Thanks PatrickLondon. That makes sense. Much appreciated!
You could say usurpations tend to be unsuccessful, as if they succeed the usurper is the one writing the history. And no one wants to be known to history as a usurper, so will come up with some kind of elaborate explaination why the other guy is the usurper.
You mean, they wouldn’t historically be recorded as usurpations? I don’t think this is the case. Usually there is a historical record of the controversies involved at the time. Yes, a usurper will come up with some pretext as to why he is the rightful heir, and that may be accepted at the time, but he generally can’t erase the historical record.
Various monarchs of England have deposed or killed a designated heir or even a sitting king. These include William the Conqueror, Stephen of Blois, Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII. Their rule was accepted either by force of arms, or as a political compromise even though technically they were usurpers.
Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Yeah I kind of would say that. Whatever the facts say history does not remember those monarchs as usurpers. It’s the Norman Conquest, not the Norman Usurpation. Henry Tudor not Henry the Usurper.
The other classic example is Mary Tudor vs Lady Jane Grey.it was clearly Mary that was the usurper there. Jane was the chosen successor of Edward VI, something English monarchs absolutely had a right to do (albeit done in such a last minute slap dash manner it doomed her from the start). But it’s Jane that is remembered as the usurper not Mary.
Richard III’s historical reputation probably suffered because the Tudors blackened it due to their own somewhat weak claim to the throne, but I don’t think that today that affects assessment of the relative legitimacy of their claims.
Usurping is when the Regent (the very young Kings uncle, who is running things for him) says, “Don’t mind the boy, I’m king now”
Or when the Chancellor says "the King doesn’t need to know, I’m making all the decisions now"Or any time when the bureaucracy makes all the decisions instead of the elected leader. Or even when the King assumes the power of parliament: he is ursurping the power of the poeple.
Or, as the anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said: “Whosoever lays his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant, and I declare him my enemy.”
Usurpation may take place in the context of a “Blow to the head”, or even in context of a “Blow to the main”, but the word itself refers to the assumption of power or property, not the method.
Search for Obama Usurpation for more uses of the word in a non-violent context 
IMHO usurpation means the legally accepted succession is followed but that there was some possibly illegitimate way in which the higher ranking person was removed. An example for the US system would be if the VP conspired with other cabinet members to invoke the 25th amendment even if the POTUS still has capacity. Another example would be if the Speaker of the House got the House to impeach both the POTUS and VP and convinced the Senate to convict even if there was no crime committed.
I’m contrast, a coup would be something like the Joint Chiefs sending troops to the White House amd Congress and removing the elected officials by force.
Revolution, IMHO at least, implies that the whole government is overthrown by a huge uprising of the people as opposed to keeping the same government and just changing who is in charge.
I’m sorry, but that’s simply incorrect. There are many examples of an usurper not being the legally accepted successor. For example, Edward IV deposed and took the throne from Henry VI (the first time) while the latter’s son Edward of Westminster, who would have been Henry’s legal successor, was still alive.
Or in literature, King Robert Baratheon was considered a usurper, as he basically stole the throne from Aerys II Targaryen and his descendants (Viserys III and Daenerys). Not a coup, as there was a protracted war leading up to it, but definitely an usurpation.