Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 3      Prev   1   2   3
DeJure

Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #31 

Interesting topic: P

When people talk about succession laws I always think of that line by Captain Barbosa when talking about parley in Pirates of the Caribbean... "More of the guideline then a rule"

Essentially, a claim is whatever is convenient at the time. Whether it’s disallowing Catholic Monarch's, skipping illegitimate children or even selecting a Bastard from Normandy. It comes down to whether you've got the welly to remove anyone else with a claim, fabricated or not.

I think someone pointed out how an illegitimate got skipped (Dafydd over his older brother), when under Welsh-Gavelkind, a son is a son (Got to remember Hywel only wrote these laws down, Dinefwr itself was a product of a type of Gavelkind). Id hazard that was the Welsh culture appeasing English culture, as I said- more of a guideline which many kings of many nations have altered for their own convenience.

Anyway, reguarding female heirs... going back to Dinefwr, Rhodri plonked his second son Cadell under the crown of Seisllwg, which was belonging to Cadell's mothers estate suggesting a woman had no claim but her male children would (That and Rhodri had the welly). The fact he didn’t put his oldest son under both crowns kind of says there was an inconvenience of some kind, or gavelkind existed in some form before this point- prior to Hywel (Just about: P).

Essentially, Welsh Succession laws are a mess, and as I said: a guideline.

I guess I’ll move onto modern claims. Cunedda, was progenitor of Aberffraw, and also descended from one Paternus of the Scarlet Robe... Id assume there's more than one Coel, so they could be descended from one... But I only see a Roman official there and no definitive proof of a King prior to Cunedda, and even if I missed one Cunedda was supposedly given Gwynedd by Magnus Maximus or Vortigern, showing one or both held superiority over him.

Anyway, Kings prior to Cunedda or not, Vortigern was a High King and senior to Cunedda, so it makes sense his descendants would be too. That would suggest primarily Gwytherion (As Powys), and Lords of Tredegar (As Gwent). That would assume Angharad ferch Morgan inherited her father’s claim as Lord of Caerleon, and therefor like Cadell ap Rhodri her son would inherit in reference to the Morgans, though on that note I do believe this only happened as there we no male heirs in close relation, couldnt tell you if it was the same for Rhodri and Cadell. All hail Pirate-King Sir Harry Morgan! (Sorry I meant Privateer

I know someone brought up "Imperial claims" or whatever. That’s just an irrelevant mess. How many Coel's, how they fitted with Constantius Chlorus, Constantine and Magnus Maximus is stuff no one will ever know. I've even read somewhere that Magnus Maximus was Constantine’s illegitimate son’s illegitimate son. Just stuff we'll never know. Does give us an idea of Roman inheritance laws which would have given us a good idea how the post Roman Brits may have conducted themselves though. Crispus was recognised as an equal son to that of his father's other sons.

So, essentially all you need is a claim, welly and some luck. Like William I/the Conqueror/the Bastard

NeasOlc

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 161
Reply with quote  #32 

 

Quote:

When people talk about succession laws I always think of that line by Captain Barbosa when talking about parley in Pirates of the Caribbean... "More of the guideline then a rule"

Essentially, a claim is whatever is convenient at the time. Whether it’s disallowing Catholic Monarch's, skipping illegitimate children or even selecting a Bastard from Normandy. It comes down to whether you've got the welly to remove anyone else with a claim, fabricated or not.


Amen. Especially some periods of the middle ages, more often than not the King was whatever lord was powerful enough to call himself that and had enough loyal vassals/exterior recognition to support him. He could try make a son his heir, sure, but most of his vassals couldn't give half a rats butt about later notions of divine right and primogeniture and wouldn't bat an eye at deposing a weak liege or swearing fealty to someone else.

I have no doubt in any case that it would be possible to find a number of claimants to a purely theoretical native Welsh monarchy, descended from about a gazillion medieval petty princes, if you had a lot of time on your hands. There are for example, a number of known descendents of Owain Glyndwr (maternally). I bring up his name because, primogeniture tree-charts aside, I'm willing to be that his descendants would probably have a more legitimate claim in the eyes of the average Joe in Cardiff than say, a neatly primogeniture descendant of Prince No-Name of the petty 9th century principality of Nowhere (see above, on medieval legitimacy).

I sort of missed the argument that apparently went on earlier, but a native Prince of Wales does not mean an utter break from the British Monarchy and the ensuing apocalyptic doom. Vassal titles still exist (you can find a bucketload of Dukes of Somewhereorother in the UK the last time I checked, not to mention a bunch of clan chiefs and other officially recognised nobility). Having a native Welsh Prince whose title is bestowed by the King/Queen might not be a bad thing for the popularity of monarchical institutions in general*, without compromising the legitimacy of the current UK monarchy (as the title, the last time I checked, is not strictly inherited but bestowed at will by the monarch, hence leaving him/her technically free to hand it out if it ever came to that extreme, without having to strip it from someone):

Quote:
Clearly no one now has any claim to the title unless it was bestowed by the English/British monarch


I would tend to agree, but it is for exactly this reason that a native Welsh monarch would be vaguely feasible (see above). After the succession (or death) of Charles, who I will agree is the current legitimate holder, the title will be -in the most technical sense possible- in limbo until he decides what to do with it.

 *I've spent some amount of time on Welsh internet forums over the years, for better or for worse- the main complaint I see about the monarchy and the Prince of Wales is not about his character or the idea of a monarchy itself, but about the fact that he's an Englishman. It's kind of sad of course, seeing how the current Prince has expressed support for the maintenance of the Welsh identity and language and and seems to have the interest of Wales at heart, but what can you do. Bestowing the principality on a Welshman next time around would shut the haters up pretty quickly at least.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #33 
Your first paragraph after the quote is way off. The only person without some sort of hereditary claim, however weak, to muscle his way onto the the throne since Saxon times (when it was genuinely elective, so this procedure was not necessarily without legitimacy) was Oliver Cromwell, who didn't call himself king but took every other trapping of the monarchy. No 'lord' ever did so, or attempted to do so. After 619 years, James II and VII was actually the lineal representative of William the Conqueror. And the last monarch who could claim that, but just the fact that he was able to after all those centuries demonstrates the inaccuracy of your picture.

I disagree with the rest of what you say, and don't actually think the idea would be practicable, or even popular in Wales. But these are matters of opinion, not fact. Just for information, the title Prince of Wales is a peerage of the United Kingdom, and like any other such peerage is extinguished upon being merged with the Crown. Being extinct, it is then available to be conferred again. As for seven centuries it has been, exclusively to the heir apparent of the monarch of England, which is what I expect will continue.
DeJure

Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #34 
I think a Welsh Monarchy is strongly tied to Welsh Nationalism... Welsh Nationalism hasnt quite found its feet yet in relation to what the Welsh people actually want... At the end of the day if the Welsh people recognise a native Prince, there's not alot anyone can do about it. Its all about circumstances... Welsh people arnt going to care a great deal about English peerage if they say some ones their Prince.

Thats assuming that Wales would call any Monarch a Prince...
NeasOlc

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 161
Reply with quote  #35 
Quote:
Your first paragraph after the quote is way off. The only person without some sort of hereditary claim, however weak, to muscle his way onto the the throne since Saxon times (when it was genuinely elective, so this procedure was not necessarily without legitimacy) was Oliver Cromwell, who didn't call himself king but took every other trapping of the monarchy. No 'lord' ever did so, or attempted to do so. After 619 years, James II and VII was actually the lineal representative of William the Conqueror. And the last monarch who could claim that, but just the fact that he was able to after all those centuries demonstrates the inaccuracy of your picture.

I was not specifically talking about the English monarchy- I should have been more specific. Things like I described did indeed happen elsewhere in Europe in the Middle Ages, generally in more unstable areas (the Duchy of Brittany and the Kingdom of Scotland both had people muscled into power with dubious claims- the former on more than one occasion).
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #36 
Fair enough. I don't know that much about Brittany, though I do know there was a lengthy succession dispute and, as I recall, the side with the weaker claim won in the end. Happens. Your remarks are certainly true of early Scotland, but it didn't happen that much after David the Saint, who was a long time ago, or at all after Robert I, who fits the bill himself but nevertheless as the architect of Scottish independence is rightly regarded as a national hero and unquestioned King. Lots of monarchs after him were murdered, or killed in battle with rebels, but the succession order was never questioned; just, ahem, accelerated. But if you want examples of this kind I would say Scandinavia is a fertile field, succession there was chaotic before eventually stabilising (somewhat) around the fifteenth century. It's hard to beat Norway for this but Sweden had a good try, and while Denmark comes third it sure had its moments.
NeasOlc

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 161
Reply with quote  #37 
Ah yes, the kerfuffle in Brittany that your describing was in the mid 1300s if I am not mistaken. It was even more unstable in earlier times though (900s, 1000s), where a number of Dukes/Princes were outright dumped and replaced by nominal Breton vassals.

Wallachia is another place that comes to mind (for a while there in the 15th century the place was a revolving door of violent usurpers).
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.