The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 01-20-2013, 10:50 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Matilda can't be considered Queen as the people didn't recognise her. Stephen was an annoited King so for her to be Queen she needed to remove him and commit regicide.

Had she been able to get the throne before Stephen's coronation maybe, but once he was annoited as King - no way - the only way to remove an annoited King is via regicide. Even the church recognised that an annoited King was something that was hard to overturn.

As for Richard - sure he was one of England's worst ever kings - he simply saw the country as one to be used to gain money from - he was however annoited and crowned.
Details, details!

I personally don't give a hoot about the annointing. Stephen had no right to be king and he should not have been. I choose to consider Matilda as Queen. I don't expect anyone else to agree with me on this point.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-20-2013, 11:16 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,768
I know, it's hard to bear that Matilda couldn't rightfully claim her throne since she was Henry I's only living child and the rightful heiress. However, Stephen of Blois basically hijacked the throne and was crowned in her stead, and no amount of revolution by Matilda's supporters could supplant him as anointed ruler despite her inhabiting the throne for a few months. The only resolution that was reached was an agreement that Henry FitzEmpress, Matilda's son, would be Stephen's heir upon his death.
__________________

__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-20-2013, 11:29 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425

Didn't Eustace die before Stephen and Henry came to an agreement? If I remember accurately, Eustace died in 1153 and the truce was made in 1154. Now, Stephan's younger son, William - he had a lot of reasons to feel unhappy. Mind you, Henry treated him pretty well after his accession to the Throne but still, to be that close to becoming a King only for your father to name someone else as a successor? Poor guy.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-20-2013, 11:35 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,768
Yes, Eustace did die before the truce, paving the way for a peaceful settlement between Stephen and Henry, and I edited my post accordingly. I'm sure Stephen's other remaining son wouldn't have been a happy camper that he was thisclose to inheriting the throne and missing out to Henry.
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-05-2013, 11:40 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,119
So, I know this is an older thread, but I had a thought.

Matilda's reign (if it can be called that) was longer than Edward V's reign, yet we consider Edward to have been an undisputed monarch and debate over the validity of Mathilda as a monarch (we also see this with Jane, although her reign was far shorter than either).

What if the reason why Edward's reign is considered to have been a reign is not because of the reign itself but rather the regnal numbering of later monarchs - notably Edward VI. The first Edward's reign is confirmed as having been a reign by the second Edward's decision to call himself 6th of that name instead of 5th. In the case of Matilda, we don't have another Matilda to retroactively confirm her reign - likewise with Jane.

This retroactivity is also seen in the Jacobite succession, with the first Jacobite pretender sty losing himself as James III and the current pretender being called Francis II, assuming that each individual in that line between the two men had a legitimate reign despite never having actually ruled. We also see it in the House of Napoleon - Napoleon III was so numbered, despite Napoleon II never ruling.

Consequently, if the Cambridge baby were to be named Matilda or Jane and then use the regnal number II then their predecessor would have her reign confirmed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-06-2013, 12:00 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
So, I know this is an older thread, but I had a thought.

Matilda's reign (if it can be called that) was longer than Edward V's reign, yet we consider Edward to have been an undisputed monarch and debate over the validity of Mathilda as a monarch (we also see this with Jane, although her reign was far shorter than either).

What if the reason why Edward's reign is considered to have been a reign is not because of the reign itself but rather the regnal numbering of later monarchs - notably Edward VI. The first Edward's reign is confirmed as having been a reign by the second Edward's decision to call himself 6th of that name instead of 5th. In the case of Matilda, we don't have another Matilda to retroactively confirm her reign - likewise with Jane.

This retroactivity is also seen in the Jacobite succession, with the first Jacobite pretender sty losing himself as James III and the current pretender being called Francis II, assuming that each individual in that line between the two men had a legitimate reign despite never having actually ruled. We also see it in the House of Napoleon - Napoleon III was so numbered, despite Napoleon II never ruling.

Consequently, if the Cambridge baby were to be named Matilda or Jane and then use the regnal number II then their predecessor would have her reign confirmed.
I can see your point. And I agree.

But I doubt the Cambridge will name the child Matilda or Jane, in order to avoid such a tricky situation.

Imagine, if they name the Baby Arthur, and he decides to reign as King Arthur II. He would be recognising the mythical King Arhtu as a true English Monarch.

In fact, Empress Matilda and Lady Jane Grey are listed among the English Monarchs, at the British Monarchy's website.

History of the Monarchy > The Normans > Stephen

History of the Monarchy > The Tudors > Jane
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-06-2013, 12:03 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Details, details!

I personally don't give a hoot about the annointing. Stephen had no right to be king and he should not have been. I choose to consider Matilda as Queen. I don't expect anyone else to agree with me on this point.

You mightn't give a hoot about the anoiting but to the medieval mind, and even the more modern church mind that is a crucial sign of monarchy.

It is a major reason why Edward VIII was forced to abdicate before his coronation rather than after - once annoited getting rid of him would be much harder for the church to support.

In the medieval world being annointed was seen as a sign from God, through God's official representatives here on Earth of the right of the King - thus Stephen was the annointed King and Matilda's only way to remove him was through his death - anything less would have seen her and her kingdom excommunicated meaning the the church would tell the people she wasn't the monarch and that they didn't have to follow her lead.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-06-2013, 04:05 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire View Post
I can see your point. And I agree.

But I doubt the Cambridge will name the child Matilda or Jane, in order to avoid such a tricky situation.

Imagine, if they name the Baby Arthur, and he decides to reign as King Arthur II. He would be recognising the mythical King Arhtu as a true English Monarch.

In fact, Empress Matilda and Lady Jane Grey are listed among the English Monarchs, at the British Monarchy's website.

History of the Monarchy > The Normans > Stephen

History of the Monarchy > The Tudors > Jane
I doubt the Cambridges will name a daughter Jane simply because it's not a name that has much of a tradition within the family. It's appeared twice in the direct line - once as the name of a queen consort, Henry VIII's second wife, and once as a (disputed) queen regnant, Jane Grey. Matilda, however, has been rather popular and appears 8 times since the Conquest (making it tied with Eleanor for the 4th most popular female name). The Mountbatten-Windsors have a history of reintroducing older, pre-Hanoverian names to the direct family, so I personally wouldn't be surprised if Matilda was considered as a possibility.

Your comparison to King Arthur, however, is a bit of a stretch. For starters, the numbering system in the English tradition is based on the post-Conquest monarchs (there were 3 Edwards pre-Conquest, but Edward I was still numbered such), and as such on that basis alone any Arthur (or Alfred, Edmund, Edgar, or Harold for that matter) would be the first of that name. Even if we were to consider the pre-Conquest Wessex and Danish kings in the numbering, we would also have to consider whether or not they were Kings of England, or kings in a kingdom that would later become part of England. Alfred the Great was a king of Wessex, not England, and as such even allowing for pre-Conquest English monarchs in the numbering, any future King Alfred would be the first of that name.

Back to Arthur, though, there is also the fact that his mere existence is debated. There is no debate as to whether or not Matilda or Jane existed, there is a debate as to whether or not Matilda and Jane were actual monarchs owing to the conflicts surrounding their claims and the fact that they were both rather quickly disposed. Arthur is a legendary figure who is believed to have possibly existed 4 to 5 centuries prior to the Conquest and if he did exist was in all actuality a Welsh or Cornish monarch and not an English one - if he existed he ruled in a around the Anglo-Saxon invasion and his people were the ones defeated in said invasion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Details, details!

I personally don't give a hoot about the annointing. Stephen had no right to be king and he should not have been. I choose to consider Matilda as Queen. I don't expect anyone else to agree with me on this point.
By that logic, Matilda's father, Henry I, had no right to be king and should not have been king, as he too usurped the throne. Stephen did have a claim to the throne - through his mother - and he took advantage of Henry I's lack of a male heir and his being in England at the time (Matilda was in Anjou when her father died).

You're wrong, though. Stephen did have a claim to the throne - his mother was the daughter of William I. Matilda had a better claim - her father was the son of William I and king in his own right - but that doesn't negate Stephen's claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
You mightn't give a hoot about the anoiting but to the medieval mind, and even the more modern church mind that is a crucial sign of monarchy.

It is a major reason why Edward VIII was forced to abdicate before his coronation rather than after - once annoited getting rid of him would be much harder for the church to support.

In the medieval world being anointed was seen as a sign from God, through God's official representatives here on Earth of the right of the King - thus Stephen was the anointed King and Matilda's only way to remove him was through his death - anything less would have seen her and her kingdom excommunicated meaning the the church would tell the people she wasn't the monarch and that they didn't have to follow her lead.
It's arguable as to whether or not Edward VIII was forced to adbicate or merely pressured into it. I somehow doubt the church would have had too much of a problem with said abdication had he been annoited, given as they were pushing for the abdication in general over the idea of him marrying Wallis and having her become Queen.

The idea that Matilda may not have been a monarch doesn't necessarily stem entirely from her not having been anointed though. Edward V was never anointed and yet we still consider him to have been a monarch. The problem with Matilda is that at no point was her reign not disputed. Stephen usurped the throne immediately - as such she did not inherit. The point of time during which it's contested that she may have been a monarch is actually 6 years after the death of Henry I. In February 1141 she defeated and deposed Stephen, was welcomed in London by its citizens (which is often a mark of being the monarch), only to be deposed by Stephen in November. In my opinion, this is comparable to the second reign of Henry VI, who had first ruled from 1422-1461 before being deposed by Edward IV, then reconquered his throne in 1470 and then ruled again for a few months before being deposed by Edward again.

We recognize Henry's second reign because he was already an anointed King, but it's one that was contested at the time, was very short, and ended in him being usurped. Matilda was never anointed, but she was the legitimate heir who was usurped on her father's death, deposed her usurper in 1141 and was accepted by some of the people as monarch for a time before the civil war broke out once again and she was deposed. That she never had a coronation does not mean that she herself did not conquer the throne, however briefly. She's not the only monarch to not have been crowned - Edward VI, Jane, and Edward VIII weren't crowned, and in Scotland Margaret of Norway wasn't crowned, but only the female reigns are disputed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-06-2013, 05:51 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Being annointed doesn't make one a monarch - true - as Edward V and Edward VIII are rightly considered monarchs despite no coronation but being annointed does make it harder for the church to support the removal of the monarch. It is one of the reasons why the medieval monarchs were so quick to get crowned often within weeks of their predecessors death.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-06-2013, 07:59 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,629
Seems to me like a jolly good reason to delay it.

I am an atheist, and a fervent believer in separation of Church from State.

For me it's bad enough that my Head of State is a foreigner, but to know that she believes she is entitled to be in that position, and to be the Queen of Great Britain and all the extra bits, merely because one of her ancestors was a more successful warrior - translation: bully - than anyone else in the game at the time, and that therefore she has the right to be in that position because she has the approval of some higher being - an invisible friend, the very existence of which I deny - floors me.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-06-2013, 08:08 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Seems to me like a jolly good reason to delay it.

I am an atheist, and a fervent believer in separation of Church from State.

For me it's bad enough that my Head of State is a foreigner, but to know that she believes she is entitled to be in that position, and to be the Queen of Great Britain and all the extra bits, merely because one of her ancestors was a more successful warrior - translation: bully - than anyone else in the game at the time, and that therefore she has the right to be in that position because she has the approval of some higher being - an invisible friend, the very existence of which I deny - floors me.
Still better than a President.

They believe that they're entitled to be the Head of State just because one of his predecessors deposed a Royal House by a coupe.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-06-2013, 08:12 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire View Post
Still better than a President.

They believe that they're entitled to be the Head of State just because one of his predecessors deposed a Royal House by a coupe.

Do you speak of your country?


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-06-2013, 08:14 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire View Post
Still better than a President.

They believe that they're entitled to be the Head of State just because one of his predecessors deposed a Royal House by a coupe.
I thought - at least in the case of the USA - that a person became President because the majority of the people in the country who could be bothered to vote had decided that you would be the better person to represent them on the world stage.

I really do have a problem with the "accident of birth" option.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-06-2013, 08:23 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 963
I think some countries have had presidents 'installed' after military coupe. Perhaps that is what B.E. is referring to?

In the U.S. it was an armed revolution by the people against the Crown (King George) and it's standing army/navy. There was a constitution developed and presidents are elected by, nowdays, a shamefully low voter turnout.


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-06-2013, 08:27 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I thought - at least in the case of the USA - that a person became President because the majority of the people in the country who could be bothered to vote had decided that you would be the better person to represent them on the world stage.

I really do have a problem with the "accident of birth" option.
I live in a Republic, and we have a Republic because of a coup d'état that deposed the best Head of State my country ever had.

After all the stability we had during the Monarchy, during the Republic Brazil had 2 dictatorships, 4 deposed Presidents, 12 states of emergency, 6 dissolutions of the Congress and 7 different Constitutions.

What I'll say for you is for all the citzens from the Commonwealth Realms and other Constitutional Monarchies of the world: Keep the Monarchy, it's certainly much better than a Republic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-06-2013, 08:28 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 963
Not all Republics are the same though B.E. It's worked for other countries.


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-06-2013, 08:29 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Do you speak of your country?


LaRae
I wish I was only speaking about one country.

The problem is not only in Brazil. I'm speaking about the Latin American countries, Portugal, Russia, China and many others.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-06-2013, 08:32 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Not all Republics are the same though B.E. It's worked for other countries.


LaRae
Maybe, but the Monarchies are still the best examples of true democracy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-06-2013, 01:48 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,119
This has gotten completely off topic.

The Queen believes that she is entitled to be the monarch because the British parliament continues to allow it. Parliament has, on more than one occasion, overthrown the monarch of the day - usually to replace him or her with another monarch, the next in line that is deemed acceptable. The Queen believes she is entitled to remain Head of State in Commonwealth realms because the individual realms have continued to allow her to remain monarch, and in some cases have even asked her to step into that role. There are a number of former realms that have chosen to abolish the monarchy, most of them doing so without issue. The British Empire as it was is now willing to let former colonies leave. If republican feelings are so strong in Australia then Australia should have a referendum on the issue. According to Wikipedia, a 2011 Morgan poll shows that 34% of those polled were pro-republic and 55% were pro-monarchy, so you might be stuck on the issue.

The issue of the relationship between the Queen and the church is, outside of England really, a moot point. The Queen has no religious position, however symbolic it may be, outside of England. I support the separation of church and state as well, but to condemn my monarch for being the titular head of a church in another country is rather ridiculous - especially given as that connection has existed for some 500 years and predates the idea of a separation between church and state.

As to wether or not a constitutional monarchy is the best form of democracy or not, I think that really just depends on the people being governed. Democracy can, and had, failed in both it's republican and monarchist forms. Republics are tricky things to establish and often result in dictatorships, particularly when the republic is established via a military coup in the first place. At the same time, monarchies are equally prone to losing that constitutional aspect and becoming absolute - look at the history of the Greek monarchy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-06-2013, 02:24 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I think some countries have had presidents 'installed' after military coupe. Perhaps that is what B.E. is referring to?

In the U.S. it was an armed revolution by the people against the Crown (King George) and it's standing army/navy. There was a constitution developed and presidents are elected by, nowdays, a shamefully low voter turnout.


LaRae
Even after the revolution monarchy was not completely off the table. As I understand it there was talk of offering Washington the Crown. Probably lucky he had no children and thus could not establish a dynasty.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman picture of the month pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:42 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]