Can you provide some more context here? What Australian man?

Anyways, the Windsor claim goes back in direct lineal succession pretty much all the way to Queen Victoria**, and indirectly it goes all the way back to George I (I mean, theoretically it goes "indirectly" back all the way to William the Conqueror and even beyond that, but the jump from Queen Anne to King George I is a pretty big indirect leap, so its a good stopping point).

At what point in this succession is this supposed Australian person supposed to have branched off?

** Elizabeth II is the eldest daughter of George VI (who had no sons), who is the second eldest son of George V (Edward VIII, who was the oldest son and King between the two, abdicated), who is the second eldest son of Edward VII (Prince Albert Victor, the oldest son, predeceased both his father and grandmother without issue), who is the eldest son of Victoria.

Ok, now that I've done the research a little more, here's how I think this works out. Others with any expertise please correct me.

So the claim here is that Edward IV is illegitimate, and therefore you should skip over his line. The problem here is that already happened for all practical purposes. To understand this, imagine the difference in succession whether or not we recognize Edward IV.

Under this theory, we should skip Edward IV entirely, and therefore in 1461 the king should be the next oldest son of Richard, Duke of York. That would be his son George. So instead of Edward IV, we have George I. Ok, so what happens next? Well, George I died in 1478. According to the rules of succession, his son is next in line. Well, he has 2 sons - Edward and Richard. They are the heirs to the throne.

The problem with this weird theory is that this is what happened anyways! Edward IV died without issue in 1483. Since his brother George was dead, the next in line was...Edward, George's son!

Well, we all know what happened - Richard, the younger brother of Edward IV and George, just had his 2 nephews locked in the tower (and murdered), and he takes the throne as Richard III in 1483. The only difference is if we acknowledge Edward IV was illegitimate and pretend George I ruled instead, then Richard III becomes king in 1478 instead of 1483. So he gets an extra 5 years on the throne before being dethroned by Henry VII.

What am I missing here?

Just to throw a spanner in the works - if you continue the royal line from the Stuarts, Elizabeth II is not Queen and the current ruler of England is King Francis II (otherwise known as Franz, Duke of Bavaria). He currently divides his time between the various palaces still owned by the Bavarian ex-Royal family. He doesn't speak openly about the fact that he would be King of England if the line continued as it should have. He does, however, lawfully have the leadership of the Bavarian royal family and does style himself (legally) with the surname Herzog von Bayern - Duke of Bavaria. His main residence is Nymphenburg Palace which, if you click the link, you will see is rather a magnificent palace.

I have removed a large amount of speculative posts from this thread. Some of the posters contradicted themselves from post to post, people were arguing over off-topic things, and no one had any sources.

Any further posts in this thread that do not contain proper sources will be removed.