Absurd historical reactions

Remove this Banner Ad

Proud SJW

Cancelled
Aug 27, 2011
3,147
3,357
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Was thinking if Britain still had the old rules of monarchy, ie where the firstborn of the monarch succeeded him, unless he was wimpy in battle then it was ‘on’ for all challengers.

if will and harry weren’t such good mates, harry would kick wills and Charles areas

http://www.news.com.au/technology/i...d/news-story/0dd8b31d35af7a07d8a1ec4dfc7748e2
What?
There have been maybe half a dozen usurpations in recorded English history, and of those, very few by a sibling.
And the majority of those would have been in that tumultuous 15th century period.
 
Last edited:
Oct 17, 2000
18,955
16,608
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
What?
There have been maybe half a dozen recorded usurpations in recorded English history, and of those, very few by a sibling.
And the majority of those would have been in that tumultuous 15th century period.

Yep. Before 1066, English monarchs were elected by the Witan, usually from the House of Wessex

From 1066
  • William the Conqueror took the throne of England by conquest
  • Stephen's usurpation in 1154 was over his female cousin Maud.
  • Henry IV's usurpation in 1399 was over his male cousin Richard II, after being exiled by said king.
  • Edward IV's usurpation in 1461 over his third cousin once removed Henry VI was part of the dynastic wars between the Houses of Lancaster and York.
  • Richard III, it could be argued usurped the throne from his nephew Edward V in 1483, but Parliament declared Edward illegitimate meaning he was ineligible to inherit the throne.
  • Henry VII the first of the House of Tudor in 1485 took the throne of England by conquest over his distant cousin Richard III.
  • William III took the throne from his uncle/father-in-law James II in 1688 in the Glorious Revolution
 

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Yep. Before 1066, English monarchs were elected by the Witan, usually from the House of Wessex

From 1066
  • William the Conqueror took the throne of England by conquest
  • Stephen's usurpation in 1154 was over his female cousin Maud.
  • Henry IV's usurpation in 1399 was over his male cousin Richard II, after being exiled by said king.
  • Edward IV's usurpation in 1461 over his third cousin once removed Henry VI was part of the dynastic wars between the Houses of Lancaster and York.
  • Richard III, it could be argued usurped the throne from his nephew Edward V in 1483, but Parliament declared Edward illegitimate meaning he was ineligible to inherit the throne.
  • Henry VII the first of the House of Tudor in 1485 took the throne of England by conquest over his distant cousin Richard III.
  • William III took the throne from his uncle/father-in-law James II in 1688 in the Glorious Revolution

All I am saying is the system of monarchy selected the first born to succeed, but it did have a way of getting rid of a feeble one.

This has to be weighed up when asserting monarchy is a good system in this day and age
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Yep. Before 1066, English monarchs were elected by the Witan, usually from the House of Wessex

From 1066
  • William the Conqueror took the throne of England by conquest
  • Stephen's usurpation in 1154 was over his female cousin Maud.
  • Henry IV's usurpation in 1399 was over his male cousin Richard II, after being exiled by said king.
  • Edward IV's usurpation in 1461 over his third cousin once removed Henry VI was part of the dynastic wars between the Houses of Lancaster and York.
  • Richard III, it could be argued usurped the throne from his nephew Edward V in 1483, but Parliament declared Edward illegitimate meaning he was ineligible to inherit the throne.
  • Henry VII the first of the House of Tudor in 1485 took the throne of England by conquest over his distant cousin Richard III.
  • William III took the throne from his uncle/father-in-law James II in 1688 in the Glorious Revolution

Jane grey?
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,955
16,608
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Jane grey?

Edward VI named the Protestant Lady Jane Grey as his heir in his will and this was accepted by the Privy Council. She was "Queen" for a maximum of twelve days until Mary was proclaimed Queen by the very same Privy Council that had accepted Edward's will.
 

Proud SJW

Cancelled
Aug 27, 2011
3,147
3,357
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Because the will was illegal. The King didn't have the power to change the rules of succession, and only a couple ever really got away with it.
Edward's father being one of those. I can't think of any others, off the top of my head.
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,955
16,608
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
All I am saying is the system of monarchy selected the first born to succeed, but it did have a way of getting rid of a feeble one.

Male-preference primogeniture generally, but this wasn't always followed absolutely. For example 32 year old Prince John succeeded his brother Richard, even though their 13 year old nephew Arthur (son of John's deceased older brother) was available

This has to be weighed up when asserting monarchy is a good system in this day and age

From 2015, absolute primogeniture is used to determine the succession to the Crown Of Australia.
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,955
16,608
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Because the will was illegal. The King didn't have the power to change the rules of succession, and only a couple ever really got away with it.
Edward's father being one of those. I can't think of any others, off the top of my head.

Edward wrote "My Devise for the Succession", a document which stated that if he died childless the crown would pass to "the Lady Jane and her heirs male".

Henry VIII’s Act of Succession predated Edward’s Devise for the Succession, and was passed by an act of parliament. Edward’s Devise was signed by his council and other notables as issued as letters patent on 21st June 1553.

Mary Tudor was declared illegitimate by her father Henry VIII after he proclaimed his marriage to Mary’s mother, Katherine of Aragon, invalid. Likewise, Elizabeth Tudor had also been declared illegitimate after Henry VIII declared that his marriage to her mother, Anne Boleyn, had also been invalid.
 
Last edited:

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Edward VI named the Protestant Lady Jane Grey as his heir in his will and this was accepted by the Privy Council. She was "Queen" for a maximum of twelve days until Mary was proclaimed Queen by the very same Privy Council that had accepted Edward's will.

Fore runner to the IOC
 

Proud SJW

Cancelled
Aug 27, 2011
3,147
3,357
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Yes, it all gets a bit murky.
I wasn't commenting on any validity on Henry's part, merely noting that Jane Grey's case wasn't necessarily one of usurpation in the strict sense. The main difference being that while Henry both removed and restored his daughters to the line of succession, Edward merely appointed a favourite, which was legally easy to overturn once he'd passed on.
 

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Because the will was illegal. The King didn't have the power to change the rules of succession, and only a couple ever really got away with it.
Edward's father being one of those. I can't think of any others, off the top of my head.

She had to be extensively persuaded to take the throne, (was probably relieved to lose it: My opinion before you all get shirty on me) but that didn't stop bloody mary and he court seeing her as enough of a threat to have her killed.
Quite sad really
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,955
16,608
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Yes, it all gets a bit murky.
I wasn't commenting on any validity on Henry's part, merely noting that Jane Grey's case wasn't necessarily one of usurpation in the strict sense. The main difference being that while Henry both removed and restored his daughters to the line of succession, Edward merely appointed a favourite, which was legally easy to overturn once he'd passed on.

Depends on the status of "letters patent" issued by the Monarch, which Edward's Devise for the Succession was issued as.

Under Henry VIII in 1543, the King had changed the succession to the throne by royal will, which was then assented to by Parliament via an Act. Henry VIII's own will had stated that the crown was to devolve on:
1. on his son Edward and the heirs of his body;
2. on his own heirs by queen Katharine (Parr) or any other future wife;
3. on his daughter Mary;
4. on his daughter Elizabeth;
5. on the heirs of the body of his niece the lady Frances;
6. on those of her sister the lady Eleanor;
7. to the next rightful heirs.

In the event of either the lady Mary or the lady Elizabeth marrying without the consent of the privy council, they were respectively to be passed over, as if they were dead without lawful issue.

That was the precedent on which many assumed that the royal succession might again be modified by the act of the reigning monarch, expressed by letters patent and by a last will (which Edward VI did use), -- to be confirmed by Act of Parliament, as the opportunity for such ratification might arrive.

The letters patent was issued on 21st June 1553. Edward VI died on 6th July 1553 which wasn't really enough time to have the will ratified by an Act of Parliament.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Proud SJW

Cancelled
Aug 27, 2011
3,147
3,357
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
If I remember correctly, Henry also issued two earlier acts of succession though?
Might have to go do some reading ... cheers :)
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,955
16,608
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
If I remember correctly, Henry also issued two earlier acts of succession though?

Yep.
The First Act of Succession (1534) disinherited Henry VIII's eldest daughter Mary by declaring her illegitimate.
The Second Act of Succession (1537) disinherited Elizabeth (Henry's daughter by Anne Boleyn) by declaring her illegitimate.
The Third Act of Succession (1543) restored both of Henry's daughters to the succession after their brother Edward, but did not make them legitimate.
 

medusala

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Aug 14, 2004
37,209
8,423
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
All I am saying is the system of monarchy selected the first born to succeed, but it did have a way of getting rid of a feeble one.

This has to be weighed up when asserting monarchy is a good system in this day and age

Chat re skipping Charles for William pops up quite a bit in the UK. Havent read recent bio of Charles but apparently makes him look rather bad.
 

Proud SJW

Cancelled
Aug 27, 2011
3,147
3,357
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Chat re skipping Charles for William pops up quite a bit in the UK. Havent read recent bio of Charles but apparently makes him look rather bad.
Doesn't matter anymore. Every year they get a little more brown and forget just a little more about who they were... and think they need to be more who they are now. Someday we'll all be beige.

Good thing or a bad thing, is up to the pundits.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back