' they may have not been Edward IVs children, however he was married to their mother, therefore in the eyes of the Church, and the law of the land [as it then stood]they were Edwards! Therefore the claim of illigitamancy does not hold water'…?
Sailor Ron – are you American? I only ask because the succession of Kings is very specific and its all about a thing called 'Royal Blood' - the King can adopt whomsever he likes but they are NOT legitimate heirs to the Royal line without the ' Sang Real' which has to pass from their father. I know they're changing the law on primogeniture but in those days the law was such that Edward effectively had no legitimate heirs. Richard was the main man!