Who Should Rule Britain ~ The Queen or King Michael ?
It seems that although the Queen occupies the throne she shouldn’t 
The man with the legitimate claim is in fact Michael Hastings.
Michael Hastings The True King of England !
It’s a bold claim but I’m nothing if not bold in making bold claims.
The theory goes that King Edward IV of England was in fact illegitimate so the line should have gone through to the Abney-Hastings family.
This leads us to Michael Hastings who was born and educated here in England but moved to Australia as a young man where he now resides (ironically he’s a Republican).
I believe the claims first came to public prominence when Channel 4 aired a documentary called Britain’s Real Monarch although I only heard of it yesterday via CK and Facebook.
If true, and it seems more than likely it is, then the Queen should be dethroned and Michael Hastings installed in her place (one in the eye for Prince Charles).
With all these claims of removing monarchs you might have me pegged as a Republican - far from it dear reader - but I am in favour of anything that stirs the pot - I’m also a fan of things being right in law !
The law’s the law - whether convenient or inconvenient - whether in use or having fallen out of use due to the passage of time - if it’s on the statute book then it can be deployed
I would imagine that many people reading this would think there is nothing more ‘British’ than the Royal Family but in fact nothing could be further from the truth - the Queen is of German origins and her husband, Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh, is Greek !
Foreigners sitting on the UK throne is nothing new, we’ve had kings from Denmark, France (Normandy), Belgium (Flanders), Spain even would you believe . . . Scotland !
The question is; if the Queen shouldn’t be on the throne then should she be removed ?
If she is removed who should replace her ? (it needs to be done quickly otherwise Tony Blair or worse still Mandelson will be in there)
Should the lineage be finalised and, if as seems the case, Michael Hastings crowned King of Great Britain ?
Regally Yours
Rod
chris keyworth said,
November 30, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
Im for King Mick the Aussie Republican, we already have his Army Waiting 9 strong at the moment but nine good men, if we can get Mick in then we can get Rod in Government too, he can pass all the new laws and maybe, just maybe the Chickens may just get to keep there fajitas instead of people cutting them off and eating them….
Regards
Chris….
Rod said,
November 30, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
Chris,
if he gets in then of course I’m in with a shout at being Prime Minister
As to people chopping off the fajitas from the poor chickens I’m afraid that woulld have to wait - my first job would be to stop them chopping the fingers off fish !
Cheers
Rod
Little Brother said,
November 30, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
Rod,
As long as they send Edward to the Tower (or a slow death) I’m not bothered. God help us all if he ever got any power. Jeez…..
LB
Donald ( South Australia ) said,
November 30, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
Hi Rod, and ADC Chris,
I think Michael may be somewhat reluctant, but he could be landed, preferably from a sailing ship, on the South-West coast. There he would raise his standard (at Tintagel ?) before starting the march towards London whilst gathering troops on the way ( air cover may be a problem, though). This is a tried and true pattern. I would advise him not to linger at Derby should he circle around from the north.
However, I’ll be arriving at Glenfinnan in May, and I hope our plans don’t clash.
Yours, in waiting,
Donald .
Rod said,
December 1, 2009 @ 8:09 am
LB,
amen to that - I’d go Republican if that scenario came to be !
Cheers
Rod
Rod said,
December 1, 2009 @ 8:15 am
Donald,
an admirable plan
air cover may be a problem, though).
I think Chris could arrange air cover, not to mention calling in a full on strike if required !
I would advise him not to linger at Derby
Very sagacious Donald - personally I would advise anybody to linger in the Derby area
I’ll be arriving at Glenfinnan in May and I hope our plans don’t clash
He needn’t come to Wybers Wood either Donald the area is suitably stocked with candidates for kingship - this town ain’t big enough for the both of us !
Cheers
Rod
Margaret Tottle-Smith said,
April 13, 2010 @ 2:49 pm
I am all for truth and I also have royal blood on the Scottish,Enlish ans Welsh lines plus most european royal families. The truth is the most important thing here and we should have King Michael onthe throne of England and the Duke of Buccleuch should be on the throne of Scotland. The house of Windsor are not our royals. The line went wrong again when James 11 ignored the fact that Charles 11 had married Lucy Walter so their two children, James Monmouth and Mary were legitimate. Both sets of marriage lines have been found. The Buccleuchs destroyed one set out of deference to the queen, but did they realise that the other set were already in the archives at Windsor? The French had sent them to Queen Vic. No the house of windsor should go and we should have our rightful King on the throne whether he wants it or not. Long Live King Michael
Isobel said,
April 23, 2010 @ 10:03 am
Just a quick note: Prince Philip considers himself to be Danish as his family were the monarchs of both Greece and Denmark but they were exiled from Greece when he was a child.
Andrew Timm said,
August 16, 2010 @ 2:56 pm
There are other ways that lead to King Michael…
1)In 1470 Henry VI, the last Lancastrian King of England made it Law(by Act of Parliament), that should his own legitimate line become extinct, the Throne should pass to the legitimate heirs of George, Duke pf Clarence(Henry VI’s cousin who was part Yorkist-part Lancastrian). When Edward IV murdered Henry VI in 1471 and usurped his throne, the legal and rightful Lancastrian heir was George, Duke of Clarence, NOT Henry Tudor, who descended from the Royal Family via a bastard line.
2)In 1484, following the death of his only son, Richard III, last Yorkist King of England, made it Law(by Act of Parliament) that should he die having failed to produce another son, the Throne was to pass to the legitimate heris of his brother George, Duke of Clarence. King Richard III was killed the following year by traitors loyal to Henry Tudor(who then married Elizabeth IV’s daughter)
3)Under both Lancastrian and Yorkist Law, Henry Tudor had NO claim whatsoever, as he was a bastard.
4)Under both Lancastrian and Yorkist Law, Edward IV’s descendants had NO claim whatsoever. Under Lancastrian Law, Edward’s bastardy was recognised, and Edward had committed High Treason. Under Yorkist Law, it was Legally official that Edward IvV had never married his “wife” Elizabeth Woodville, thus his children were bastards.
5)The Tudors recognised the significance of Clarence’s descendants and persecuted/murdered numerous members of the family. The Abney-Hastings line is the Senior Royal line now, as a result of so many True Royals being assassinated by the usurpers!
Long Live His Majesty King Michael. May God and Man restore what should Rightly be!
Rod said,
August 16, 2010 @ 3:43 pm
Andrew,
thank for the outstanding comment and welocme to the site.
That’s very interesting indeed and thanks for taking the time and trouble to share it
All the best
Rod
Will said,
February 9, 2011 @ 6:43 pm
Hey Rod
To add further spice to the mix re: the British Royals - Queen Victoria. From her came all of the incidences of haemophilia affecting European Royal families in the 19th and 20th Centuries. As we all know, haemophilia is hereditary - it is inherited from either one’s mother or one’s father. However, this is where it gets very interesting concerning Queen Victoria.
The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the family of Queen Victoria’s mother, Victoria, the Dowager Duchess of Kent, had no history of haemophilia but, neither did the Royal House of Hanover, the family of Queen Victoria’s “alleged” father, Edward, Duke of Kent! Since we know who Queen Victoria’s mother was, who then, was her father? Who sired the longest reigning monarch in British history?
Aside from the issues covered by Tony Robinson in ‘Britain’s Real Monarch’ back in 2004, Queen Victoria’s suspected illegitimacy means that the throne, for the time being, should be held by Ernest Augustus of Hanover, Princess Caroline of Monaco’s stepson.
Food for thought.
Rod said,
February 10, 2011 @ 8:06 am
Will,
thanks for the comment and welcome to the site.
That’s a very interesting point you make there, I’d vaguely heard of the haemophilia issue but wasn’t aware of the full story so many thanks for filling us all in
Cheers
Rod
Rod said,
February 16, 2011 @ 7:32 pm
Cheers Will
Rod
Vincent H said,
February 23, 2011 @ 7:15 pm
Royal wedding that should be micheal hastings he is the true king and he has more followers than people know about a lot of people in england and autralia and the whole commonwealth know the true identity of a humble man whos family have been executed by henry 8th he is our true king so we should all salute him
King Micheal Hastings………