"Peter Moylan typed thus: I disagree. AIUI there's some sort ... out and so the game was won by a wicket."
"Interesting. Of course, Tony Robinson's documentary chose to pursue one particular moment in history when the throne was claimed in dodgy circumstances, and there's probably been dozens. For a republican, I seem to have ended up in a lot of discussions about Royalty lately..."
It is moderately amusing to see lots of people improvising on a subject they know little about, but, for anyone interested, here are a few facts.
1. The Earl of Loudoun (aka "some Australian bloke") is theheir-general of George, Duke of Clarence, younger brother of Edward IV.
2. This fact is well known and was never in dispute; it appears indozens of reference books and on dozens of websites. Tony Robinson discovered nothing.
3. This line was excluded from the succession by the Duke's attainderin 1479.
4. No-one since 1483 has based a claim to the throne on descent fromEdward IV, so his legitimacy or otherwise is irrelevant.
5. The identity of the sovereign can be determined by following therules laid down in the Act of Settlement 1701 as amended by His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. A complete list of those who may be eligible as of 2001 (4,583 of them) is online at http://members.aol.com/eurostamm/succession 2001.html
6. There is no "committee".
7. The Huguenots don't enter into it.
8. Nor do the Charleses.
Not that the Earl might not make a perfectly good king. It would have been even better if it had been suggested while his late wife was alive. It would be great fun to have a Queen Noelene.
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".