Henry VIII, Divorce and the Church of England

[Claverhouse]

@Eliahna

Both Mary and Elizabeth were declared illegitimate by their father after his marriages to their mothers were annulled; Googling the term “retrospective annulment” turns up citations such as this one:

Henry’s view regarding his marital and succession issues was that ‘I am the Law’

As with most testamentary successions, it was wisely ignored after the fact: no man has standing when dead. And legally no-one is obligated to follow any dead persons Will once they have passed. Consider them guidelines.

@PatrickLondon

I thought that, technically, even after 1688, it was a matter of annual approval by Parliament (up until the mid-1950s?), so that it was in effect a Parliamentary army that could be stood down at any time, rather than a standing army - hence it’s the British Army but the Royal Navy.

Indeed; after whining like hell for most of the 17th century about the wickedness of standing armies, parliament imposed one of it’s very own, and as you say, through a legal fiction of annually approving it, therefore claiming it wasn’t continuous for 300 years.

@Guinastasia

There’s no conclusive proof of that, and most historians reputable historians believe she was framed. The accusation is based mainly on the so-called “Casket Letters”, which were said to be written by Mary, but only a few people saw the originals, and only copies exist today…

Mary herself never saw these precious documents, even at the trial.

Mary wasn’t murdered for another two decades in jail, by which time it would be understandable if she wanted to murder Elizabeth ( she was a peer of Elizabeth, not a subject ).

British justice has always been capricious, but never more so than in Tudor State Trials.

@Nava

If you mean to the Empire itself, that was an elected position. For any of its many components, the situation varied.

The Roman Emperorship was more of a President-For-Life thing.

[watchwolf49]

@Guinastasia

There’s no conclusive proof of that, and most historians reputable historians believe she was framed. The accusation is based mainly on the so-called “Casket Letters”, which were said to be written by Mary, but only a few people saw the originals, and only copies exist today. Even then they weren’t necessarily all that convincing, and the originals were destroyed some time later. There’s a good chance they were forgeries.

Also, Darnley never gave Mary symphilis, at least to my knowledge – do you have a cite for that? Yes, he himself had it at one point, but I’ve never read of him passing it on to her.

Fraser, Antonia; Mary Queen of Scots; Delacorte Press, New York; 1969.

The author presented both sides of the Casket Letters controversy but relied on the descriptions of Lord Darnley’s various illnesses, explaining that these were consistent with syphilis infection. Of course medical diagnostics weren’t exactly very good during the 16th century, and The Master speaks to this as well. Even as a consumate apologist for Mary, Fraser admitted she did some really really really stupid things, some of which she did long before she had sex with Darnley.

[watchwolf49]

My point remains … all of this has to be viewed in the context of the Reformation.