Abney-Hastings had not visited an Australian city for 12 years.
He has a strong tie with the community and is president of the local historical society and the St Vincent de Paul group.
"I was at dinner yesterday at a friend's house and they all stood up and sang 'God save the King' as I walked in. We all had a laugh," he said.
In fact, "King" Mike is not quite as Australian as his broad accent suggests. Born in England and educated at Ampleforth public school, he is the 14th Earl of Loudon, and a string of other lesser titles. The evidence which may change his life is in a document Dr Jones found in a library in France's Rouen Cathedral.
It proves, he says, that at the time of Edward IV's conception, his parents were 160km apart.
Edward's "father", Richard Duke of York, was fighting the French at Pontoise, near Paris, while Edward's mother, Lady Cicely Neville - based at Rouen - was apparently deeply engrossed in the company of a local archer.
In the five-week period when conception could have taken place, Edward's royal father was a good five days' march away.
The court was rife with whispers of an affair.
King Louis XI of France is recorded as shouting about Edward: "His name is not King Edward - everybody knows his name is Blaybourne!' (the surname of the French archer).
A concerted campaign was launched by the family, hoping to stifle such rumours.
The royal flaks even suggested that conception had taken place in May 1440 in Yorkshire, before the royal parents set sail for France: an 11-month pregnancy!
The documentary airs in Britain next week. No release date has been set for Australia.
You've been warned.. They're even playing King Ralph on tv tonight. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from roddy
Friday, August 18, 2006 - 10:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am curious as to why the bloodlines of Anne Plantagenet and Elizabeth Plantagenet, both sisters of Edward IV, and both legitimate, have been ignored. As the bloodline followed is through the Duke of Clarence's daughter, a more direct female bloodline would surely be preferable and both Anne and Elizabeth had children. I don't know if Elizabeth's line was continued, but I am descended from Anne and feel her line should at least be considered.
(reply to this comment)
| from Lthecuteness
Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 20:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think it's wonderful! we have a real king! I'am a British subject and I think he should take the throne from the old money grubbing german hag! Not to mention her sponging relatives! If he had any sense he would demand she step down now! I knew they weren't British and this is the perfect opportunity to oust the lot of them.
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From Sonderval
Friday, March 04, 2005, 04:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Not technically true, as by that standard due to the various invasions and intermingling there is no true 'English' nation and hasn't been for a long time, racially we come from several different sources.
Our country is based on a cultural heritage, and a royal line that's been a part of that culture for almost a millenium I think can fairly claim to be part of that culture and ergo be said to represent it (says a lot for us, wooo). Racial purity isn't really something that anyone 'English' can claim with a straight face if they have any idea about their own history, and tbh anyone who thinks racial purity is all that great shouldn't be allowed to breed as bad things happen when cousins marry.
That said, yeah, we should be a republic. The monarchy is an embarassment and if we were a republic we could have a more open honest system of government like our good friends the Americans.
It would seem I'm feeling a little cynical at the moment, think I'll get back to work.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From neez
Thursday, March 03, 2005, 22:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think he has enough sense to choose Bondi over Buckingham. If he felt like it though, he should challenge Big-ears to a duel on the beach. Poor Charles would probably die of heat exhaustion before he had a chance to get a shot off.
And what's with the queen giving Bill Gates a knighting!? The ol' cow wouldn't know a crappy o/s if it rebooted her in the ass. And don't get me started on Cameila.
But seriously I reckon most poms are alright. I don't get the whole soccer fan thing, but it could be worse.
I'll be working with one soon and he's alright. At least he's not a monarchist.(reply to this comment) |
| | from Baxter
Friday, April 23, 2004 - 03:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
Seen it! Frankly, no one gives a fuck if the Royal Family isn't technically pure-blooded! The discrepancies to the royal Pedigree are so many as to render the notion of purity absurd!
But just to let you Antipodean plonkers know- don't you dare think you can try and impose your own claimant to the throne! We English would rather have our own Fake King than a Genuine Aussie one! And anyway, Tony Robinson's only nominally English( I mean, he is Baldrick!)
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Baxter
Wednesday, April 28, 2004, 06:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
INFAMY!!!!!
Just for the fun of it I'm gonna stretch this one a bit!
If you're referring to the Changing of the Guard or the troopinhg of the colour, then I shall take the GRAVEST offence! Having participated in such events innumerable ( and immemorable) times, I should inform you that they provide enormous enjoyment, mostly through testing one's ability to stand still for hours on end in biting sun wearing heavy woolen tunic and enormous Bearskin helmet until one wants to collapse for exhaustion ( and sometimes does!) Secondly, What is a genuine Aussie, anyway? Are you an Aborigine? I mean, what's the major distinction from one WASP to another?(reply to this comment) |
| | From neez
Wednesday, April 28, 2004, 15:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
No I was more referring to the Queens birthday, etc.. What a waste. But the ol' bag did give us an excuse to have a public holiday so it isn't all bad. But your right that whole 'changing of the guard' (no clue what that other 1 is)is pretty silly. & whoever thot up the idea of those bearskin hats should be shot. Do you think you'd have a better chance saving the queens life with or without the half a bear on your head.
& I guess a genuine aussie would be someone that can say; the Queens an overpaid trollop that should be booted into the welfare line along with here entire inbred family, & not think twice about saying so. That & having been born here.
So do u wear the bearskin to bed?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Thursday, April 29, 2004, 04:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Questions, questions!
Firstly, the Trooping of the Colour IS the Queen's Birthday Parade. The Person who thought up the Bearskin hat was none other than NAPOLEON! Thirdly, we wear them (I wore them- past tense, no longer a squaddie) to illustrate our victory over the French at Waterloo- having originally takne them from the dead French Guards; like the two-fingered hand gesture, the bearskin is meant to be an insult to FRANCE! (which makes wearing it worthwhile!)
So, basically, you don't consider the first white settlers real Australians?
And finally, being that the stupid thing cost about £900, going to bed in it would not be a good idea! (tempting though!) I knew an officer who ran around bollock naked save his bearskin and his sword! (of course, he was very, very drunk!)(reply to this comment) |
| | From neez
Saturday, May 01, 2004, 07:21
 (Agree/Disagree?)
That's the 1st time I've heard the term trooping of the colour? learn something useless everyday I guess..
I'm sorry to hear it was NAPOLEON that did this thing. But I think I remembr he did end up getting shot at some stage, so thats cool.
& you should know that the first white settlers where in fact ENGLISH. & it took them several generations to learn to even survive here, much less invent a decent beer etc.
& btw.. yes Aborigines are genuine aussies.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Wednesday, May 05, 2004, 03:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
NAPOLEON died in exile; ruled Europe, we and the Germans kicked his arse(ironically).
The Troop happens every year. We have packed grandstands filled with dozy overseas tourists (fuck knows why) every fucking year.
How many generations did take before the settlers became genuine Aussies? Was it the alteration from normal to antipodean accent? If authenticity is defined by the ability to brew a decent beer, then wahey, you lot don't qualify!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From neez
Thursday, May 06, 2004, 08:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
I guess all the tourists must have already seen the millenium wheel & realised there's nothing else to do there.
& if you must know, grab your cuddly bear hat & I'll tell u. A few years after the first Fosters brewery had been established in Sydney, all 300 inhabitants of this fine nation had to sit down & drink approx. 600 litres each of full strength lager within 2 minutes.
Basically anyone who didn't die & had completely regained the use of their functions within 14 minutes recieved an 'aussie' stamp, & everyone else got shipped over to New Zealand. Although there have been unconfirmed rumors that these mutants actually found their way back to Buckingham, snuck straight past the yardies, & impregnated the queen.
Oh & the accent is merely a side effect from our ancestors great sacrifice at ye olde pub that day. Something to do with our vocal chords actually being able to absorb large amounts of alcohol therefore preventing us from ever getting drunk.
Now all rise for the national anthem..(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from neez
Friday, January 23, 2004 - 08:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
I posted this a few days ago.. In keeping up with recent trends, I think I'll post it again. This copy is for personal purposes only & frankly it's none of your buisness. & if you're one of those ppl that actually remember things & don't like reading my crap twice in a row then u can just get stuffed.. I can sing u know.
(reply to this comment)
| From
Friday, January 23, 2004, 08:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
from neezy - Saturday, January 17, 2004
accessed 119 times
Here's one for the poms.
(So much for the royals having 'better blood'. Do any of the peons care? Or will the royal family just cover it up & offer poor Mike a ride in a black BMW through the Sydney Harbour Tunnel.
If anything this might get us some much-needed British tourists :P)
Aussie in claim to throne December 28, 2003 The Sunday Telegraph
A NSW man has been identified as the rightful King of England by a leading historian.
Royal claim: Mr. Abney-Hastings
Medieval scholar, Dr Michael Jones says he can prove Queen Elizabeth's claim to the throne is illegitimate and it should belong to Michael Abney-Hastings.
British-born Mr. Abney-Hastings, who moved to southern NSW as a teenager, is the subject of a British documentary.
Mr. Jones, one of Britain's leading historians, believes he has proved through painstaking research that the Royal Family's right to rule is based on a lie.
He says King Edward IV, who reigned from 1461 to 1483, was not of royal blood; he was the illegitimate son of a French archer.
Sitting in his home in Jerilderie, 640km southwest of Sydney, in a T-shirt and shorts with a can of beer after a hard day at the wheel of a forklift truck, is the man who it is claimed should by rights be King Michael I of England.
But the 62-year-old, who is about to unwillingly step into the world spotlight, has no plans for a change of lifestyle.
Mr. Abney-Hastings was astounded when Mr. Jones and a Channel 4 crew turned up on his doorstep. "When they told me I was surprised all right," he said.
"But I don't think it will worry us too much. Titles don't mean much out here and I have no intention of leaving Jerilderie.
"Why would you want to be king anyway? They can't do anything without someone on their back. This thing will all blow over in a couple of weeks and life will go back to normal."
The British research shows the heirs of King Edward IV's younger brother, the Duke of Clarence are the rightful rulers of England.
Mr. Abney-Hastings has three daughters, two sons and five grandchildren and he works for Rice Research Australia on a 2400ha farm.
Apart from when his wife died a year ago, Mr Abney-Hastings had not visited an Australian city for 12 years.
He has a strong tie with the community and is president of the local historical society and the St Vincent de Paul group.
"I was at dinner yesterday at a friend's house and they all stood up and sang 'God save the King' as I walked in. We all had a laugh," he said.
In fact, "King" Mike is not quite as Australian as his broad accent suggests. Born in England and educated at Ampleforth public school, he is the 14th Earl of Loudon, and a string of other lesser titles. The evidence which may change his life is in a document Dr Jones found in a library in France's Rouen Cathedral.
It proves, he says, that at the time of Edward IV's conception, his parents were 160km apart.
Edward's "father", Richard Duke of York, was fighting the French at Pontoise, near Paris, while Edward's mother, Lady Cicely Neville - based at Rouen - was apparently deeply engrossed in the company of a local archer.
In the five-week period when conception could have taken place, Edward's royal father was a good five days' march away.
The court was rife with whispers of an affair.
King Louis XI of France is recorded as shouting about Edward: "His name is not King Edward - everybody knows his name is Blaybourne!' (the surname of the French archer).
A concerted campaign was launched by the family, hoping to stifle such rumours.
The royal flaks even suggested that conception had taken place in May 1440 in Yorkshire, before the royal parents set sail for France: an 11-month pregnancy!
The documentary airs in Britain next week. No release date has been set for Australia.
You've been warned.. They're even playing King Ralph on tv tonight.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Sonderval
Friday, January 23, 2004, 08:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Interesting,
Interesting,
I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of how great I am, not that I'm attention hungry or anything.
And in case you've forgotten what you've just finished reading I'm great and this post is a shameless attempt at self-promotion, that sounded so good I'll say it again for some reason, a shameless attempt at self-promotion.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From neez
Friday, January 23, 2004, 16:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sonderval said:
Interesting,
Interesting,
I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of how great I am, not that I'm attention hungry or anything.
And in case you've forgotten what you've just finished reading I'm great and this post is a shameless attempt at self-promotion, that sounded so good I'll say it again for some reason, a shameless attempt at self-promotion.
Then I said:
Yes, it will always remain a mystery to me..(reply to this comment) |
| | from Sonderval
Monday, January 19, 2004 - 11:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Aye, watched some of that on TV the other day (wife had it on, I got bored and left after a bit).
It is funny though, and it's a bonus that it's another blow to a doddering monarchy, with a bit of luck it might even finish them off. It's not quaint or cultural having a monarch as the official head of state, it's outdated and embarassing, time we got rid of them, hopefully before Charles ascends the throne, if that ever happens I might need to emigrate out of sheer embarassment and deny I was ever a Brit.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Nick
Monday, January 19, 2004, 17:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
To me the British Royal family are living part of England’s history and heritage. There are the castles and palaces and the towers that resemble where England came from and are a small glimpse into the past. Then there is the royal family collectively that also are a part of that history.
I know they have no power and no authority, but that’s not whey we keep them around. We keep them because they are part of our history. That’s another good reason to have Charles as the new king. He is old fashioned in his ways and is all about keeping with tradition. For example his personal interest in keeping small English villages alive and restored.
If you wanted an active king with power then maybe the royal family wouldn’t do for this modern world. But since that is not their purpose, I think they are doing quite alright. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Friday, April 23, 2004, 03:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear Nick
Having spent five years in the direct service of Her Majesty the Queen (On Her own Guard, no less) I feel it is my duty to dispute the assertion of the value of the Royal Family!(don't take me too seriously)
Firstly,(excepting Charles), what the fuck do we pay them for? If this country has maintained one single impediment to racial harmony in this country, it's Prince Philip! Furthermore, think about what we could do with the money we pay the Royals every year! NHS improvements, repair the fucking underground, maybe get those stupid aircraft carriers, finish Eurofighter- fuck it , maybe next time we have to go to war in the service of our 'traditional allies', the boys will have fucking desert boots!
I make exception in my diatribe to Charles, heving met him and heard him speak. He is one of the hardest woking of all the royals, and he's done a lot for the country. If we must have a King, let it be Charles, but for fuck's sake, let's dump the dead weight!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Sonderval
Tuesday, January 20, 2004, 02:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
Some parts of history should just be buried when they're dead, the royal family is an anachronism, they are expensive and a public embarassment, prince charles looks like an inbreeding experiment gone wrong (can't think why) and has all the wit and style of a guppy out of water.
Fair enough you like history, history is great, but it's long past time we put this little part of it into books and moved on, they're not worth what we're paying for them.(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Monday, January 19, 2004, 11:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
On the topic of embarassing government, if GW wins the election in November it will be a sad day to be an American. You see, if he gets kicked out of office then we can truthfully say that he was never really elected to begin with, but rather appointed by his cronies in the Supreme Court. This way the nation can escape the hostorical embarassment of having elected the dolt. However, if he wins the next election our nation's history will be forever besmirched by the sad fact that PR, machismo and blind idealism matter more than intelligence and good sense.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Sonderval
Monday, January 19, 2004, 12:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
I feel your pain, I truly do, I actually know someone who's renouncing their American citizenship and leaving, as soon as they've decided where to move to, looks like Canada.
As for Bush being kicked out of office, money talks and he has a lot of friends in industry, I doubt you'll see him kicked from office for the same reasons he managed to illegally sieze power, sorry mate. :-/
On a more positive note tho, one of the only things that can make me feel better about our government here is looking at yours mate, hope that's some consolation. ;-p(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]