Talk about your Royal scandals, this one is a real beaut: "... at the time of Edward IV's conception, his parents were 160km apart ... unless, of course, the young heir was born like two months overdue.

Yup, that's 8 weeks, and as is known by any experienced parents out there, there's no friggin' way. Of course, there has long been rumoured a more mundane explanation which has perhaps now been corrobberated by church records uncovered by medieval scholar, Dr Michael Jones. The story goes, roughly:

(c.1441) when Richard, the Duke of York, and his wife Cicely Neville were in France, Cicely took a French archer named "Blaybourne" to her bed. Warwick, Cicely's own nephew, was unchivalrous enough to profess this Blaybourne to be the true father of Edward IV (edwardthefifth@yahoo)

Which means the rights to the Crown of England would fall to the descendents of the Duke of Clarence of which the 14th Earl of Loudon is the front-runner.

So what's to become of the beloved pretender false-Royals currently in Buckingham? Since the true heir King Mick the First (Michael Abney-Hastings) has no intentions of leaving the barbies of Jerilderie (Australia), and with all the school portraits, the money, and 460 years of parade banners and ribbon cuttings, it's my best uneducated guess, if they can't just sweep the whole scandal silently aside once again, we'll finish up with the current monarch, stow the jewels in the National Archives, then quietly pass the title to Charles who will surreptitiously dissolve the tradition and avoid the whole farse of a sordid mess.