# The de la Poles. Questions on the English/British monarchy **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 28, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-de-la-poles-questions-on-the-english-british-monarchy/705840 "2014-11-28T19:23:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-de-la-poles-questions-on-the-english-british-monarchy/705840/1 "2014-11-28T19:23:08Z")
I guess this boils down to two questions. 1. The de la Poles seem to be out there during and post War of the Roses as kind-of in the line of succession. Is there an argument that can be made that the de la Poles are the true pretenders to the English/British throne? 2. Is so, who is the current monarch-in-pretense? Tracing through Margaret de la Pole (in another thread IIRC there was an unofficial consensus that she would have a claim over the Lancasters), through the Earl of Huntingdons, the Stanleys, Elizabeth Lady Moira and the Rawdon-Hastings line, then Margaret C-H-C which leads to the MacTaggart-Stewart line meaning the current MIP is Peter Snowden. Is that even remotely correct? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-de-la-poles-questions-on-the-english-british-monarchy/705840/2 "2014-11-28T19:53:50Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I guess this boils down to two questions. > > 1. The de la Poles seem to be out there during and post War of the Roses as kind-of in the line of succession. Is there an argument that can be made that the de la Poles are the true pretenders to the English/British throne? Back then might made right. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-de-la-poles-questions-on-the-english-british-monarchy/705840/3 "2014-11-28T20:31:11Z")
Surely a ‘true pretender’ is an oxymoron - if he’s only pretending. Like “if the Pope announced that he wasn’t infallible, could he be wrong about that?” ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-de-la-poles-questions-on-the-english-british-monarchy/705840/4 "2014-11-28T23:55:33Z")
Back in the day they fought wars about this stuff and the winners got to be king for a while. There were loads of branches, illegitimate sons and downright frauds but the important thing was to have ‘some’ claim to the inheritance, and ,more importantly, the backing of the guys with the money, power and influence. A bit like going for POTUS I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-de-la-poles-questions-on-the-english-british-monarchy/705840/5 "2014-11-29T03:39:51Z")
Both the de la Poles and the Poles — who were two separate families — were married into the Plantagenets and Tudors, and had no claims to the throne themselves; barely into even being aristocrats. They were mostly wiped out by Henry VIII, and and any claim they had as Plantagenets died with Cardinal Pole, Mary I’s cousin, prospective husband. **[Richard de la Pole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_de_la_Pole)** was the only serious contender, on very shaky ground. Cardinal Reginald made no such claim and acknowledged Henry ruefully and Mary gladly. The best book on the subject is Desmond Seward’s **The Last White Rose** , nonfiction 2010 — once you get past his biases against protestantism and Harry VIII, and totally realise _ **the whole thing** _ is negated by his refusal to acknowledge that Edward IV’s daughter Elizabeth was true and final heir-general after her brothers’ death, that she passed this on to her son Henry VIII. no matter how vile he was, and any further relations were out of the loop. Most British monarchs have been usurpers by now, due to the long length of time since the Revolution, but even usurpers follow primogeniture for themselves, so there’s only occasional fights. Each time a usurper took over, parliament gained power. The present Stuart pretender ---- which doesn’t mean pretending, but offering a claim — is Duke Franz: there are no doubt others from weird branches dating back to the Heptarchy, but usefully the Stuart claim subsumes the inheritances of Cerdic, Plantagenet and Tudor amongst others, as heirs-general to all of these, ( including foreign claims such as Modena, and at present combined with all Wittelsbach claims to Bavaria etc… ) ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-de-la-poles-questions-on-the-english-british-monarchy/705840/6 "2014-11-29T04:34:28Z")
[Here’s a webpage which shows several lineages](http://my.raex.com/~obsidian/Britpret.html#England-York) which might have claim to the British throne. The link points at the one in question, the “Yorkist” line, for which the present heir is an Australian man, [Simon Hastings, Earl of Loudoun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Abney-Hastings,_15th_Earl_of_Loudoun). It should be emphasized, as the wbepage itself concedes, that most of the “pretender” claims disappeared centuries ago as the “heirs” ignored them. The line in question, the “Yorkist Pretenders,” base their claim on either of two ideas: that King Edward IV was a bastard (the Duke of York being away from his wife 9 months before Edward’s birth), or that Edward IV’s marriage was illegitimate. In either case, the [genealogic heirs of the House of York](http://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00001703&tree=LEO&display=block&generations=12) would be those of Edward IV’s sister(s), not Edward IV. Edward’s sister Elizabeth married de la Pole. (Elizabeth had an older sister, Anne, with legitimate heirs, but King Richard III declared that Elizabeth was his heir. I’m not sure why the heirs of Anne are ignored, since such declarations are not legally binding.) ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-de-la-poles-questions-on-the-english-british-monarchy/705840/7 "2014-11-29T05:19:11Z")
**[Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_York_%28daughter_of_Edward_IV%29)** was the 5th daughter, born 1475: **[Elizabeth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_of_York)** was the oldest, born 1466. Anne died without heirs. The usurper Richard thought of marrying his niece, Elizabeth — which would have been acceptable in canon law with a dispensation — but chose John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, as his heir presumptive. Since Richard had no real claim to the throne his choices were illicit anyway. The recent claim that an Australian is heir, based on those illegitimate facts you quote, is TV crap. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-de-la-poles-questions-on-the-english-british-monarchy/705840/8 "2014-11-29T09:47:05Z")
> [@Claverhouse](#): > > **[Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_York_%28daughter_of_Edward_IV%29)** was the 5th daughter, born 1475: **[Elizabeth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_of_York)** was the oldest, born 1466. > > Anne died without heirs. I spoke of Edward IV’s _sisters_. not his daughters. In the “Yorkist pretender” view, all of Edward IV’s offspring were illegitimate, or the children of a bastard. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-de-la-poles-questions-on-the-english-british-monarchy/705840/9 "2014-11-29T12:14:06Z")
Well, you said: _Elizabeth had an older sister, Anne, with legitimate heirs, but King Richard III declared that Elizabeth was his heir._ Richard never declared any of his sisters heir. But he did declare Sister Elizabeth’s son Lincoln heir. Sister Anne had one daughter, Anne — who died as a child—, by the Marquess of Dorset, and one daughter Anne, by Thomas St. Leger. This last Anne married a Manners and **[mothered](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Manners,_1st_Earl_of_Rutland)** the future Earls of Rutland. Sister Anne’s second husband, St. Leger was loyal to his King, Edward IV and Edward V and rose against Richard III, so presumably that person slighted his sister Anne’s claims. However such claims — barring Edward IV and progeny — would be behind the claims of any children of Richard and any children of his older brother Clarence. Had the unspeakable Richard III been following the law in declaring Edward’s children invalid, he would have acknowledged Clarence’s heirs ( the Poles, not the de la Poles ) as the heirs to the throne. Instead he grasped it for himself. BTW, to clear confusion Cardinal Reginald Pole was the part of the Pole claims; Richard de la Pole, Suffolk, was part of the de la Pole claims. The later Plantagenets seem to have preferred a very small selection of christian names. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-de-la-poles-questions-on-the-english-british-monarchy/705840/10 "2014-11-29T14:12:48Z")
> [@Claverhouse](#): > > However such claims — barring Edward IV and progeny — would be behind the claims of any children of Richard and any children of his older brother Clarence. Had the unspeakable Richard III been following the law in declaring Edward’s children invalid, he would have acknowledged Clarence’s heirs ( the Poles, not the de la Poles ) as the heirs to the throne. Instead he grasped it for himself. Except both the Act of Attainder against Clarence and _Titulus Regius_ disqualified Clarence’s heirs from the secession. As _Titulus Regius_ says: > [@](#): > > “Moreover we consider how that afterward, by the three estates of this Realm assembled in a Parliament held at Westminster the 17th year of the reign of the said King Edward the Fourth, he then being in possession of the crown and royal estate, by an act made in the same Parliament, George, Duke of Clarence, brother to the said King Edward now deceased, was convicted and attainted of high treason, as in the same act is contained more at large. Because and by treason whereof all the issue of the said George was and is disabled and barred of all right and claim that in any wise they might have or challenge by inheritance to the crown and royal dignity of this Realm, by the ancient law and custom of this same Realm. So, if neither Edward IV’s or Clarence’s heirs were legitimate successors, the next in line would be John de la Pole., since at that point, Anne of York’s surviving daughter didn’t have any sons.