The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royal History (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/)
-   -   William III (Prince of Orange) (1650-1702) and Mary II (1662-1694), joint Monarchs (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/william-iii-prince-of-orange-1650-1702-and-mary-ii-1662-1694-joint-monarchs-4617.html)

Australian 01-10-2005 11:01 PM

William III (Prince of Orange) (1650-1702) and Mary II (1662-1694), joint Monarchs
 
Im a bit confused, in my understanding, the only Queens of England have been

Elizabeth I
Mary I
Anne
Victoria
Elizabeth II

Where does Mary II come into it. Could it be Mary Queen of Scots or something? i dont think so cos im sure she never got the English throne. Or is Henry VIII daughter Mary actually Mary II because of Mary Queen of Scots?

Basically, was there really a Mary II of England and if so, who was she

Elspeth 01-11-2005 12:29 AM

Mary II is the Mary of William and Mary, who reigned jointly after James II. They were William III and Mary II.

Mary was the elder daughter of James II and his first wife, Anne Hyde, Duchess of York (she died before James became king), and hence the Protestant heir in the absence of younger brothers. She was married to William of Orange, a descendent of Charles I through his eldest daughter (another Mary) who had married a previous Prince of Orange (another William). When James II's second wife, who was Catholic, gave birth to a boy, many people in Britain were concerned that this would start up another Catholic monarchy with reprisals against Protestants, as had happened during the reign of Mary Tudor, so they wanted to see a Protestant rather than a Catholic monarch (this was before the Act of Settlement, so a Catholic could become king at that point). A group of influential lords and clergymen invited William of Orange to invade Britain and take the crown (since he'd been unwilling to invade and depose a Catholic king simply to become Prince Consort), which he did. Since his wife was the real heir to the throne, they officially reigned jointly as William and Mary, but he was the real monarch and she was effectively just the consort.

They had no children and were succeeded on William's death (Mary predeceased him) by Mary's younger sister Anne, who also had no children who outlived her. The throne then passed to the Elector of Hanover as the nearest Protestant heir who was acceptable to the country, and he reigned as George I.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page100.asp

Australian 01-11-2005 12:38 AM

so was Mary II actually the sovereign or only consort?

Elspeth 01-11-2005 12:45 AM

She was officially a co-ruler and sovereign in her own right, but in reality she was pretty much like any other queen consort.

Even though Queen Anne (Mary's younger sister) was higher than William in the line of succession, he continued to rule after Mary's death and Anne didn't take the throne till after William died.

After you posted your previous post, I edited my original response and added more detail; I think that post might answer your question now.

Australian 01-11-2005 12:53 AM

Oh ok i get it now, thanks Elspeth. That doesnt happen often does it, a couple co-ruling and giving both partners equal rule and making Mary, Mary II

Elspeth 01-11-2005 01:12 AM

No, it doesn't happen often; it was the only time in British history that there was a joint monarchy, although apparently Princess Charlotte (George IV's daughter) said that if her husband couldn't be king, she wouldn't be queen. Unfortunately, she predeceased her father, so we'll never know what would have happened.

Roshanah 08-04-2005 06:23 PM

She was King George V Wife and sister to Empress Marie Romanov of Russia (Tzar Nicholaiovich II'sMother.)



Quote:

Originally Posted by Australian
Im a bit confused, in my understanding, the only Queens of England have been

Elizabeth I
Mary I
Anne
Victoria
Elizabeth II

Where does Mary II come into it. Could it be Mary Queen of Scots or something? i dont think so cos im sure she never got the English throne. Or is Henry VIII daughter Mary actually Mary II because of Mary Queen of Scots?

Basically, was there really a Mary II of England and if so, who was she


Huddo 08-04-2005 06:39 PM

No your thinking of Queen Mary who was consort to George V she did not jointly reign with George V. she was not Empress Marie Feodorovna of Russias sister your thinking of Queen Alexandra who was George V mother

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roshanah
She was King George V Wife and sister to Empress Marie Romanov of Russia (Tzar Nicholaiovich II'sMother.)


Elspeth 06-12-2009 09:16 PM

The coronation is mostly a religious ceremony, not a legal one. Edward V and Edward VIII, who were never crowned, appear in the list of British monarchs whereas Philip doesn't. Philip may have exercised the power of King, but unlike William III he really was a consort (although a uniquely powerful one) regardless of what he was called, not a King Regnant in his own right. I wonder if Elizabeth I would have stood for having such a powerful husband; presumably being King Consort wasn't obligatory although it would have been attractive to any prospective husband of hers, even an English nobleman. I'm still not sure on what basis William managed to bump Anne down in the succession, other than the basis that he knew how badly he was needed so he held the bargaining chips. According to the Act of Settlement, the succession after the death of William and Mary was to go to children of Mary, followed by Anne and her children, followed by children of William. So there was a provision for the crown to go to William's children by a subsequent marriage, but only if Mary and Anne didn't leave children. However, officially William and Mary are our only joint monarchs.

Apparently we might have had another case like this had Princess Charlotte lived. I think she was on record as saying that if her husband wasn't King, she refused to be Queen. I wonder what Victoria thought of that.:biggrin: Albert did a lot of the work normally done by the monarch, but he did it unofficially.

I agree that the birth of a child to Philip and Mary would have probably led to a terrible situation. For one thing, I doubt Elizabeth would have been allowed to go on living; she'd have been too obvious a focus for Protestant rebels. I doubt her death would have prevented war, though. Too many people had too much at stake.

Marsel 06-12-2009 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 951964)
<>
However, unlike William III he really was a consort regardless of what he was called, not a King Regnant in his own right. I'm still not sure on what basis William managed to bump Anne down in the succession, other than the basis that he knew how badly he was needed so he held the bargaining chips. Officially, William and Mary are our only joint monarchs.
<>

The line of the succession to the British Throne was settled by the Bill of Rights 1689 (incidentally, this was the first document to bar Catholics, or "Papist Princes", from the Throne of England, years before the Act of Settlement). William III and Mary II were named joint rulers and the surviving one would Reign until his/her death. The line of the succession was established as the following:

William and Mary's heirs
Mary's heirs (from a later marriage)
Princess Anne
Princess Anne's heirs
William III's heirs

If William remarried and had children, he would still be succeeded by Anne upon his death. However, since Anne died without surviving children, she would be succeeded by William's children from later marriage (if they existed).
Since both Anne and William were childless, the Line of the Succession, as established by the Bill of Rights, was extinct, so in order to ensure Protestant succession, the Act of Settlement 1701 was filed.

Kotroman 06-13-2009 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 951964)
The coronation is mostly a religious ceremony, not a legal one. Edward V and Edward VIII, who were never crowned, appear in the list of British monarchs whereas Philip doesn't. Philip may have exercised the power of King, but unlike William III he really was a consort (although a uniquely powerful one) regardless of what he was called, not a King Regnant in his own right.

Do you have any sources to confirm your theory or is it just your point of view? I'm asking because the marriage contract made him co-sovereign de iure and because all sources from the 16th century confirm that he was a co-sovereign (marriage contract, papal bull, Acts of Parliament, documents, coins, Great Seal of the Realm, etc). I believe Marsel said it, but I'll confirm: consorts do not appear on the Great Seal of the Realm. Philip did. He did not only appear, he was shown holding St Edward's Crown together with Mary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 951964)
I wonder if Elizabeth I would have stood for having such a powerful husband; presumably being King Consort wasn't obligatory although it would have been attractive to any prospective husband of hers, even an English nobleman.

Elizabeth I did not want to co-reign with anyone. That's one of the reasons she did not marry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 951964)
I'm still not sure on what basis William managed to bump Anne down in the succession, other than the basis that he knew how badly he was needed so he held the bargaining chips. According to the Act of Settlement, the succession after the death of William and Mary was to go to children of Mary, followed by Anne and her children, followed by children of William. So there was a provision for the crown to go to William's children by a subsequent marriage, but only if Mary and Anne didn't leave children. However, officially William and Mary are our only joint monarchs.

Neither William nor Mary were heirs to the thrones. The heir was Mary II's halfbrother, but the parliament offered the throne to Mary. Mary made it clear that she would accept the throne only if they offer it to her husband too. Then they jointly accepted the offer. In my opinion, William had more right to the throne than Mary. It was William's army that won in Glorius Revolution. He was the one who "saved England from the Popists". In fact, it was a success for Mary to be regarded as co-monarch. When Henry VII won the throne, he did not allow his wife to be co-reign with him, even though she was the heiress of the House of York.

Marengo 06-13-2009 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman (Post 952165)
Neither William nor Mary were heirs to the thrones. The heir was Mary II's halfbrother, but the parliament offered the throne to Mary. Mary made it clear that she would accept the throne only if they offer it to her husband too. Then they jointly accepted the offer. In my opinion, William had more right to the throne than Mary. It was William's army that won in Glorius Revolution. He was the one who "saved England from the Popists". In fact, it was a success for Mary to be regarded as co-monarch. When Henry VII won the throne, he did not allow his wife to be co-reign with him, even though she was the heiress of the House of York.

That might be true, but Willem III himself needed his wife as he did not want to be seen as a foreign ruler which invaded England etc. Parlament was not as eager to offer him the crown as he hoped. And without Mary as co-ruler, probably more people would have supported James II later on. Added to that, it was a popular belief that Mary's half brother was not her half brother at all, so many believed that mary actually was the next in line. Princess Anne never forgave her brother-in-law for 'upsurping' her place in succession btw (I always wondered why QEII named her daughter after such a nasty woman).

More about Willem & Mary in this thread.

Elspeth 06-13-2009 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman (Post 952165)
Do you have any sources to confirm your theory or is it just your point of view? I'm asking because the marriage contract made him co-sovereign de iure and because all sources from the 16th century confirm that he was a co-sovereign (marriage contract, papal bull, Acts of Parliament, documents, coins, Great Seal of the Realm, etc). I believe Marsel said it, but I'll confirm: consorts do not appear on the Great Seal of the Realm. Philip did. He did not only appear, he was shown holding St Edward's Crown together with Mary.


In A History of Britain, Simon Schama says, "Philip was to be made king in title only and was to be sworn to protect and preserve English institutions. If the queen died before him, he was still to be excluded from the line of succession." I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that legally Philip was co-sovereign, but only during Mary's lifetime and with restrictions placed on his powers that weren't placed on hers. But this is a very different position from that of William, who was genuinely a joint monarch in his own right during his wife's lifetime and continued to be King in his own right after her death.

Quote:

In fact, it was a success for Mary to be regarded as co-monarch. When Henry VII won the throne, he did not allow his wife to be co-reign with him, even though she was the heiress of the House of York.
Well, given that there were a few hundred years in between the two, and the precedent of Mary I and Elizabeth I as Queens Regnant had been set where Queens Regnant were concerned by the time James II was deposed, there was also the consideration that, as Marengo said, Henry VII wasn't seen as a foreign invader. Also, the country was very tired of wrangling between factions for the crown which had been going on for decades by the time of Henry's accession. The crown had been switching back and forth between Lancastrian and Yorkist kings to the point where there was no stability in the succession and it had been a case of the crown being up for grabs by the strongest claimant for a long time. If Henry was going to stop that situation, he needed to take the Yorkist heir out of the equation as a possible rival, and marrying her as a co-sovereign wouldn't have done that.

Elspeth 06-13-2009 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo (Post 952344)
That might be true, but Willem III himself needed his wife as he did not want to be seen as a foreign ruler which invaded England etc. Parlament was not as eager to offer him the crown as he hoped. And without Mary as co-ruler, probably more people would have supported James II later on. Added to that, it was a popular belief that Mary's half brother was not her half brother at all, so many believed that mary actually was the next in line. Princess Anne never forgave her brother-in-law for 'upsurping' her place in succession btw (I always wondered why QEII named her daughter after such a nasty woman).

More about Willem & Mary in this thread.

Her parents had wanted to name their second daughter Ann, but George V wouldn't let them. So it's popularly believed that the Queen named her daughter Anne as a tribute to her own parents. Probably had nothing to do with Queen Anne. I have no idea why the Duke and Duchess of York wanted the name Ann; the spelling suggests that it didn't have to do with Queen Anne either. So don't worry about Princess Anne being named after a nasty woman, or at least that particular nasty woman. ;)

Iluvbertie 06-13-2009 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman (Post 952165)


Neither William nor Mary were heirs to the thrones. The heir was Mary II's halfbrother, but the parliament offered the throne to Mary. Mary made it clear that she would accept the throne only if they offer it to her husband too. Then they jointly accepted the offer. In my opinion, William had more right to the throne than Mary. It was William's army that won in Glorius Revolution. He was the one who "saved England from the Popists". In fact, it was a success for Mary to be regarded as co-monarch. When Henry VII won the throne, he did not allow his wife to be co-reign with him, even though she was the heiress of the House of York.


After the birth of Mary's half-brother she was bumped to 2nd in line so once Parliament decided that a Roman Catholic couldn't be King she became the heir as her half-brother was RC.

William's own claim was after Anne's which is why the 1689 line of succession is the way it is.

Mary's children taking precedence, then Anne and her children and then William's by a subsequent marriage. This would allow for a succession with which we are familiar - the children of Mary would take precedence over those of Anne because Mary was older than Anne. After Mary died, had William remarried then his children would come behind Anne's because his personal claim was lower than that of Anne's. I can understand Anne being peeved at having to wait until he died before becoming Queen, but at the same time I can understand Parliament acting the way it did - by having him complete his time before going to Anne, otherwise it could have gone Mary, Anne, William (so having been Mary's consort he then becomes king in his own right).

The joint monarchy thing acknowledged two things: William having an army at his back to maintain the Protestant religion in England AND Mary's superior claim to the throne over his.


Henry VII's situation is different because he was a straight out conqueror and not so close to the throne in his own right.

Kotroman 06-14-2009 04:59 PM

You are right, William III needed Mary II. Now I remember reading that Mary II actually begged the parliament to offer the throne to her husband. Too bad she was so weak and never had much to do during her reign. I wonder what kind of a de facto monarch would've she been...

About Anne being nasty... everyone who loses 17 children would be at least cranky if not nasty ;)

Marsel 06-15-2009 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman (Post 953010)
You are right, William III needed Mary II. Now I remember reading that Mary II actually begged the parliament to offer the throne to her husband. Too bad she was so weak and never had much to do during her reign. I wonder what kind of a de facto monarch would've she been...

The Parliament was divided into three fractions those day; one believed that Mary had to be Queen in her own right, while William could be King of England in her right, like Mary I and Philip of Spain (that would mean he wouldn't remain King if Mary predeceased William). That idea seemed to have most support in the Parliament.
The other, smaller group, wanted William to be King in his own right, while Mary would be his Consort, not Queen Regnant, like Henry VII and Elizabeth of York (Elizabeth, who was the Yorkist heiress to the throne, had considerably more rights than Henry).
The third and probably smallest group proposed that both Mary and William should become Monarchs, with the surviving one continuing Reigning until his/her death (that was unprecedented in British History, for although Philip of Spain was King of England, he was King only in his wife's right and couldn't remain one after her death).

The majority of Parliament still wanted Mary to be the sole Sovereign, with William as a King as long as Mary was alive. However Mary, loyal to her husband's interests, repeatedly declined the offer and insisted she wouldn’t agree to become Queen if her husband wasn’t a King Regnant (William himself refused any other outcome).

In the end, the Parliament came up with the Bill of Rights 1689, which satisfied everyone:
* Mary and William were to be joint Rulers, and the surviving one was to continue to Reign until his/her death
* In the line of the succession, precedence was given to the children William and Mary could have, followed by the children Mary could have from any later marriage
* In case their marriage was childless, Princess Anne and her Heirs were to succeed them (not succeed Mary, but the surviving Ruler, which turned out to be William)
* Recognizing William's rights, his Heirs from a later marriage (to a woman other than Mary) would be directly beneath Anne's Heirs in the Line of the succession


If Mary were a stronger woman or a less devoted wife, she could have become a sole Monarch without significant opposition.

Elspeth 06-15-2009 02:24 AM

I'm not sure it would have been that easy if William didn't want to simply be King as an appendage to a Queen Regnant but was demanding to be made King in his own right as a condition for agreeing to invade and get rid of James II. I'm glad they agreed to a joint monarchy and didn't demote Mary to the status of Consort (even though it seems that that's pretty much what she was in practice).

Marsel 06-15-2009 04:25 PM

That's partly true; William categorically refused to even think of 'invading' England, unless he would subsequently be offered the English Crown.
However, once everything was said and done, Mary could have insist on becoming a sole Monarch, with Philip as her co-ruler for the time of her life only.
She lacked any ambition though and seemed only too happy to let William do all the 'ruling'. As a matter of fact, she probably showed resolution only on one issue - insisting William should be a Reigning Monarch in his own right.

Marengo 06-15-2009 04:35 PM

Though initially it was indeed William who did the reigning, Queen Mary II herself was actually the one in charge when her husband was away on his frequent foreign campaigns (or the Irish one) or visits to The Netherlands.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises