Could Edward IV have been illegitimate? & Was 400 yrs of Colonization Illegal Under "Royal Rule" ?

[7he5ource]

Was King Edward IV an illegitimate Bastard King ?

The absence of the Duke of York at the time of conception – When you look at Edward’s birth-date (in late April 1442) and work backwards, it appears as if the Duke of York was away from home at the time of Edward's conception.

Here is a video interviewing the TRUE RIGHTFUL king of England.
A sheep farmer in Australia [note the blonde blue-eyed genetic profile]

7DCasz6oeL4
watch?v=7DCasz6oeL4
Britain's Real Monarch

all the colonialism took place under these successive illegitimate kings and queens ...
may never have occurred under a rightful monarchy, true to the ethic, virtue, and moral codes of conduct in the Royal Protocols.
We just don't know if the colonization of America would've happened under ''righteous'' Royal rule.
But the evidence is quite convincing that Edward was a bastard.

The sheep farmer in the video interviewed says he would prefer to be tending sheep to being the rightful King of England.
I thought ... ''Being King IS tending sheep"!



Sidenote:
A 12-year-old girl created a family tree profile linking 42 of 43 U.S. presidents to King John of England, who signed Magna Carta in 1215
Only the eighth president, Martin Van Buren, was not related to John
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183858/All-presidents-bar-directly-descended-medieval-English-king.html#ixzz4rxWR5ubo

One of my original sayings is that you cannot legislate freedom, more laws = less freedom. Though the Magna Carta, American Constitution/Amendments & Canadian Charter of Rights sound pleasing, they present problems as freedom, equality, and opportunity cannot be legislated without serious negative ramifications.


The question is:
"Would America have been colonized if illegitimate Kings had not reigned"?
Because colonization of the west took place AFTER the bastard Edward IV ... and a subsequent line of illegitimate kings afterwards.
It seems the rightful heir to the throne would NOT have allowed this as in the interview [above] he says he does not like the state of the current kingdom.

[Journeyman]

The question is:
"Would America have been colonized if illegitimate Kings had not reigned"?


I think there's a hidden hand beneath the surface history. Its plans are hundreds, if not thousands of years in the making and they don't depend on any one individual, but on the control of networks of power and influence.

I think the plans for the eventual settling of the 'New World' were made long, long, before 'Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue'.

Questions of legitimacy don't really matter to it. Legitimate is whatever you can get away with. If a King or Queen proved troublesome or got in the way of a part of the plan then they'd find their support evaporating, their subjects revolting and soon they'd be on a scaffold whilst a helpful Archbishop inducted someone who was more co-operative.

See the quote from the Rothschilds about it mattering not who sits on the throne of the Empire if they hold the purse strings. It may be better to trace the holders of those purse strings over time if you want to get closer to real power?

[7he5ource]

I think the plans for the eventual settling of the 'New World' were made long, long, before 'Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue'.

apologies
cannot cite source but read Columbus was the son of a pope [long ago reading] that indeed it orchestrated long before

[Brigantia]

Questions of legitimacy don't really matter to it. Legitimate is whatever you can get away with. If a King or Queen proved troublesome or got in the way of a part of the plan then they'd find their support evaporating, their subjects revolting and soon they'd be on a scaffold whilst a helpful Archbishop inducted someone who was more co-operative.

Exactly.

There are doubts about the legitimacy of many of our monarchs; I read a while ago that Queen Victoria was alleged to be illegitimate.

I had an interesting chat a few years ago at Leicester Cathedral where Richard III is buried, with a lady who was one of the guides there; they are very pro-Richard III and she told me of a couple of books to read that supported his legitimate claim to the throne. I read a book by John Ashdown-Hill that cited the evidence that Edward IV, father of the Princes in the Tower who were Richard III's nephews, had been married to Eleanor Talbot prior to his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville (mother of the princes), and that Eleanor was scrubbed from history. If that was so, the princes would have been illegitimate by a bigamous marriage and had no claim to the throne.

It also explains why the Tudors were so paranoid and went to great lengths to eradicate the surviving Plantagenets, even executing 67 year old Margaret de la Pole.

There are also divided camps on whether the Stuarts had the stronger claim to the throne over the German Hanover dynasty. Of course, there is also the claim to a throne of right of conquest and the Stuarts didn't succeed in conquering in battle.

There are plenty of other examples that I could cite, even recent ones...

[7he5ource]

The question is:
"Would America have been colonized if illegitimate Kings had not reigned"?


I think there's a hidden hand beneath the surface history. Its plans are hundreds, if not thousands of years in the making and they don't depend on any one individual, but on the control of networks of power and influence.

I think the plans for the eventual settling of the 'New World' were made long, long, before 'Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue'.

Questions of legitimacy don't really matter to it. Legitimate is whatever you can get away with. If a King or Queen proved troublesome or got in the way of a part of the plan then they'd find their support evaporating, their subjects revolting and soon they'd be on a scaffold whilst a helpful Archbishop inducted someone who was more co-operative.

See the quote from the Rothschilds about it mattering not who sits on the throne of the Empire if they hold the purse strings. It may be better to trace the holders of those purse strings over time if you want to get closer to real power?

we all know money isn't real ... electronic currency, hemp/paper/plastic bills, fiat money, petro-dollars, gold silver, copper, even land

its fake, the Rothschilds is a Germanic word meaning redheads [gingers] like the ruddy jesus
roth child -= red shield ... shield meaning helmet head
its a hair color, more fake news ... the Rothschild family being insignificant to the Busche [BUSH] banking dynasty
daddy-warburgs, $chiff and other ancient vampire dinosaur age families,

theres too much internet literary fantasy behind money
a gun to your head is a superior credit system than the illusionary mind control methods

royal families are about gene pools
eugenics
a seed is the highest technology known and the most precious thing of value

i dont need internet books or education to know clubbing someone with a stick will render wealth and women
they say prostitution was the 1st profession
but in the intelligence community its said
----- spying is the first profession --------
of course spying is prostitution ... and a businessman's briefcase always sits in the bedroom while daddy snores

genepools cant be replaced
im ashamed to be in a world that thinks money has more value than legitimate authority like theft takes superior brains

[7he5ource]

[QUOTE=7he5ource;1411214]
The question is:
"Would America have been colonized if illegitimate Kings had not reigned"?




Questions of legitimacy don't really matter to it. Legitimate is whatever you can get away with.

there is either a generation gap or a gap in understanding virtue
eg; ive lived with old order Mennonites who refuse electricity
today ppl complain of climate change

we never really know who we converse with on the internet but i imagined ppl would understand that that LEGITIMATE means honest authentic sincere and virtuous
===================================================

the answer i got is non of that matters ... which isn't really the topic i began
it isnt perhaps an internet generation question, unless virtue can be virtual binary and digitized as it exists in the original biological reality

in that reality ,,, as with the Mennonites i grew up with it's foreknown that the environment cannot withstand human/god/norn/elf/witch/fairy corruption

corruption corrupts the base foundation for life
therefore is self destructive counterproductive and counter-intuitive

so in mt view it isnt what you can get away with
there isnt anything you CAN get away with

[Brigantia]

[QUOTE=7he5ource;1411214]
The question is:
"Would America have been colonized if illegitimate Kings had not reigned"?




Questions of legitimacy don't really matter to it. Legitimate is whatever you can get away with.

there is either a generation gap or a gap in understanding virtue
eg; ive lived with old order Mennonites who refuse electricity
today ppl complain of climate change

we never really know who we converse with on the internet but i imagined ppl would understand that that LEGITIMATE means honest authentic sincere and virtuous
===================================================

the answer i got is non of that matters ... which isn't really the topic i began
it isnt perhaps an internet generation question, unless virtue can be virtual binary and digitized as it exists in the original biological reality

in that reality ,,, as with the Mennonites i grew up with it's foreknown that the environment cannot withstand human/god/norn/elf/witch/fairy corruption

corruption corrupts the base foundation for life
therefore is self destructive counterproductive and counter-intuitive

so in mt view it isnt what you can get away with
there isnt anything you CAN get away with

I think you've missed the point; Journeyman's statement was not a generalisation, but specifically referring to royals and how they view and manipulate the lines of succession.

It also relates specifically to the definition of 'legitimate' in the sense of whether someone is born in wedlock or not, which is the discussion of the thread.

Royals live on a different plane to us anyway and I'm pretty certain that they don't have a sense of virtue as we know it.