Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,581
Reply with quote  #1 
Peter, IIRC, James VI of Scotland was not the 'legitimate heir' to the Throne of England on the death of Queen Elizabeth, but for the life of me, I cannot remember the details. Arguing with a 'Jacobite' and I need them!

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,345
Reply with quote  #2 
Really?  He was the senior direct heir of Margaret Tudor, and descended from Henry VII's eldest daughter through both his parents.  How could he possibly not be the legitimate heir?  The alternate heirs were the descendants of Margaret's younger sister Mary Tudor, whose claims would be junior to James would they not?  The only thing excluding the Stuarts was will of Henry VIII which I don't believe would have the force of law or be adequate to challenge the seniority of their claims.  If James VI was not a legitimate heir, then neither is the current Queen so that just cannot be right...

Am I wrong Peter?

__________________
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.)
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,581
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist
Really?  He was the senior direct heir of Margaret Tudor, and descended from Henry VII's eldest daughter through both his parents.  How could he possibly not be the legitimate heir?  The alternate heirs were the descendants of Margaret's younger sister Mary Tudor, whose claims would be junior to James would they not?  The only thing excluding the Stuarts was will of Henry VIII which I don't believe would have the force of law or be adequate to challenge the seniority of their claims.  If James VI was not a legitimate heir, then neither is the current Queen so that just cannot be right...

Am I wrong Peter?


I believe there was some question regarding his birthplace. If I recall, the law required the King to have been born in England, which, of course, he had not been.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #4 
The succession was controlled by the will of Henry VIII. Normally this would have no effect, England and Ireland not being chattels that can be left as part of a man's estate. but Henry had obtained an Act of Parliament authorising him to determine the succession in this way. In the will, he named his three children and their issue if any to follow him in the order Edward, Mary, Elizabeth. His daughters were both by law illegitimate but named nonetheless. In default of issue from his children, he declared that the senior descendant of his younger sister Mary should succeed, excluding the descent of his older sister Margaret altogether due to her foreign marriages.

This was law, like any other law. The only question about it was that the statute required the King to sign the will in his own hand, and it has never been established whether he did (due to his poor health a stamp had been made of his signature which had been used on the majority of documents for some time, the King just reviewing and approving each month a record of the occasions on which the stamp had been used).

However apart from a slight difficulty at the death of Edward VI the succession took place according to the will, so it may be regarded as established that it was law. Another difficulty obviously came as Elizabeth's reign went on. She was certainly young enough initially for children, but as the world knows was determined never to have any. Nor (she lacked her father's powers to determine the succession, which were specific to him, but could no doubt have acquired them had she wished) did she ever name an heir, for good and sufficient reason.

The problem was that following the will led into a minefield, probably before they were even invented. The majority of Mary's descendants had a technical illegitimacy in their line, leading to extreme doubt as to who the candidate should be. And they appear to have been an unprepossessing and thankfully not ambitious bunch. On the other hand the representative of Margaret's line, senior in any case, was the bright young King of Scots, a proven ruler and provided with heirs. Elizabeth never met him but carried on a voluminous and mostly affectionate correspondence and it was obvious if not explicit that she favoured him. The younger Cecil read the signs and began working for James's peaceful accession. By the time Elizabeth finally died, there was no thought of anyone else.

And the law? It was simply and totally ignored. There are apparently a very few people today who have taken note of this and favour one of two representatives of Elizabeth's aunt Mary. One of two because there was a divorce at some point in the line, the possible heir coming from a later remarriage, and the more conservative faction hold that there have been no valid laws passed in England since Elizabeth's death. Since divorce wasn't legal then it isn't now, hence that heir was illegitimate. Jacobites should be envious, really, there are actually people way more unrealistic than them.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #5 
While writing all that Ethiomonarchist posted, so I need to say that naturally I regard James I and VI as in every way legitimate King of England and Ireland as well as Scotland, by consent of Parliament and people. And Elizabeth II as his successor according to law, the law by which he should not have succeeded having become a dead letter by the mere fact of his accession, universally accepted within and without the country. The point of all this is that Jacobites look at the male-preference primogeniture of today (but alas not tomorrow, and itself written in no statute) as if it had been delivered on Mount Sinai engraved on a stone tablet. Not so.

Jovan is not wrong, the law instituted by Henry VIII also required heirs to be English-born (which is why Arbella Stuart had some though not many backers, since she was and James was born in Edinburgh). This though had no place in English tradition at all and was a dead letter before it was ever mailed, several Kings before having been born abroad. Like the rest of what was officially the succession law it was flouted by James's accession, and that was the end of it.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #6 
You've gotten my interest....

Is there still what would be the 'lawful heir' if the will had been followed (I gather there is, the one backed by the 'more conservative party)?

If so, who?
Thanks!


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,581
Reply with quote  #7 
Thank you, Peter! I knew we had discussed it before but I could not remember the details and had no idea where to begin searching the forum. That's exactly what I wanted to know.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #8 
I set everything out at length and in detail so that you could just copy it if you wanted, omitting my gratuitous asides at your pleasure. Happy if it helped.

Mary Tudor, Queen of France and later Duchess of Suffolk, had two children that survived to adulthood and had children themselves, Lady Frances and Lady Eleanor Brandon. Lady Frances, the elder, married Henry Grey, Marquess of Dorset and had three daughters, the famous Lady Jane Grey and the less famous Ladies Catherine and Mary. Only the middle daughter Catherine had children herself. All three were dead before Elizabeth, so her son Edward Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp was heir under the will. Except for the slight difficulty that Catherine's marriage, to the Earl of Hertford, had been without permission or knowledge of the Queen, who was justly enraged that someone so close to the succession should flout her like that and had the marriage invalidated and the putative spouses imprisoned in the Tower (where they apparently cohabited, so the confinement was not all that strait). So technically Seymour was illegitimate. Subsequently James I and VI revalidated the marriage, and Charles II reversed the attainder on the Dukedom of Somerset, allowing Seymour's son to succeed to that.

Were that the whole story then perhaps no one would look elsewhere than to the representative of Lady Catherine Grey for the present-day heir under the will. But it is not. When challenged Hertford and Grey could provide no evidence that they had ever been married at all, as opposed to pretending to be married to avoid her being utterly disgraced when she became pregnant. So firstly James I's reversal of his predecessor's decision meant nothing if he is not regarded as lawful King himself, and secondly he could in any case hardly revalidate a marriage that never happened.

So we go back to Lady Eleanor Brandon, all the descent of Lady Frances being through her dubiously legitimate grandson Edward Seymour. She married Henry Clifford, 2nd Earl of Cumberland, and died aged 28 leaving a daughter, Lady Margaret Clifford. She married Henry Stanley, 4th Earl of Derby, and died in 1596. Her eldest son Ferdinando, 5th Earl of Derby, was already dead leaving only daughters, so the heir to Elizabeth under the will was, with the Seymours ruled out, his eldest daughter Lady Anne Stanley. Her posterity is believed extinct after 1826, though this cannot be proved beyond doubt.

Granting that, one looks to the representative of her sister Lady Frances Stanley. This presently is William Child-Villiers, 10th Earl of Jersey. However, these ultra-legitimists (if they exist, over which I have my doubts) disqualify him because his father was son of the third marriage of his grandfather the 9th Earl, the first wife being still alive when the third marriage took place. Therefore to this really quite heroically convoluted way of thinking his father was illegitimate and he ruled out. The first marriage had produced only a daughter, Caroline, current heiress under the will given all these conditions and assumptions. She married Gilbert Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, 6th Earl of Minto, and is, ironically enough, divorced and remarried, twice; at present to the Honourable James Ogilvy, making her Lady Caroline Ogilvy. The heir to the 'claim' is her son by the first marriage Timothy Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, 7th Earl of Minto. Part 2 of this Wikipedia article gives the 'succession' in detail, as does the paper to which it gives a further link.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #9 
Thank you.




__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.