My fault. When I wrote “fourth in line” I was including Elizabeth II.
Here’s a question - is there any English king without any legitimate claim, however tenuous, after Canute? I think he may be the last guy to rule purely by right of conquest.
A lot of great information here, thanks to all. I guess I can cancel my investment in the Queen Zara commemorative souvenir futures.
Okay, let’s assume that Richard II was “validly” deposed in 1399 0-- i.e., there were adequate grounds to remove him from the throne. The point can be argued (and probably will be), but what I’m looking at here is who would succeed him.
His eldest uncle, Lionel Duke of Clarence, had died in 1368, and his daughter Philippa of Clarence in 1382. Her son Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March, was also dead, in 398, leaving his son Edmund. 5th Earl of March, as the next in line by primogeniture. He was, however, only seven years old at the time. He would have been king from 1399 until 1425, under a regency for most of that time. Hence the adult, competent Henry IV Bolingbroke took the throne in 1399.
In 1425 Mortimer’s younger brother and older sister were both dead, but the sister did have an heir, Richard Duke of York, who was a Plantagenet by male descent from Edward III on his father’s side.. He would be the “Yorkist” heir from 1425 until his death in 1460, when hiw second son, Edward Earl of March, succeeded to the York title and the Yorkiswt pretendership, making himself King in fact the following year.
By lineage through the Mortimers, strict British-style primogeniture, he was first in line. By the Lancastrian count, where little Edmund Mortimer was skipped over, he was third in line, after Henry VI and his son Edward, who was seven or eight years old at this point.
Since both of the latter were dead by the end of 1471, Edward IV can be counted valid heir by both theories of descent, if not at his first ascension in 1461, at least after his return to the throne in 1471. So:
Edward V, #1
Richard III, at his birth the fourth son of Richard Duke of York (see above) – On the Yorkist theory he would be preceded by his father and three older brothers; in line before them the Lancastrian theory would add Henry VI. (His son Prince Edward would not be born for another year.)
At his accession he was either eighth or tenth in line, being preceded by the five daughters of Edward IV, his two sons if still living, and the son and daughter of George Duke of Clarence, Edward IV’s younger and Richard III’s older brother.
Henry VII– Oddly enough, at hisw birth the Yorkist and Lancastrian theories agree on who was ahead of him, only disagreeing in which order they would come – presuming his grandfather’s legitimation to put him in line for the throne (this is arguable). To wit, that would be Henry VI and his son, the Duke of York and his four sons, and his own mother Margared Beaufort, making the future Henry VII 9th in line.
In 1485, he would have ranked after his mother in the Lancastrian theory and in the Yorkist line after the five or seven living children of Edward IV, Richard III, and the son and daughter of George of Clarence, as well as her. However, in a master stroke he married Princess Elizabeth, the heiress of the Yorkist line, and bypassing his mother’s claim (she supported him in his bid for the throne), that made the royal couple the heirs of line according to the two theories.
Well, arguably all the contestants except Edgar Atheling had zero legitimate claims to the throne of Edward the Confessor. William’s claim was through his great aunt that had been Edward the C’s mother - i.e. there was no direct, lineal blood connection. That and a pocketful of either invented or insincere promises.
Harold Godwinson didn’t even have that, though his sister was Edward’s queen. Supposedly Ed came out of his final coma long enough to bless him as “protector” of the kingdom. He was basically acclaimed by the nobility as the best choice to take the throne, but he didn’t really have any claim at all.
Putting those two aside, Henry VII is the other only candidate, as it could be argued his claim was also completely illegitimate. Not only was it through the female line, but it was through an illegitimate female line ( retroactively legitimized, then removed from the line of descent - all arguable actions ).
So William I and Henry VII - claims so tenuous as to be laughable and won throne by right of arms. Or Harold - no claim, other than a possibly invented blessing from his predecessor, but “elected” to the throne peacefully.
Those are indeed the best candidates. Though all of 'em have at least some claim, laughably thin though it may be. I suppose this is above all an artifact of the nature of kingship - where no such claim exists, it can usually be manufactured without too much difficulty, particularly among aristocrats who are all related to each other in some degree …
Canute may be the last guy who simply did not care to do so, and was sufficiently alien that there was really no connection that could be exploited.
Ah, you are forgetting that Canute was the son of Sweyn Forkbeard, who became king of England by conquest in 1013. Then died about a month later in 1014. Canute had to basically reconquer England, but he was the son of reigning English king, even if said king reigned all of five weeks ;).
So technically Sweyn should be your last “no claim” king, though with the Danelaw and all its gets even more complicated.
You are right. Raise the banner of Forkbeard! [Awesome Viking name - though “Ivar the Boneless” is still, IMO, the best Viking name]
Well, no. The crown back in Anglo-saxon days did not automatically devolve unto the oldest male heir. The qualifications were: royal blood, being elected by the Witan, and being acclaimed by London.
Both Harold and William thus qualified, altho there’s little doubt that William’s “election” was at swordpoint.
Henry VII had the least claim of anyone who claimed to have the right by birth.
I also want to point out that Edward V was never King at all. He was never crowned, he never reigned. He only is on the list due to retconing by Henry VII to make his very shaky claim a little better. And of course, there’s a argument that Edward V was illegitmate.
Quite. But while both were “elected” by the Witan and both were “acclaimed” by London, neither Harold nor William had royal blood ;). Far as I can tell neither had direct ancestors from the house of Cerdic. The only male who did at the time was Edgar*. Nor did either have a direct blood tie to the royal house of Denmark ( another possible backdoor ).
- Edgar also had a couple of sisters and Margaret married the king of Scotland and in due course gave birth to bunch of descendants of Cerdic. One of them, her daughter Edith/Matilda, married Henry I and reintroduced the bloodline back into the English royal line.
I am an avid Ricardist, but I must disagree here. To the best of (almost) everyone’s knowledge, at the moment Edward IV gave up the ghost, his elder legitimate son became king. As a young boy he reigned through a Regency of which his Uncle Richard as Lord Protector was the head. It was only when the Eleanor Talbot precontract story came out and Richard found that being the power behind the throne was not so good as being the power on the throne that he was declared illegitimate and replaced by Uncle Richard. The distinction between reign and rule is relevant – he reigned for a few weeks, he never ruled. (And as you note was never crowned – which is a ceremonial exchange of oaths between a king ho has already ascended the throne and his subjects, not an element of ascending the throne.
He never signed anything or put his seal to anything afaik, and his 'reign" was less than 3 months. Several times there was a slight gap between Kings. Jane Grey is not on the accepted list of English Monarchs, note. Did Charles II really become King upon the death of his father? In any case, if he was illegitamate then RIII became King upon the death of E4
Tamerlane- apparently marrying in counted and there’s some indication that both claimed many times distant Kings as ancestors. Mind you, as small as England was, considering you were a member of the aristocracy did indicate that somewhere there was likely a King as a 4th cousin twice removed or something. You are correct neither had any claim by blood, only Edgar the Athling had such a claim, but no one was going to allow a boy King at that period in English history, no matter how royal his blood was.
In any case they were elected and acclaimed, thus they were “firsts” in line for the Anglo-Saxon Throne.
I realize that inheritance rules were ambiguous in 1066, but William the Bastard had no descent from English royalty. His genealogical claim was based, IIRC, on Emma ‘the Flower’, wife of two Kings of England, mother of two Kings of England, and herself a Regent Queen. But Emma wasn’t William’s ancestor anyway; she was his great-aunt. Did such relationships have any validity for throne inheritance, even in those days?
Moreover, William the Bastard was a … bastard. That may have been almost the norm for inheriting Normandy, but what about England? When did bastards become ineligible there?
On another matter, it seems interesting that, due to primogeniture and extinctions, claimant lines merge so often. As just one example, King David I of Scots was, through his mother, the legitimate Heir of Alfred the Great so, in a sense, the Danish and Norman usurpations were all reversed when King James VI and I rode down to London!
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
I also want to point out that Edward V was never King at all. He was never crowned, he never reigned. He only is on the list due to retconing by Henry VII to make his very shaky claim a little better. And of course, there’s a argument that Edward V was illegitmate.
[/QUOTE]
Coronation is not necessary for a person to be king. For instance, Edward VIII was never crowned, but there’s no doubt he was king.
When George of Braunschweig-Lüneburg was born in 1660, it was by no means a forgone conclusion that he would become king of Great Britain someday. Charles II, his mother’s cousin, had recently been restored to his throne and was producing litters of illegitimate children, and was expected to make some legitimate heirs as well (this did not occur). Charles II’s brother, the future James II, married Anne Hyde in 1660 and produced several children (only the future queens Mary II and Anne survived). There was even a younger brother, Henry, duke of Gloucester, who died before the year was out.
In the next few decades, Charles II would die without legitimate heirs; his brother James II would be deposed, and his Catholic son from his second marriage disinherited; Queen Mary II would die without surviving children; her husband and cousin William III would likewise die without having remarried and produced heirs; and Queen Anne’s large brood of offspring would all sadly predecease her. Really, it took a fairly remarkable series of circumstances to end up with a pack of ineligible Catholics and, finally, George as the next king in 1714.
George was born in a fairly remote position to inherit, and reasonably everyone expected for him to be displaced by a legitimate and Protestant heir, but that heir didn’t come about. It’s sort of like if all the current Windsors died out and the next king was David Lascelles, earl of Harewood.
Just a side note: I believe that when and if William becomes king, he will be the only modern day king to be related to all of the long line of British monarchs. Princess Diana’s heritage filled in what was missing from the current royal line.
What? And allow the rest of Britain to be ensnared in Harewood’s endless and bloody conflicts on the Continent?
I’m fairly sure that’s false - every English monarch since William the Conqueror has been his descendant, so they are all proveably related to each other, and likewise every British monarch since James I has been descended from the Scottish royal family.
The only way it could be true would be to go back to Harold Godwinson and the pre-Conquest Danish kings, but I don’t think their descendants are known with any accuracy (after 900 years it’s likely either pretty much everyone’s descended from them or no-one is).
You mean his ancestors, right? As of now, he has no descendents.
And let’s not forget how much intermarriage there was. King George V and Queen Mary were both descendents of George III, for example. Or look at Phillip and Elizabeth – both are descendents of Queen Victoria. (As well as the Danish royals)
No, I meant (sorry for that unclear “his”) that every post-Conquest English monarch has been a descendant of William the Conqueror (or, for you pedants, the man himself). Therefore anyone who is related to one of them is related to all of them.
As far as ancestors go, it’s a racing certainty that no-one has all the English monarchs among their ancestors, since many of them had no children.