The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 07-24-2012, 11:27 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Singapore, Singapore
Posts: 73
The Third Succession Act (Henry VIII, 1543)

I'm aware that before the Act of Settlement, succession to the throne of England was quite a malleable material, and that there were several usurpations, successions by force, and examples of arbitrary changes to legislation to suit either the monarchs or their enemies.

Usually, though, there has been some kind of legal wallpapering, whereby the irregularity has been made acceptable retroactively through new legislation.

As has been noted by others, the succession of James I (or any heir of Margaret Tudor) to the throne following the death of Elizabeth I was explicitly against the Third Succession Act. To my knowledge, this act was not modified or appealed before Elizabeth's death, and if the act had been adhered to, a descendant of Mary Tudor would have succeeded. Some wags suggest that there has been no piece of English or British legislation legitimately passed since 1603...

As I say, this kind of jiggery pokery is common enough in the history of the monarchs of England but what strikes me is that there was no attempt to patch this up with legislation. The succession of James I was popular enough but clearly his backers, and the literate public at large, must have realised it was illegal. Was it widely commented on at the time? Was there any significant support for alternatives?
.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-24-2012, 12:15 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425
I think the main reason no one really bothered to pass any sort of Act legitimising James VI's accession to the Throne (which was indeed, strictly speaking, against the law), was simply because no one challanged James. There were no other eligible, popular or significant people who could oppose the new King or start rebellions against him.

Basically, the Third Succession Act established the following succession:
Edward, Prince of Wales (Edward VI) and his issue -> The Lady Mary (Mary I) and her issue -> The Lady Elizabeth (Elizabeth I) and her issue -> Frances Grey, Marchioness of Dorset (the elder daughter of Mary Tudor) -> Lady Jane Grey (Frances' elder daughter) -> Lady Catherine Grey (Frances' younger daughter) -> Lady Mary Grey (Frances' youngest daughter) -> Eleanor Clifford, Countess of Cumberland (the younger daughter of Mary Tudor) -> Margaret Stanley, Countess of Derby (Eleanor's only surviving child) and her descendants.

If the Third Succession Act had been adhered to, Elizabeth I would have been succeeded by Lady Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven - a granddaughter of Margaret Stanley, Countess of Derby (herself a granddaughter of Mary Tudor). *

As it were, for many years, it was expected Elizabeth would name her own successor. If she had named Lady Anne, England would have probably acquired a Queen Anne a century earlier. On the other hand, it is highly unlikely Britain would ever come into existence, the British Empire would probably never be, and the world as we know it would simply not exist.


* Lady Catherine and Lady Mary Grey were disqualified for marrying without the Queen's consent.
Ironically, the present Queen is a direct descendant of Catherine Grey through her mother, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-24-2012, 02:04 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
I believe Queen Elizabeth was quite happy not to be remembered of the Succession Acts of her father. The only advantage for her was that, as she had no legitimate heirs of her own body, she had a certain freedom to choose as she was in charge of new legislation.

OTOH she did nothing to change the Third Act IMHO, as she profited in her reign from the existance of the Third Act in its opposition to the traditional line of succession. As long as she did not touch the Third Act, she could check on the situation of her English Heir Presumptive, as this heir lived in her realm as well as keep Mary Queen of Scots at bay. If she had changed the Third Act back to the traditional line in her lifetime, she would have invited the Scots surrounding first Mary and then James (and at times both) to interfere with England or to use this fact of a future inheritance in diplomatic exchanges with foreign countries while she was still alive.

OTOH I doubt she considered young Lady Anne Stanley up to the task of ruling England successfully. The girl was only 23 when Elizabeth died and, as her second marriage showed, was probably not the heiress Elizabeth would have wished for. James I. obviously agreed because he as new king legitimized the sons of Lady Catherine Grey on declaring her marriage valid, thusly putting these young men between Lady Ann and the throne according to the Third Act on succession by Henry VIII.

So for me it makes sense that Elizabeth did nothing about her own Act of Succession but saw to it that in the end, after her death, it would come to a smooth transition of power to James VI., king of Scots. He after all had shown Elizabeth that he was a capable king, he was happily married to a Royal princess of Denmark, had in 1603 three surviving children including two sons - what else could the dying queen wish for? And he was her legitimate heir according to the old traditions of kingship, as his ancestor Margaret had been the elder sister of Henry VIII when both his sisters had married kings and left their homeland.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-25-2012, 06:46 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Singapore, Singapore
Posts: 73
Cheers to you both. It's all very interesting.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-25-2012, 03:17 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Miami, United States
Posts: 49
Great posts and good reading
__________________
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 charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery 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 olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:07 PM.

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]