Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,803
Reply with quote  #1 
I realize I've been rather neglectful of my own forum recently. I'm sorry. This is the first time I've actually logged in awhile, and I missed some private messages, which is inexcusable. I suppose lately I've been devoting more of my online monarchist communication energies to Facebook and Twitter, but that's no excuse since this is my own forum. One member of this forum and I had a falling out on Facebook but that's no reason for both of us not to remain active contributors here. I see I missed a big thread about Mad Monarchist (who I've known online since 2001), among other important topics. I realized today that I missed an online monarchist environment where no one is going to deny the legitimacy of Queen Elizabeth II (since that's against the rules here). I'll try to do better.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,811
Reply with quote  #2 
No need to apologise, I'm just grateful that you continue to provide the forum for us, as I'm sure we all are. To see you around more would definitely be nice, though. Apart from idiot Ricardians recyling his 500-year-old lies, most of the few people who are monarchists and deny the Queen's legitimate right to reign do so on the grounds that she is not the lineal representative of William I. Which she isn't, the Duke of Bavaria is. I've been thinking about this lately, and here is a list of English monarchs before 1688 but after 1066 who were on accession also not the heir of line; William II, Henry I, Stephen, John, Henrys IV, V and VI, Richard III, Henry VII, and (arguably) Mary I and Elizabeth I.

You will notice that the list includes the first three monarchs after William I, so I don't think anyone could claim that from the moment of his victory at Hastings the succession became irrevocably fixed. And indeed apart from the great Elizabeth, the best of them all, the legitimacy of none of these is ever questioned. Yet not to question admits that the succession can deviate from the strict line and the resulting monarchs still be accepted. So what was so different about 1688? Nothing, I would say.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,148
Reply with quote  #3 
I think the people who question Elizabeth II's legitimacy that have annoyed our Theodore in this case are those who reject her because she is not Roman Catholic.  There was a rather ridiculous discussion of this in a certain facebook group to which both of us belong.  It's a annoying to be faced with such a Taliban approach within Christianity. [rolleyes]
__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,058
Reply with quote  #4 
Peter, I suppose the issue is what does legitimate a monarch? In many of the cases you bring up, there were serious rival claimants. It's a very interesting issue. But I too don't understand a British monarchist who would seriously entertain removing Her Majesty (or bypassing HRH, for that matter).
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,811
Reply with quote  #5 
My view is always that the only justification for removing a monarch is if their continued rule is unconscionable. A tracing of lineage can never be a good enough reason for risking war and bloodshed. Further, a monarch who has established him or herself and governed well enough is thereby legitimate. On questions of which monarchs of the past qualify, I would say those who are conventionally counted. If someone reigned for long enough and everyone at the time thought they were King, or Queen as the case may be, I don't see why we centuries later should decide we know better.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,803
Reply with quote  #6 
I think it's usually Americans (though one prominent online Jacobite lives in Canada) who seem to think they are entitled to judge HM's legitimacy. Obviously they will not be doing so here.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,811
Reply with quote  #7 
It occurs to me that I forgot someone in my list above, the person in question being Henry II, a remarkable ruler and a great man in his way. He on accession was by today's way of thinking second in line after his mother the Empress Matilda, which makes it the first four monarchs after the Conqueror that were not when they came to the throne his lineal heir. I excluded Edward III, whose father Edward II remained alive at his son's accession, on the grounds that Edward II's deposition was legitimate and Edward III was anyway natural heir, and could have excluded Henry II on similar grounds, but didn't; I just forgot him. So I suppose if Henry II were included Edward III ought to be also.

Others people might wonder about are William II and Henry I; their elder brother Robert remained alive throughout William II's reign and through nearly all that of Henry I. Robert incidentally had one legitimate child, his son William Clito, but he died six years before his father and was himself childless. Otherwise, it is quite possible that England's throne would never have been occupied by William I's heir of line! I think the rest are fairly obvious apart from Mary I and Elizabeth I; both were on accession technically illegitimate. This did not affect their succession rights, which had been enshrined in statute by their father, but would mean they were not as such heirs of line. Catholics of course will dismiss Mary's illegitimacy with scorn but insist on that of Elizabeth, yet both had the same legal basis.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.