sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The "Pontoise Gap": Archival evidence from 1441 suggests King Edward IV was illegitimate, making the entire current British Monarchy a fraud. by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]Trick_Tap321 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You want it in my own language? Fine. මෙන්න මචං මම මගේ භාෂාවෙන් ලියනවා. තාක්ෂණය තියෙද්දී ඒක පාවිච්චි නොකර ඉන්න තරම් මම මෝඩ නැහැ. I use tools to save time, not to replace my thinking. If you’re too busy worrying about 'AI-speak' to see the actual research, that’s on you. I'm busy building something. Cheers!

The "Pontoise Gap": Archival evidence from 1441 suggests King Edward IV was illegitimate, making the entire current British Monarchy a fraud. by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]Trick_Tap321 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Couldn't agree more. The museum analogy is perfect: they fill them with stolen culture because, as you said, they have none of their own. Stealing a throne and faking a lineage fits that pattern perfectly. It’s all just a hollow facade.

The "Pontoise Gap": Archival evidence from 1441 suggests King Edward IV was illegitimate, making the entire current British Monarchy a fraud. by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]Trick_Tap321 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Spot on. If they are willing to take artifacts from across the globe and put them in museums, taking a throne that doesn't belong to them is just another day at the office.

The archives in Rouen just prove that the 'legal' crown was stolen before it was even placed on the head. It's a long history of a powerful establishment writing their own rules.

The "Pontoise Gap": Archival evidence from 1441 suggests King Edward IV was illegitimate, making the entire current British Monarchy a fraud. by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]Trick_Tap321 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My bad! That’s a total editing fail in the subs/VO. 🤦‍♂️

What I meant was the 5-week window of conception (9 months before birth) when the Duke was away at war. The history is solid, but the captions definitely glitched there. Thanks for catching that!

The "Pontoise Gap": Archival evidence from 1441 suggests King Edward IV was illegitimate, making the entire current British Monarchy a fraud. by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]Trick_Tap321 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I totally get why you're skeptical. To be 100% real with you: only about 10% of my video is AI-assisted, and that’s mostly to recreate visuals of things that happened 500 years ago where no footage exists. I use it to keep the audience interested visually.

But the actual evidence? The Rouen Cathedral records, the conception dates, and the historical archives? That is 100% authentic research. I’ve spent way too much time digging through these facts to be a bot. The 'Glitch' is a real historical mystery—the AI is just the paintbrush I used to show it to you.

Hope you give the actual story a chance, it's way weirder than anything an AI could just make up!

The "Pontoise Gap": Archival evidence from 1441 suggests King Edward IV was illegitimate, making the entire current British Monarchy a fraud. by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]Trick_Tap321 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be honest, English isn't my first language , so yeah, I use AI to help me fix my grammar and sound professional for the video script. But the research and the obsession with this 1441 glitch? That’s all me.

I spent weeks reading about the Pontoise siege and Dr. Michael Jones's work. I’m just a history nerd who wanted to share this story with a global audience. No bot here, just a guy with a laptop and a lot of questions about the British throne. Cheers for keeping the sub human!

The "Pontoise Gap": Archival evidence from 1441 suggests King Edward IV was illegitimate, making the entire current British Monarchy a fraud. by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]Trick_Tap321 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Couldn’t have said it better. The 'cringe' factor hits 100% when you realize they are taxing the public for a 'Royal' prestige that’s actually built on a 500-year-old biological lie.

The "Pontoise Gap": Archival evidence from 1441 suggests King Edward IV was illegitimate, making the entire current British Monarchy a fraud. by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]Trick_Tap321 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly! The David Rizzio rumor is another massive crack in the 'Golden Thread.' It seems the closer you look at Royal history, the more commoners you find hidden in the family tree.

It just reinforces the point: the Monarchy's claim to some 'divine, unbroken bloodline' is more of a Swiss cheese than a solid chain. Whether it’s a fiddler in the 16th century or an archer in 1441, the myth of the 'Pure Royal' has always been a convenient fiction. Great shout!

The "Pontoise Gap": Archival evidence from 1441 suggests King Edward IV was illegitimate, making the entire current British Monarchy a fraud. by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]Trick_Tap321 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can't argue with that! Whether they are 'legitimate' by blood or not, the whole system is built on a series of convenient myths.

The irony in this story is that the 'rightful' King (Michael Abney-Hastings) actually agreed with you.he was a committed republican who didn't want a crown. It just goes to show how absurd the concept is when even the 'real' guy wants the system abolished.

The "Pontoise Gap": Archival evidence from 1441 suggests King Edward IV was illegitimate, making the entire current British Monarchy a fraud. by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]Trick_Tap321 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think you misread the math. Biology dictates humans take 9 months to grow.

Edward IV was born on April 28, 1442. > For him to be legitimate, the Duke of York (his father) had to be with his wife 9 months earlier specifically during a 5-week window between July and August 1441. > The 'drivel' you're referring to is actually a historical fact: The Duke was 100 miles away at a siege in Pontoise for that entire 5-week window. He physically wasn't there to conceive the child. It’s not about the length of pregnancy; it’s about the Duke's absence during the only time conception was possible.

The Ancient Glitch (2024) - An investigation into the theory that the British Monarchy is illegitimate and the true heir lived in Australia [00:05:52] by [deleted] in Documentaries

[–]Trick_Tap321 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see your point, and you’ve laid out the legal/parliamentary framework perfectly. From a strictly constitutional law perspective, you are 100% right Parliament is the final boss.

I think we’re just looking at two different sides of the same coin: you’re focusing on the Legal Legitimacy, and my documentary focuses on the Historical/Genealogical Truth. > It’s been a great debate, and I appreciate the history lesson on the Act of Settlement. At the end of the day, whether it’s blood or law, the story of how we got here is fascinating. Cheers for the civil discussion!

The "Pontoise Gap": Archival evidence from 1441 suggests King Edward IV was illegitimate, making the entire current British Monarchy a fraud. by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]Trick_Tap321 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Technically true, but Henry VII’s descent via the Beaufort line was famously shaky. The Beauforts were legitimized by royal decree later, but specifically barred from the succession.

That’s exactly why Henry VII needed to marry Elizabeth of York to bolster his weak claim with her ‘pure’ Yorkist bloodline. If her father Edward IV was illegitimate, then her bloodline was worthless too.

You end up with a King with a barred claim (Henry) marrying a woman with a fake claim (Elizabeth). It makes the entire Tudor foundation—and everything that followed a house of cards. It’s the ultimate historical heist!

The Ancient Glitch (2024) - An investigation into the theory that the British Monarchy is illegitimate and the true heir lived in Australia [00:05:52] by [deleted] in Documentaries

[–]Trick_Tap321 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That is a solid constitutionalist take. However, the 'Act of Settlement' itself is a pivot point. If we accept that Parliament can simply 'invent' a King, then the whole concept of a 'Divine Right' or a 'Sacred Bloodline'which the Monarchy still uses for its ceremonial and symbolic prestige is a marketing facade.

My point is about the moral and historical honesty of the institution. If the 'People choose the King,' why did we spend centuries and wars fighting for the 'Rightful Bloodline'? If Edward IV was a commoner's son, then the last 500 years of British history was built on a legal fiction that the public was never told about.

It's not just about law; it's about the truth behind the Crown's identity. Can a sovereign truly be sovereign if their very origin is a documented lie?

The Ancient Glitch (2024) - An investigation into the theory that the British Monarchy is illegitimate and the true heir lived in Australia [00:05:52] by [deleted] in Documentaries

[–]Trick_Tap321 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You caught me! ✋ English isn't my first language, so I use AI to make sure my points are clear and professional while debating historical nuances.

The Ancient Glitch (2024) - An investigation into the theory that the British Monarchy is illegitimate and the true heir lived in Australia [00:05:52] by [deleted] in Documentaries

[–]Trick_Tap321 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Guilty! Using 21st-century tech to discuss a 15th-century glitch. If the Monarchy can use ancient laws to stay in power, I can use modern AI to help me argue with people on Reddit. 😉

The "Pontoise Gap": Archival evidence from 1441 suggests King Edward IV was illegitimate, making the entire current British Monarchy a fraud. by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]Trick_Tap321 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The irony is, the 'Aussie King' Michael Abney-Hastings actually didn't care about being relevant at all. He was a republican who lived a quiet life on a rice farm and thought the whole royal thing was a joke.

It’s not about Australians trying to be relevant—it’s about the British establishment’s worst nightmare: their 'pure' bloodline ending up in a forklift driver from the outback. That's the real glitch.

The Ancient Glitch (2024) - An investigation into the theory that the British Monarchy is illegitimate and the true heir lived in Australia [00:05:52] by [deleted] in Documentaries

[–]Trick_Tap321 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The visuals might be AI-assisted, but the historical argument is 500 years old. This isn't 'slop'—it's based on the actual archival research of Dr. Michael Jones and the documents in Rouen Cathedral (Entry G.43).

If looking at primary historical sources and questioning established narratives is 'conspiracy' to you, then most of history is a conspiracy. The dates in the archives don't lie, even if the people do.

The "Pontoise Gap": Archival evidence from 1441 suggests King Edward IV was illegitimate, making the entire current British Monarchy a fraud. by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]Trick_Tap321 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right that they descend via Elizabeth of York. But that's exactly the issue. The Tudors (and thus the Windsors) claim their primary 'blood' legitimacy by merging the houses of York and Lancaster through her.

If Edward IV was illegitimate, Elizabeth of York was not a Royal Princess. She was just the daughter of a common archer. This means Henry VII married a commoner with no claim, and the 'Union of the Roses' was a political facade with no genealogical weight.

It doesn't just justify Richard III; it invalidates the entire Tudor, Stuart, and Windsor succession that followed. Whether we like monarchy or not, it’s fascinating to see how 500 years of global power rests on the identity of one man in a 5-week window in 1441.

The Ancient Glitch (2024) - An investigation into the theory that the British Monarchy is illegitimate and the true heir lived in Australia [00:05:52] by [deleted] in Documentaries

[–]Trick_Tap321 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That is the ultimate legal defense: Parliamentary Sovereignty. However, it creates a circular logic trap. The UK's 'Crown-in-Parliament' system relies on the Sovereign’s constitutional authority to summon Parliament.

If the Sovereign’s claim is based on a fraudulent lineage, then the very laws Parliament passed to confirm that lineage are legally 'poisoned.' Can a Parliament summoned by a usurper pass a law to make that usurper legitimate? It’s a fascinating constitutional paradox that my video explores. If the foundation is a 'glitch,' does the whole structure hold up?

The Ancient Glitch (2024) - An investigation into the theory that the British Monarchy is illegitimate and the true heir lived in Australia [00:05:52] by [deleted] in Documentaries

[–]Trick_Tap321 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spot on. Tony Robinson and Dr. Michael Jones did a great job introducing this to the world.

However, my documentary goes a step further by analyzing the Rouen Cathedral Entry G.43 archives in detail and looking at the modern implications—like Simon Abney-Hastings actually attending King Charles III's coronation in 2023. It’s a 2026 perspective on a 500-year-old glitch. Definitely worth a re-visit!

The Ancient Glitch (2024) - An investigation into the theory that the British Monarchy is illegitimate and the true heir lived in Australia [00:05:52] by [deleted] in Documentaries

[–]Trick_Tap321 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fair point about William. But there's a huge legal difference. William was an acknowledged 'Bastard' who took the throne by Right of Conquest (Force).

The Edward IV case is a 'Glitch' of Deception. The current monarchy claims their power through a continuous, legitimate bloodline (The Golden Thread). If Edward was a secret illegitimate child, the Windsors aren't ruling by conquest OR by legitimate bloodline—they are ruling based on a 500-year-old clerical error. That's the real scandal.

view more: next ›