Talk:Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun

Stop writing rubbish about extremely dodgy legal claims made by television documentaries. Ta. Proteus (Talk) 16:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dont think this page is implying he IS king? I think it is only suggesting that,the docco presents an arguement that the bloodline was incorrect..... Fix it if you think the writing is POV.. hell I didnt write any of it! - UnlimitedAccess 17:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you. :-) (And I've rewritten it before, and people just come along and insert rubbish again. I'm too tired at the moment. I'll do it later...) Proteus (Talk) 18:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I know.. :P, okay you do it when you feel up for it.. just dont go overkill on the "even if he wants to be king he cant be because it doesnt work that way".. :P - UnlimitedAccess 18:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) Your going to ban me for that comment arent you.. :P - UnlimitedAccess 19:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it is quite sad of this man to support an Austrailian republic but at the same time keep his peerage which originates from rayaly. Give his son the earldom not this buffoon of a selfish republican. God Save the Queen.

The material in this article on the historical titles in which the English crown descended is very interesting and useful. I wonder, though, if it is appropriate to the article on Lord Loudoun. Is there somewhere else we could logically move it to? john k 22:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To the anonymous "rayal"ist: I notice that most of the article refers to "Abney-Hastings" rather than "Lord Loudoun"; it would appear that he does not use the title, so don't blame him for having it. Upon inheriting the title in 2002 he had one year to disclaim it for life under the Peerage Act 1963; perhaps he was not a firm republican at that time, or did not choose to bother with the formality. (Later insertion: Maybe he promised his mother not to. 22:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)) Meanwhile the Crown can accelerate his baronies to his heir apparent (if any; the article doesn't say there is one), but not the earldom itself, although in older times Scots peerage titles could be transferred at the will of the holder on consent of the Crown. —Tamfang 23:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC) (Yes, this is an American anarchist expounding on peerage law. It's a funny old world.)

To reply two years later: I'm afraid writs of acceleration were abolished in 1999. Craigy (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Still a sad little republican though. God Save the Queen. Oh no I cant belive I spelled royalty, rayal. Oh bugger.

Does he have a claim to the throne at all?

Why is the legitimacy of either Edward IV, or any member of the House of York, relevant to the legitimacy of the current monarchy? Henry VII (who succeeded the House of York in 1485) had nothing to do with the House of York- the Tudor family was a cadet branch of the House of Lancaster, descended from John of Gaunt son of Edward III (and therefore, as per the requirement given on the page, descended from Henry II in a fully legitimate line, if John of Gaunt's children by Katherine Swynford are accepted as legitimate). All subsequent monarchs' claims to the throne are based on their descent from Henry VII. Mick is unfortunately not descended from Henry VII. B.t.w. I am a repubican, but not for reasons concerning the royal family's ancestry! BartBassist (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cf. act of settlement...it's an act of the Parliament anyway --82.113.121.103 (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Tone of article

Some parts of the article are not encyclopedic in tone, for example asking questions and answering them. Andjam 03:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It also lacks sources. Andjam 04:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the part about opposition to the claim. It should exist elsewhere in the wikipedia. Andjam 00:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, i find the latest edits from 86.41.190.241 to be non encyclopedic. Appears to be the persons own views put forward inappropriatly. If no objections, i will revert or remove the section they wrote. Exodus87 14:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

compare to Edward IV

more learned minds might think differently, but as a layperson it does seem to me that the story told of the contested crowning of Edward IV on the Edward IV of England page is stating objections that are only countered on this page; this is maybe another good reason to centralize the succession discussion to one common page linked into the various participant pages.

God save King Mick. How could anyone not support a fork-lift driving Aussie king named Mick? --64.235.110.181 12:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I lol'ed

• [1]

- UnlimitedAccess 02:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Long Live Mick!!

I've only seen the docco 'Britain's Real Monarch' on Australian tv once. Play it EVERYDAY!!! so everyone knows!! It's time the Queen & her families to stand down & pay back the money we've been sending them!! They are NOTHING!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!! Mick wants a republic for Australia, so that's what he'll get:) Long Live Mick!!

I don't think the Queen is getting any money from Australia. john k 04:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Royal visits are fully paid for by the Australian government though - UnlimitedAccess 00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The royal family no longer has any political power. They are simply figure heads. Virgosky 15:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That needs to be removed.

Place of Birth?

Where was he actually born? It just says "British born" and mentions the fact that he studied at Ampleforth College (in North Yorkshire) before moving to Australia. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ashby de la Zouche --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this for sure? After looking around the net a bit more, I've found sources saying that is where he grew up (in Leicestershire). But the only source I could find for actual place of birth was "Sussex". Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. I'm not sure. It was a presumption. If you have a source saying this then no doubt it's accurate. He did live in Ashby though. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the England & Wales Births Index of September 1942 (as Michael E. Lord), his birth was registered in the district of Uckfield, so Sussex seems to be correct. Craigy (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A non existant throne

To avoid an edit war I am going to post my plea here instead. If nobody challenges it I shall reinstate the previous (and in my opinion, correct version): Up and till recently this article had a sentence stating that "M. A-H. had a claim to the nonexistent English throne". This sentence has been continuously removed and no proper argument has been given other than "English is a monarchy". To which my reply can only be "Nowadays England is part of a monarchy but is no longer a monarchy in its own right. The Kingdom of England (and thus also its throne) merged with Scotland under the Acts of Union 1707 and later again under Act of Union 1800 to become the United Kingdom". I'm sure everyone here will agree that it is important to add that the throne to which Michael has a claim is now nonexistent. Looking forward to a reply. Regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you're getting at now. It needs explained though, most people wouldn't get that. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I shall try and clarify... = )--Cameron (t|p|c) 12:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

*Comes back rather puzzled* How ought I to go about doing so? I can't seem to find an appropriate place to do so! --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"nonexistent English throne (given that the currant monarch is Queen of the United Kingdom)" perhaps?--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes it sounds as though England is the predecessor of the UK though...--Cameron (t|p|c) 17:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If the documentary made the point that Loudoun would not consequently be a pretender to the UK throne, then how about "... the Throne of England, had it still existed as a separate kingdom"? -- Jao (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant jao, would you do the honours? --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the article accordingly. -- Jao (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The documentary doesn't make that point at all though, as it is called "Britain's Real Monarch" rather than "England's Real Monarch". On that basis I'm afraid I'll have to revert. The article should be in a simple NPOV form, not with hostle "____ doesn't exist anyway" attacks in the very opening line and all of that. I'm trying to keep good faith, but have to question Camaeron's motives, since he has previously tried to get this article deleted and then has gone on to try and dismiss Abney-Hastings as just a "rice researcher", now this. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dismiss him as a rice-researcher? I merely pointed out you where leaving his profession out of the intro! Stating that the throne no-longer exists is NPOV and is very important! The title 'Britains real monarch' is flawed anyway as he would only have been monarch of England! --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

PS:Might I also note that it was not me that made the actual edit (and thus have refrained from editing the article myself due to POV). Jao very kindly made the edit after discussing the situation here first. Thanks again Jao...--Cameron (t|p|c) 10:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, have you actually watched the documentary? because the view your putting into the intro isn't the argument made in it at all. It argues that Edward was illegitimate and thus every monarchal act afterwards was illegitamate too, this would could include the Union of the Crowns so "had it still existed as a separate kingdom" is not the argument presented in the documentary, nor is it a relevent "condition" to the documentaries alternate history. Watch the documentary first, or if you can find one, read a review of it. Nowhere mentioned is a conditional "had it still existed...". That is WP:OR.

PS, you may not have made the actual edit, but you entirely instigated it and explicitly asked for it to be made. Though I'm not sure why since you're perfectly capable of editing? Also, its perfectly reasonable to question your motives when considering the article's history, since you did indeed try to get it deleted (with all seven people disagreeing with you[2]), and did indeed try to have the intro as just "______ is an Australian rice researcher", when that clearly isn't why he is worthy of an article. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I did watch the documenary. I laughed all the way through it...= )!I am fully aware that the documentary argues that "Edward was illegitimate and thus every monarchal act afterwards was illegitamate too, this would could include the Union of the Crowns so..." and so forth. But fact is that the union was legal and thus the information needs to be added. He is a pretender...but to a non existant throne..surely that is notable? I think so!--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: I would ask you to adhere to WP:AGF and let us concentrate on the facts and not any of my previous mishaps...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Lord" Mauchline

It refers to a barony, I presume? Only using Lord is fine in the article but where the children are listed we should use the correct titles.

Pretender?

Can you legitimately call someone a pretender, who "has expressed no interest in pursuing his claim to the nonexistent throne, although he is amused by it." This whole claim violates WP:FRINGE. Agricolae (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Competing claims

This is fundamentally and article about the man. It has to include the claim as presented by Britain's Real Monarch because were it not for this WP:Fringe BBCChannel4 production, Abney-Hastings would not merit a page at all. The rest of the discussion of rights to rule is less appropriate, primarily talking about what arguments could be made, and not what arguments have been made in scholarly discussion of the issue (which has received no traction at all in the scholarly literature). Editors shouldn't be arguing the issue themselves. I have removed it all. Agricolae (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)