# The real King of England lives in Australia **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 27, 2017, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397 "2017-09-27T04:45:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/21 "2017-09-27T16:50:34Z")
Interesting fact I hadn’t known: Henry VII of England was a direct descendant of Harold Godwinson. So in a sense, Henry’s ascension to the throne in 1485 was an overturning of the Norman Conquest. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/22 "2017-09-27T16:58:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Interesting fact I hadn’t known: Henry VII of England was a direct descendant of Harold Godwinson. So in a sense, Henry’s ascension to the throne in 1485 was an overturning of the Norman Conquest. Of _course_ someone had to come and Godwinson the thread. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/23 "2017-09-27T19:18:08Z")
Pedantry alert! Hide your eyes! > [@GreenWyvern](#): > > When Henry II died, the question was whether Arthur, the infant son of Geoffrey, Duke of Brittany, had a better right to throne than Richard, the younger brother of Geoffrey. According to Norman law Richard had the better right, but according to the law of Anjou Arthur had the better right. (The Plantagenets were descended in the male line from Geoffrey, Count of Anjou.) Richard the Lionheart became king, then his younger brother John. John still considered Arthur of Brittany’s claim to be a threat to him, and had him imprisoned and murdered. Richard was older than Geoffrey - of those who survived to adulthood it went Henry, Richard, Geoffrey, John. Richard was never at a threat of being displaced by Arthur, controversy around the two arises because he declared Arthur his heir before setting out on the Crusade much to John’s disgruntlement. It is claimed that on his deathbed he changed that to John, which is probably a coin-flip proposition. On the one hand Richard seems to have been genuinely fond of John despite his rebellious impulses, John was far more suited to the empire as a full adult and it was witnessed. On the other hand said deathbed witnesses were arguably biased to favor John, including Eleanor of Aquitaine who always ardently backed her sons. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/24 "2017-09-27T19:36:43Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > **PatrickLondon** “Parliament” is the Commons, Lords and the Monarch acting together. The point is that the nitpickers claim that as it was an unlawful Monarch who assented to the Act of Settlement, it’s no law at all. That’s what Charles I said, and look how far it got him. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/25 "2017-09-27T19:39:07Z")
I don’t get it. Edward took the throne by force from Henry VI. And then Edward died. And instead of letting his son Edward V become king, his younger brother Richard had the boy killed and himself crowned instead. In neither direction do I see how the legitimacy of Edward IV would come into play at all. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/26 "2017-09-27T20:09:47Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Pedantry alert! Hide your eyes! Here’s another. 😉 The [Kingdom of England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_England) ceased to exist in 1707 when it united with Scotland to form the [Kingdom of Great Britain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain). ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/27 "2017-09-27T22:50:18Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Richard was older than Geoffrey But just to make things _more_ confusing, I do recall now Richard was also younger than Geoffrey at the same time. His illegitimate half-brother [Geoffrey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_(archbishop_of_York)) ;). Henry II did us no favors when he insisted on honoring his father with not one, but two living namesakes. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/28 "2017-09-28T00:03:36Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > I understand that entirely, but since the substantive fact was that by then any monarch would have done what the other components of the “Crown in Parliament” would have said, and since any other claimant would have depended for their legitimacy on the Commons and Lords, their point is simply a distinction without a difference. If you’re taking the legitimist position, I don’t think you will accept that a law is valid on the basis that the legitimate monarch would have assented to it, if in a position to do so. The legitimate monarch didn’t in fact assent to it; the only assent it received was from an illegitimate pretender; that’s not sufficient to give it the force of law; QED. The correct answer, I think, is the one offered by Melbourne. Legitimacy is a legal concept, and the concept includes a presumption of legitimacy. Edward IV benefits from the presumption of legitimacy, which in his case has never been rebutted in a legally effective way. Therefore he was the lawful and valid monarch, regardless of his genetic parentage. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/29 "2017-09-28T00:25:02Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Of _course_ someone had to come and Godwinson the thread. :rolleyes: You know who else didn’t get to rule England? ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/30 "2017-09-28T01:04:14Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > I don’t get it. Edward took the throne by force from Henry VI. And then Edward died. And instead of letting his son Edward V become king, his younger brother Richard had the boy killed and himself crowned instead. In neither direction do I see how the legitimacy of Edward IV would come into play at all. The idea is that with Edward illigitmate than the line should have gone through his brother george who did have surviving offspring. Henry VII had a very shaky claim to the throne through a line that apparently had been specifically excluded from the line of sucession. So his biggest claim of legitimacy was through his marriage to Edward’s eldest daughter, Elizabeth. But if Edward was illigitmate then his daughter would have been also. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/31 "2017-09-28T04:39:22Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You know who else didn’t get to rule England? Mary, Queen of Scots? ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/32 "2017-09-28T06:30:06Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > I don’t get it. Edward took the throne by force from Henry VI. And then Edward died. And instead of letting his son Edward V become king, his younger brother Richard had the boy killed and himself crowned instead. In neither direction do I see how the legitimacy of Edward IV would come into play at all. The argument in the original TV documentary was that Henry VII’s claim to legitimacy depended on his marriage to Edward IV’s daughter, his own connection to the Lancastrian line being much shakier, through his mother, and his grandfather’s marriage to Henry V’s widow. Trumped completely, in my view, by the simple fact that Henry and Elizabeth were, in effect, the last man and woman standing in each line. DNA was irrelevant beside the simple political fact that, in the then accepted pool of potential claimants, there was no-one else. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/33 "2017-09-28T13:25:07Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Mary, Queen of Scots? Obviously, I was thinking of Napoleon. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/34 "2017-09-28T13:54:10Z")
Henry Tudor’s biggest claim to legitimacy was winning at Bosworth Field and killing Richard III. Being descended from Henry V’s widow and marrying Elizabeth of York was just window dressing. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/35 "2017-09-28T14:48:19Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > **PatrickLondon** “Parliament” is the Commons, Lords and the Monarch acting together. The point is that the nitpickers claim that as it was an unlawful Monarch who assented to the Act of Settlement, it’s no law at all. > > There is a lot wrong with their claim but the parliamentary supremacy bit is not one of them. Is there actually any precedent for the claim that statutory instruments are invalidated, just because the assenting monarch was not lawfully the monarch despite having completed all the formalities (coronation, oath of office, etc.)? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/36 "2017-09-28T16:18:48Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Henry Tudor’s biggest claim to legitimacy was winning at Bosworth Field and killing Richard III. Being descended from Henry V’s widow and marrying Elizabeth of York was just window dressing. Exactly right. You’re the king when everyone agrees you’re the king. That’s what makes you the king. As well as Richard III, you could also ask Charles I or James II what happened when people stopped agreeing that they were the king. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/37 "2017-09-28T17:54:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Is there actually any precedent for the claim that statutory instruments are invalidated, just because the assenting monarch was not lawfully the monarch despite having completed all the formalities (coronation, oath of office, etc.)? Following the conclusion of one stage of the War of the Roses, Parliament passed a statute based on exactly this point - to ratify all previous Acts of Parliament assented to by Henry VI and Edward IV, regardless of their legal status as king at the time. The statute is often cited as the first recognition of the _de facto_ doctrine in English law. Busy at the moment, but if I have time later on I’ll see if I can find the cite. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/38 "2017-09-28T19:28:32Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Except that the law in question - the Act of Settlement - is only law because it was assented to by Queen Anne who, on this argument, wasn’t the lawful queen, and therefore this isn’t really the law. Why wasn’t she the lawful queen? Didn’t the “normal” line of succession cease when Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector, and then “restarted” with William and Mary? ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/39 "2017-09-28T19:51:29Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > Why wasn’t she the lawful queen? Didn’t the “normal” line of succession cease when Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector, and then “restarted” with William and Mary? No, the normal succession continued with the Restoration of Charles II in 1660, followed by James II in 1685. James II was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and replaced by William and Mary. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2017, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397/40 "2017-09-28T21:55:22Z")
James II had a son, who came ahead of Mary and Anne by the rules of male primogeniture. Mary and Anne both came ahead of William, their cousin by James’ sister, for the same reason. So James’s son James should have come to the throne before all three of them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-king-of-england-lives-in-australia/797397.md?page=3)