HM Queen Catherine
Nobility
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2009
- Messages
- 302
- City
- Rendsburg
- Country
- Germany
No matter what the argument, Jane Grey was declared Queen of England on 10 July 1553. Her short reign is significant because it was the first time in English history that a woman was named Queen Regnant. During the course of that nine days, Jane refused to name Guilford Dudley as king by letters patent, instead offering to make him Duke of Clarence - and she deferred to Parliament with this decision.
This significant detail is much too often overlooked by a great number of people, including authors and historians. If Jane was not recognized as Queen by Parliament, then why would she defer to Parliament in the first place? And why would Parliament consider such a deferment by someone they did not recognize as Queen?
The fact is, Parliament did not declare Mary the rightful Queen of England until 19 July 1553 - after she had gained enough support to ride into London.
And you won't ever read about an Act of Parliament that made Matilda the rightful heir to the throne. That's because the first elected Parliament was summoned by Simon de Montfort in 1265, almost 100 years after her death.
By the terms of Henry I's will, Matilda was to succeed him to the throne. His barons were twice made to swear allegiance to Matilda while Henry reigned, as well as sworn to accept her as Henry's heir.
She expected to ascend the throne because she was the senior claimant through her paternal line, while Stephen of Blois' claim was through his mother.
After the death of Henry I, Stephen usurped the throne with the support of most of the barons. Only Matilda's gender and her marriage into the House of Anjou, made it possible for him to gain the necessary support to seize the throne. And in the process, Stephen broke the oaths he made to defend Matilda's right to succeed Henry I.
Eventually, of course, Stephen acknowledged the rights of Matilda's son Henry to inherit the Crown, in the Treaty of Wallingford of 1153.
Henry IV's legitimacy is questionable. Richard II was the crowned and anointed King of England, who already had an heir presumptive in Edmund de Mortimer. Richard and Henry, though cousins, had never had an easy relationship, and Richard banished him from England in 1398.
After the death of John of Gaunt in early 1399, Henry returned to England while Richard was on a military campaign in Ireland. He gained enough power and support to have himself declared king in Richard's absence, and when Richard returned, Henry had him imprisoned. He also effectively by-passed Edmund de Mortimer, who had a better claim to the throne that he did.
Henry was crowned on 13 October 1399. Richard II didn't die until 14 February 1400.
So I fail to see your argument that there can only be one legal monarch at a time. That entirely depends on which side you're standing on. If by legal, you mean a crowned and anointed King, then in this instance there were two living at the same time. I would point out that until Richard II's death, he was the legal monarch of the realm, and Henry IV was the usurper, since his coronation occurred before Richard died.
Henry VII was also a usurper that won the Crown through "right of conquest". The entire Tudor dynasty had a questionable legitimacy, and they were all continually obsessed with that issue.
The only thing Richard III had to do to keep his throne was to stay alive. Unfortunately, his death at Bosworth effectively ended the War of the Roses, and the Lancaster line came out on top. It must be said, however, that though both sides descended from John of Gaunt, the Yorkists had the senior claim to the throne.. meaning Richard III was the senior claimant.
Henry VII's claim was tenous at best, because it came through his mother, Margaret Beaufort, a woman, and was based on a lineage of illegitimate succession. The Beauforts were disinherited from the succession by Letters Patent of Henry IV, who was the legitimate son of John of Gaunt. Margaret Beaufort was the great-granddaughter of John, and though her line had been legitimated after John of Gaunt's marriage to Katherine Swynford, they were barred from the succession.
Margaret, Countess of Salisbury's family were too weak to challenge Henry VII, even though they had a higher claim, and Henry VIII effectively neutralized them by killing off the Pole family one by one.
Elizabeth of Bohemia's husband, Frederick V, was not a usurper of the Bohemian throne. He was the leader of the Protestant Union, and was offered the crown in 1619, by the Protestant estates and nobility of Bohemia.
They chose him because of his position, but his allies failed to support him militarily by signing the Treaty of Ulm in 1620. He was defeated at the Battle of White Mountain by the Hapsburgs, effectively ending his reign.
Of course, it is true you can call yourself anything you like. And you can sign documents in any way you see fit.. but I fail to see how this has any bearing on the history we are discussing.
If you want to debate the history, then it is prudent to know enough about the subject at hand, and its equally important to be impartial in dealing with the facts. The history of England and its monarchy is often subjective, and there are no clear-cut lines of demarcation when dealing with its early monarchs.
And regarding the Emperor of the United States..
Joshua Abraham Norton was a highly eccentric, but well-beloved citizen of San Francisco, who even with his psychological problems, was sometimes a visionary (calling for a League of Nations, which eventually came true). He was honored by the Army post at the Presidio, and was saluted by the policemen of San Francisco. Was he the Emperor of the United States? No. But he never shed anyone's blood, robbed anyone, and he despoiled no country.. which cannot be said of the early monarchs of England.
Personally, I don't understand why my entries in this forum illicit ill-feeling among a few of you. I have simply stated the facts as I know them to be, and I welcome a logical and reasonable debate with anyone who can point out or produce facts that I may not have uncovered in my studies.
The sarcasm, however, makes me uncomfortable.
