Britain's Real Monarch? Er, no
A couple of days ago I mentioned the news stories about Michael Hastings, the Australian who a British TV programme said was the rightful King of England. I said then that his supposed claim to the crown was on rather shaky constitutional and historical grounds and watching the programme (Britain's Real Monarch) last night didn't do anything to dissuade me of that opinion.
The first issue, which I mentioned before, is the question of the legitimacy of King Edward IV. Now, rather than debate the evidence that seemingly shows this, let's assume the research is accurate and that Edward IV was illegitimate. It doesn't matter. While the royal houses that followed on from the Plantagenets were descendents of Edward IV (through his daughter Elizabeth's marriage to Henry VII) their claim to the throne didn't come through him. Henry's marriage to Elizabeth was not to take advantage of her possible claim to the throne (and at that point in history, England had never had a reigning Queen - the closest had been Matilda, who was never able to claim the throne, despite the interminable wars with King Stephen) but to unite the houses of Lancaster and York. Henry had already claimed the crown after Bosworth (indeed, the legend is of him being crowned on the battlefield after the death of Richard III) and his marriage to Elizabeth came after he was already King. There is a point in English history where a King got the throne through his wife's claim, but that was William III around 200 years later.
Second, there's the question of whether Henry Tudor could claim the throne himself. Now, there's all sorts of issues regarding Henry's ancestry, but what is clear is that he was the recognised heir of the House of Lancaster. However, that's not really a major issue as the most persuasive reason why Henry got the throne was through force of arms, invading the country and defeating Richard's army at Bosworth. Technically, of course, that makes him a usurper, but usurpation is like treason - it never prospers, for it if it does, none dare call it usurpation. One can claim that this doesn't make him the rightful King, but if you take that position then the the same argument - that invasion and force of arms doesn't make you King - then the entire Plantagenet claim to the throne is on shaky ground as it comes from William The Conqueror's invasion of England. If heredity is the sole grounds on which one can claim the throne of England then one really has to go back to the pre-1066 House of Wessex to find a rightful monarch. That leads us to the sons of Edmund Ironside (Edward the Confessor had no children) and having looked at that briefly, it seems that that line leads (through Edward the Exile and his daughter Margaret of Scotland, sister of Edgar the Atheling) to the Kings of Scotland - which means the rightful line was actually restored in 1603 with the arrival of the Stuarts.
Thirdly, and this builds on a point made by Jonathan Edelstein in the comments to my earlier post on this, there's the fact that the Crown is in the gift of Parliament anyway. This has definitely been the case since the 1689 Bill of Rights and 1701's Act of Settlement but the concept of Kings being recognised by a parliament is present before 1066 with Kings being chosen/elected by the Witan and there are plenty of occasions of Parliaments recognising the right of someone to be King between 1066 and 1689 (during the Wars of the Roses, for instance, and of course in the various battles between Kings and Parliament in the seventeenth century). It connects into the issue of usurpation - being the descendant of Kings can only make you King if you can then claim the throne.
Finally, there's the problem that anyone claiming the throne of England is claiming something that, in one interpretation of the effects of the Acts of Union, ceased to exist in 1707 with the Act of Union as from that point the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were replaced by a new entity - the Kingdom of Great Britain. It's quite a contentious interpretation, but it holds that rather than England absorbing Scotland, the two states terminated themselves in favour of the new single entity of Great Britain which would absorb Ireland in 1800. However, by that interpretation any claims to the throne of England are as null and void as any claims to the thrones of Wessex, Mercia or Northumbria, as the rightful line of succession to the throne of Great Britain stems only from the foundation of the state in 1707 - Queen Anne and then the House of Hanover as the Protestant heirs of the House of Stuart.
So, while it was an interesting programme last night - I'd never heard of the dispute between Queen Victoria and Flora Hastings, or the remarkably wasteful Earl of Loudon who blew the remaining £120,000 (approximately £5.5m in modern terms) of his fortune on a single bet - it doesn't really prove anything except that it's possible for the descendant of a King to work as a rice researcher in New South Wales.
The first issue, which I mentioned before, is the question of the legitimacy of King Edward IV. Now, rather than debate the evidence that seemingly shows this, let's assume the research is accurate and that Edward IV was illegitimate. It doesn't matter. While the royal houses that followed on from the Plantagenets were descendents of Edward IV (through his daughter Elizabeth's marriage to Henry VII) their claim to the throne didn't come through him. Henry's marriage to Elizabeth was not to take advantage of her possible claim to the throne (and at that point in history, England had never had a reigning Queen - the closest had been Matilda, who was never able to claim the throne, despite the interminable wars with King Stephen) but to unite the houses of Lancaster and York. Henry had already claimed the crown after Bosworth (indeed, the legend is of him being crowned on the battlefield after the death of Richard III) and his marriage to Elizabeth came after he was already King. There is a point in English history where a King got the throne through his wife's claim, but that was William III around 200 years later.
Second, there's the question of whether Henry Tudor could claim the throne himself. Now, there's all sorts of issues regarding Henry's ancestry, but what is clear is that he was the recognised heir of the House of Lancaster. However, that's not really a major issue as the most persuasive reason why Henry got the throne was through force of arms, invading the country and defeating Richard's army at Bosworth. Technically, of course, that makes him a usurper, but usurpation is like treason - it never prospers, for it if it does, none dare call it usurpation. One can claim that this doesn't make him the rightful King, but if you take that position then the the same argument - that invasion and force of arms doesn't make you King - then the entire Plantagenet claim to the throne is on shaky ground as it comes from William The Conqueror's invasion of England. If heredity is the sole grounds on which one can claim the throne of England then one really has to go back to the pre-1066 House of Wessex to find a rightful monarch. That leads us to the sons of Edmund Ironside (Edward the Confessor had no children) and having looked at that briefly, it seems that that line leads (through Edward the Exile and his daughter Margaret of Scotland, sister of Edgar the Atheling) to the Kings of Scotland - which means the rightful line was actually restored in 1603 with the arrival of the Stuarts.
Thirdly, and this builds on a point made by Jonathan Edelstein in the comments to my earlier post on this, there's the fact that the Crown is in the gift of Parliament anyway. This has definitely been the case since the 1689 Bill of Rights and 1701's Act of Settlement but the concept of Kings being recognised by a parliament is present before 1066 with Kings being chosen/elected by the Witan and there are plenty of occasions of Parliaments recognising the right of someone to be King between 1066 and 1689 (during the Wars of the Roses, for instance, and of course in the various battles between Kings and Parliament in the seventeenth century). It connects into the issue of usurpation - being the descendant of Kings can only make you King if you can then claim the throne.
Finally, there's the problem that anyone claiming the throne of England is claiming something that, in one interpretation of the effects of the Acts of Union, ceased to exist in 1707 with the Act of Union as from that point the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were replaced by a new entity - the Kingdom of Great Britain. It's quite a contentious interpretation, but it holds that rather than England absorbing Scotland, the two states terminated themselves in favour of the new single entity of Great Britain which would absorb Ireland in 1800. However, by that interpretation any claims to the throne of England are as null and void as any claims to the thrones of Wessex, Mercia or Northumbria, as the rightful line of succession to the throne of Great Britain stems only from the foundation of the state in 1707 - Queen Anne and then the House of Hanover as the Protestant heirs of the House of Stuart.
So, while it was an interesting programme last night - I'd never heard of the dispute between Queen Victoria and Flora Hastings, or the remarkably wasteful Earl of Loudon who blew the remaining £120,000 (approximately £5.5m in modern terms) of his fortune on a single bet - it doesn't really prove anything except that it's possible for the descendant of a King to work as a rice researcher in New South Wales.
Nick got away with this at 3:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home