Search In The AnswerBank

Web   Site

royal line of succession

Avatar Image Stu in USA
19:22 on Sat 12/Nov/05 With the death of Elizabeth I, were there other candidates to succeed her and was James I universally accepted as the rightful heir?
prev Guy Fawkes   Male Succession next
Report this question
Subscribe to question
 Find out more…

Please describe this clip for users who are unable to view You Tube videos, this is for their benefit.

Type your answer here
I want to subscribe to this thread

1 to 10 of 10

Avatar Image
Drusilla
(19:58 on Sat 12/Nov/05)

If the succession had followed the protocol set up by Henry VIII, which stated the children and descendants of his own sister Mary should inherit if his children left no heirs, then Elizabeth should have been succeeded by Lady Anne Stanley.
However, an old rule about males taking precedence over females led to the crown being given to James VI of Scotland.
Check that I've got the right name for Henry's sister. I'm feeling too lazy to search.
Avatar Image
Drusilla
(20:07 on Sat 12/Nov/05)

I have just checked and I got the right sister. What I didn't realise was that Mary was Henry VIII younger sister and he wanted her family to rule after his own children. However, he had an older sister called Margaret and her family should have by right of birth had the succession.
I suppose it all worked out for the best because King JamesVI of Scotland was in fact descended from the older sister, Margaret.
It's surprising just how much trouble Henry VIII caused because I'm still confused.
Avatar Image
Stu in USA
(20:53 on Sat 12/Nov/05)
Question Author
Thank you Drusilla for your prompt reply and research, but what I would also like to know if it was a seemless transition from Tudor to Jacobean. My memory of O level history and BBC 2 history progs mentions no Pretenders to throne or any upheaval associated with this Dynasty change.
Avatar Image
Drusilla
(21:24 on Sat 12/Nov/05)

There were other people with a claim, including Edward Seymour, Baron Beauchamp, the illegitimate son of Lady Catherine Grey (Not Jane) and William Stanley, the 6th Earl of Derby and Lady Anne Stanley's uncle. Apparently, the Privy Council broke with tradition and announced James as the next monarch, rather than waiting for him to proclaim himself king. I would imagine Seymour and Stanley realised they had no support at the highest political level and wisely kept quiet about their possible claims on the throne.
Avatar Image
Chessman
(21:50 on Sat 12/Nov/05) Thanks for the history llesson Drusilla, I thought I new most things about that time period, I know a bit more now.
Avatar Image
jno
(23:11 on Sat 12/Nov/05) someone wrote a book about this quite recently - in the last 6 months - but blowed if I can track its name down. Curious that James was the son of Mary Queen of Scots' son; he seems to have borne Elizabeth no grudge for beheading his mother. I would have.
Avatar Image
Stu in USA
(00:19 on Sun 13/Nov/05)
Question Author
Wasn't James the son of Mary Queen of Scots?
Avatar Image
jno
(00:22 on Sun 13/Nov/05) yup - should have proofread that sentence better! Sorry Stu.
Avatar Image
Peter Pedant
(00:05 on Mon 14/Nov/05)

hi Stu - Henry VIII's law, you could check on that as well. I am not sure if people thought at the time it was a proper law. It was only in james reign that it was decided that common law could be overuled by statute - always. Some people thought some rights were er inalienable, that is could NOT be altered by statute.


One of them would have been the succession.



Alternatively you could argue that on the wording Henry VIII's law allowed any reigning monarch to devise the crown by will. Certainly Elizabeth was bothered by advisers on this point and said, "why my cousin of Scotland of course...."



and and and someone got gold and brownie points ( a barony I think) by arranging for a line of gee-gees, yes horses, the fastest thing in 1603 to ride with the news to bonnie Scotland, so that james could get on his horse and come down to London and claim the crown.



Wht was the question ? was there any uncertainty....well there certainly seemed to be at the time !



PP
Avatar Image
bambalina79
(11:35 on Mon 14/Nov/05)

I have a great interest in this subject, I am crap at putting things into words so i took this from a site which should maybe clear up where the Doubt dervied from....


MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS


Mary was born at Linlithgow in 1542, the daughter of James V and Mary de Guise (who had been courted by Henry VIII of England). The princess became queen at the age of six days upon the death of her father. At age six, Mary was betrothed to Henry VIII's son, the ill-fated Edward, but with what results history will never disclose, the proposed union was nullified by a pro-French and Roman Catholic faction. The ire of the English king, exemplified by the period of invasions of his Scottish neighbours known as "the rough wooing," resulted in the defeat of the Scots at Pinkie (1547) and Mary's being sent to France.


THE LINK TO ELIZABETH


Mary returned to Scotland.

The plot then thickened. When Elizabeth I became queen, Mary became heir presumptive to the English throne as the granddaughter of Margaret Tudor. Not only that, but Roman Catholics throughout Europe considered her to be a better claimant to the Crown of England than the queen herself, for they believed that Elizabeth's mother Ann Boleyn had been married illegally to King Henry.


James VI & I was the only heir in line as Elizabeth died without child and out of wedlock.


I took this info from http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/stuart.htm />

1 to 10 of 10

Post An Answer

Search In The AnswerBank

Web   Site

Latest posts