So, it’s a good thing I wrote “heir of Alfred the Great” and “heir of King Edmund II” rather than “heir of an arbitrary claimant to the 11th-century throne which was bouncing among unrelated factions.”
First: “Closest living blood relative” has nothing to do with it! (Taking “close” literally, the youngest child of a youngest child will be closer than the oldest son of an oldest son of an oldest son. Inheritance through older children increases the number of generations, which reduces consanguinity.
More interestingly, what are the “various disruptions to the direct descent of Scottish monarchs” you speak of? I’m aware of one (1) deviation from cognatic primogeniture in the chain of kings between David I and James VI: the replacement of John Baliol “of the Empty Cloak” with Robert the Bruce (whose claim was almost as good as Baliol’s). What are the other disruptions?
(Who is the living Baliolist claimant to Scotland, BTW? AFAICT the Baliols were too embarrassed to even nominate a Pretender. )
The difference? Mary’s son by her 1st husband would have been the Dauphin of France at birth and crowned King by the French when his father died. OTOH Henry VIII was never crowned in France :eek: . Indeed he famously dropped the “King of France” title for his 1520 meeting with King Francis I in Calais. (That Francis I was the grandfather of Mary’s husband, King Francis II.)
I’ll guess the unification of France and Scotland might have gone forward if the couple had a son — England was their common rival! But when Mary Queen of both Scotland and France became the default successor to the Tudors, the English would have made other arrangements.
Perhaps you are right that that all monarchs and claimants had some kind of descent from David I, but the line chosen was fairly arbitrary and depended on circumstances, and could easily have gone in a different direction.
IF Mary and Liz werent legit, the Jane was pretty much next, if we allow females.
Jane had one big advantage over Mary- she wasnt Catholic. However, the people of England learned what happened if you allow a catholic back on the throne.
In another source I see alleged children by a mistress. Do I need a cite that these, even if they existed, don’t count? (Sure, had William been defeated at Hastings, the Crown would never have passed to Edgar’s sister! But one makes do as best one can in these fanciful constructions.)
:smack: WTF sort of answer is this?? Seriously, you imagine I make the comment I made when I don’t know how to Google for a list of Scottish Kings??
And what sort of snark is “perhaps you are right [about] some sort of descent”?? The claim was the crown passed specifically through the principal heirs of the body. not “some sort of descent.” :smack:
I have stated that I know of only ONE (1) deviation from cognatic primogeniture in the relevant line; and your answer is, without comment, Wiki’s list?
Why don’t YOU study your oh-so-helpful list and provide just ONE alleged deviation other than the Baliol-to-Bruce transition?
Mary was entirely legitimate; it was personally and politically convenient for Henry VIII to retroactively ignore that. Elizabeth was legitimate if you accept Henry’s view; she was not if you didn’t but in neither case does it seem to have been important to anyone as she was recognized as royalty. For that matter, Mary I kept Elizabeth as heir rather than do away with her.
Jane would have been next after all of Henry’s children had died (his sons preceded him in death except Edward). Legitimacy wasn’t the issue, however. Henry VIII had clearly laid out the succession and that did not place Jane until fourth in line (and walled out the Scots).
Lord Northumberland didn’t much care for this since it would likely mean losing power, so he had to changed in secret. This is legally questionable. Not necessary wrong, but questionable. By keeping it secret it made the whole change very shaky; the point of success law was that it was known and clear. It also meant that Northumberland couldn’t actually build the political groundwork necessary for such a switch, and thus he failed to have any foundation ready and got completely bowled over by Mary.
I will leave your bigoted remark aside.
Jane’s religion certainly made it convenient, but Dudley probably would have done it anyway considering that he wasn’t very keen on giving up power. Mary’s support was hardly limited to Roman Catholics. However, Northumberland wanted power, which he was never going to keep under Mary.
But you didn’t, did you? It’s a factual matter that Mary’s ascension led to problems (to put it mildly) for Protestants, so mentioning it is not bigotry. So don’t make this kind of inflammatory accusation.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
:smack:As a moderator, I’m continually surprised about how people get into fights over the details of things that happened 500 years ago.
By the death of Edward VI in 1553, however, James V had been dead for a decade, and all of the Scottish candidates were either descended in the female line or themselves female.
As far as the Scottish inheritance, Alexander III in 1281 attempted to establish succession rules that mixed together primogeniture and proximity of blood; at the death of his granddaughter Margaret in 1290, there was no unambiguous set of rules that determined who inherited, and thirteen candidates presented themselves to the court established by the Guardians (regents) for the late queen to decide her successor. Balliol’s claim was based on legitimate cognatic primogeniture, while Bruce’s was based on tanistry and proximity of blood, Floris of Holland’s on the basis of proximity of blood and the alleged renunciation of inheritance rights by David Earl of Huntingdon, Nicholas de Soules’s on proximity of blood through a natural daughter of Alexander II (at a time when illegitimacy was not yet an automatic bar to inheritance), etc.
There was plenty of precedent for cognatic primogeniture. King Duncan I inherited from his maternal grandfather King Malcolm II. And of course the Scots were ready to put the very young Margaret on the throne.
Baliol and Bruce had very similar claims: each was descended from a daughter of David de Huntingdon: Isabella was the paternal grandmother of Robert Bruce; Margaret was the maternal grandmother of John Balliol. Margaret was born before her sister Isabella, so Balliol got the nod — the fact that he was the son of the daughter of the daughter of the Heir should make the cognatic nature of their primogeniture rules pretty clear. (Robert Bruce died during Balliol’s reign, so it was his son, also named Robert Bruce, who eventually reigned as King Robert I.)
Yes, the fact that 13 (I thought it was 14) candidates presented themselves is a famous little factoid, but only the Balliol and Bruce claims were regarded as serious. Sure, for such a matter lawyers show up with lots of genealogical observations, but in the end it was the proper heir, by simple cognatic primogeniture, who was crowned. (Am I wrong that Bruce, part of the Turnberry Band, was more popular than Balliol? Yet the crown went to Balliol, in part because of the simple fact that his grandmother Margaret was several years older than her sister!)
Politics played as big a role as genealogy of course! In the end, the Scots absurdly asked King Edward I of England (himself one of the 14 claimants) to choose. Edward probably chose Balliol because he was the weaker man of the two serious claimants — he treated Balliol as his puppet and soon invaded Scotland with an army — rather than due to the genealogical details of their claims to the throne!
Balliol was more popular; he had the support not only of Edward (who did not advance any claim of his own) but of the majority of the Scottish nobility, including some of the auditors appointed by Bruce. and such powerful magnates as the Black Comyn (who was one of the claimants himself, and also married to Balliol’s sister).
Edward was chosen as president of the court of arbiters, rather than the sole decision-maker, in part because he would have been the father-in-law of the young Queen Margaret. Her death at the age of seven happened several months after her regents betrothed her to Edward’s son, the five-year-old future Edward II of England (whose own later marriage to Isabella of France provided the genealogical justification for the Hundred Years’ War).
In English feudal tradition, elder sons inherited before younger, but elder daughters did not–all of the daughters were co-heirs. (As late as the 1930s, there were serious suggestions that the British Parliament needed to pass legislation firmly establishing the present queen as senior to her sister Princess Margaret, while the English hereditary office of Lord Great Chamberlain is an example of repeated co-heiresses: the Marquess of Cholmondeley “owns” one half of the office, Baroness Willoughby de Eresby one-quarter, and fourteen other people have a share of the remaining quarter, as in the absence of male heirs shares are divided between sisters.)
Eldest daughter of David of Huntingdon, so it made pretty good sense to contemporaries. Robert de Brus descended from a younger daughter, hence weaker claim to the title. It was arguably a bit arbitrary, but it was undoubtedly considered the fairest way to do things back then. Typically when multiple female heirs inherited any estates were split into equal shares, but the titles often went into abeyance. When they didn’t they more often followed the eldest.
So when Ranulf de Blondeville, earl of Chester and Lincoln died without any heirs of his own, his lands were divided among his four sisters. The eldest was married to David, earl of Huntingdon and their son John le Scot( 1207-1237 )inherited the senior title of earl of Chester through his mother and earl of Huntingdon through his father. If he hadn’t died young and childless his heirs would have absolutely have inherited Scotland. But with Henry III’s special permission Ranulf specifically granted his junior title of earl of Lincoln to his youngest sister, so that her daughter would carry it to the Lacy family, ensuring that all four of his sisters would be countesses( the middle two were married to the earls of Derby and Arundel/Sussex respectively ).
Though there were certainly many exceptions. For example when the Marshal earldom of Pembroke was broken up among five female heirs in 1245 the title initially went into abeyance. It was then resurrected in 1247 for the line of the youngest when her heir and daughter married William de Valence( nee Lusignan ), Henry III’s half-brother who he wanted to elevate. So William became 1rst earl of Pembroke rather than 7th, because there was a break in the succession 1245-1247.
Whatever his personal qualities it is worth pointing out is that John Balliol was also the richest major contender with extensive lands throughout England, but particularly in the north. It might have been felt that his heavy investment in valuable estates that were owed directly to the English crown would act to curb any annoying tendencies towards independent action. This was an old carrot and stick policy. The Honour of Huntingdon had been dangled in front of the Scots, the Honour of Richmond likewise for Brittany. The counts of Perche on the borders of Maine were wooed with English lands, etc.
Lady Jane’s position was definitely not a shoo-in. She was great-grand-daughter to Henry VII, but there were others in line ahead of her, although arguments could be made against any of them for various reasons.
In any event, Jane as Queen was by no means a well-known or prepared-for situation, and when people saw her (instead of the expected Mary Tudor) in procession they reported asked who the hell she was. Th moral of the story is that it’s pretty hard to be accepted as Head of State if nobody knows who you are.
By 1936, the issue of succession to the crown had been settled once and for all by the Act of Settlement, which stated that the crown would go only to the Protestant heirs of Sophia Electoress of Hanover.
There was no confusion.
Not entirely. What slash2k was referring to was the fact the Act of Settlement defined Electoress Sophia’s heirs as the ‘heirs of the body’, yet that arguably implied that multiple daughters with no brother would be co-heiresses. Which was exactly the situation that arose in 1952 and which had been foreseen since 1936. Whether this was a problem was indeed the subject of some expert discussion.
Exactly. In English property law, including for property such as hereditary titles and offices, “heirs of the body” had specific meaning:
If there was a single child, that child inherited, regardless of gender.
If there were multiple children, then the eldest son inherited.
If there were multiple children but no eldest son (i.e., only daughters), then those daughters split the property. The fact that one was older than the other(s) was irrelevant for purposes of inheritance.
For example, in 1742 the 2nd Duke of Ancaster, holder of the hereditary office of Lord Great Chamberlain, died leaving seven children. The eldest son became 3rd Duke and Lord Great Chamberlain. In 1779, however, the 4th Duke died and the “heirs of his body” were his two sisters; as co-heiresses, they split the office of Lord Great Chamberlain, because Lady Priscilla being three years older than her sister Lady Georgiana didn’t mean anything. (The dukedom descended to the “heirs male of the body,” so an uncle became the 5th Duke, and the last duke for want of further heirs male.)
Lady Georgiana was Marchioness of Cholmondeley; her one-half interest in the office of Lord Great Chamberlain has descended undivided to her 4th-great-grandson, the present LGC and Marquess of Cholmondeley. Lady Priscilla’s line, however, ran to daughters, and her share has been split and split again; more than a dozen people now hold shares ranging from one-quarter to one-one-hundredth.
In 1952, both Elizabeth and Margaret were Protestant, and for the first time since the Act of Settlement, a king died leaving two daughters but no son. (Victoria was an only child.) The confusion was over whether a throne was sufficiently different from other kinds of property that the normal rules of two sisters as equal heirs of the body each inheriting half would not apply.
)
:smack: WTF sort of answer is this?? Seriously, you imagine I make the comment I made when I don’t know how to Google for a list of Scottish Kings??