This is Richard Dunne, the player who has scored the most top flight own goals (ten in twenty seasons) since the beginning of the Premier League.
“David” is already challenging that total in a shorter time frame. Here are some of his career highlights:
1) Claiming that “Perkin” confessed his imposture to a Scottish Bishop, many years before that cleric was born.
2) Claiming that Henry VII was a senior Lancastrian, when he was junior to Richard III in that respect, being descended from a younger sister of Richard’s ancestress.
3) Claiming that the “Lincoln Roll” detailed Edward IV’s sons to have died as children, when it didn’t.
4) Claiming that Edward V and his siblings were legitimate because secret marriages were automatically illegal, except that his parents also “married” in secret. This part of the Fourth Lateran Council’s findings was frequently ignored – thankyou to Esther for locating it.
5) Claiming that Henry VII was Earl of Richmond from 1471-85, when the Complete Peerage shows him to have been under attainder.
6) Claiming that Catherine de Valois spoke in Parliament about her “marriage” to Owain Tudor after her death and centuries before any woman addressed an English or British Parliament.
7) Claimed that Henry VII’s supposed descent from Owain Glyn Dwr’s servant was as valid as Richard III’s descent from Llewellyn Fawr.
8) Claimed that “Perkin” directly accused Richard III of killing Edward V, whilst the transcript shows that he did not and had many uncles.
9) Claiming that Henry VI arranged Margaret Beaufort’s 1455 marriage to Edmund “Tudor” because there was no Lancastrian heir, even though his own apparent son had been born two whole years earlier.
10) Claiming that the “Lincoln Roll” was compiled for the eponymous Earl, who died in 1487, yet it frequently mentions much later dates.
While we are at it, we hereby confirm that we did not invent “David” to make counter-productive Aunt Sally comments. Does his Tardis need a service?
murreyandblue 
Which David are we discussing , Starkey or Pilling ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neither.
LikeLike
This shows the importance of checking your sources.
LikeLike
Quite.
LikeLike
When it comes to the “rights” of the illegitimate Beauforts, they were not true Lancastrians at all, because though they descended from John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, said Gaunt only had the title because of his first marriage, to Blanche of Lancaster. So Blanche’s descendants, Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI, were proper Lancastrians. The baseborn Beauforts sneaked in, even though they descended from Gaunt’s third wife and mistress, Katherine de Roet. And legitimising them after the event did not change this.
After Henry VI, if the actual Lancastrian line were to have been continued, it would have been through the Portuguese offspring of Philippa of Lancaster, Gaunt’s elder daughter by Blanche of Lancaster. Except, of course, that the Lancastrian line had never been the true one. They usurped Richard II’s throne. The rightful line was the House of York, with its superior descent from Edward III.
Gaunt was a hypocrite. He tried his damnedest to persuade Edward III to see to it that the throne could not descend through a woman. This was to prevent the House of Mortimer from claiming the crown. The Mortimer Earl of March’s descent was from the daughter of Edward III’s second son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence. Gaunt was the third son, so lower in the pecking order. Of course, staking a claim to the throne of Castile through his own second wife was another matter entirely for Gaunt. A hypocrite of the highest order.
I can understand Gaunt’s wish to legitimise his children by Katherine, whom he clearly loved. But I cannot forgive his two-faced, underhanded scheming to steal a throne that was not his to steal!
Hmm, a so-called Lancastrian who schemed to steal a throne that was not his? And to do this through the claims of a woman? Step forward Margaret Beaufort and her son, Henry Tudor…!
LikeLiked by 2 people