History Talk: The British Monarchy

[Badger]

I think someone may have already linked to this, but just in case:

The Other Prince William

This is a documentary that was done on Channel 4 in the UK.  It's a biography of Prince William of Gloucester.  

Don't forget Edward VII was only King for 9 years, but they still call it "The Edwardian Age."  

[Nire]

On 1/23/2017 at 2:02 PM, OtterMommy said:

I still think he'll stick with Charles.  The cult of celebrity around the British royals is new (as in, it didn't exist in the same way as it does now when Elizabeth took the throne.  Say what you want about her, but Diana changed things).  The world knows him as Charles and for him to take another name would be jarring to the public, even though it was something that was accepted in the past.  Honestly, I think people will be far more concerned if whether or not Camilla will be Queen than what Charles calls himself.  He could change his name to just about anything, but he'll still be Charles in the eyes of the worldwide public.

I also think that in this day and age he has no hope of being called anything but Charles regardless of how he styles himself.  I mean look how William's wife is still referred to as Kate Middleton despite being married for v almost sevem years and having requested that she be referred to as Katherine.

[gingerella]

So, I'm wondering if there are any British Monarchy scholars here and if so, I have these two burning yet related questions:

1. What is the history of British Monarchy essentially being gender-blind. As in, it matters not that the next heir is male, it only matters that it is the next of kin heir and thus, Britain's had both Kings and Queens heading up it's monarchy.

And yet...

2. If the above is true, then why has the British Aristocracy only passed down titles and holdings to the next in line male heir, as opposed to the eldest next of kin regardless of their gender? It seems odd that a country that accepts either gender as a potential monarch, has a male-only rule for passing down titles and holdings within the aristocracy.

Thanks to anyone who might have the answers to the above.

[JustaPerson]

I'm not an expert on the British Monarchy, but my understanding is that the Monarchy isn't gender blind. There was a reason Henry VIII was so desperate for a son. There have been female rulers, but I don't think they would have had the chance to rule if they had had any male siblings at all (older or younger). If Henry VIII's son with Jane Seymour had lived, I doubt Elizabeth I would have been queen at all. 

[doodlebug]

29 minutes ago, JustaPerson said:

I'm not an expert on the British Monarchy, but my understanding is that the Monarchy isn't gender blind. There was a reason Henry VIII was so desperate for a son. There have been female rulers, but I don't think they would have had the chance to rule if they had had any male siblings at all (older or younger). If Henry VIII's son with Jane Seymour had lived, I doubt Elizabeth I would have been queen at all. 

That was true back in the day.  Primogeniture was the rule (male offspring before female).  That was the case throughout the history of the monarchy, right up to present day.  It was only when William and Catherine, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, were expecting their first child that the rule was changed to birth order regardless of the sex of the child.  Hence, had Prince George been a girl and not a boy; she'd have been next in line after William anyway,  Princess Charlotte remains in line behind George (unless/until George has children) without regard to whether any future children born to William and Catherine are boys or girls.

That's why Henry VIII was so desperate for a male child to be born to one of his wives (he had a bastard son, Henry Fitzroy, born to his mistress Bessie Blount.  He gave the boy a title, but by law, only legitimate offspring could rule).  Henry tried to get his son, who was named Duke of Richmond, into the line of succession at one point, fearing he'd never have a legitimate son, but Henry Fitzroy died in his teens before Henry died, thwarting that plan.  For that matter, every time Henry divorced or beheaded a wife, or married a new wife; he intermittently declared his daughters, Mary by Catherine of Aragon and Elizabeth by Anne Boleyn, legitimate or not; to put them into the line of succession or not; depending on his feelings for their respective mothers at the time.  He ultimately did place both of them in the line of succession and they both ruled as Queen after their brother died.  However, Mary's husband, Prince Philip of Spain, had a lot of power in England and, it is suspected that at least part of the reason Elizabeth never married, instead remaining the 'Virgin Queen' was because she knew that any man who married her would be able to rule alongside her and she didn't want to share (and considering her mother's fate at her father's hand, it's no wonder she didn't trust a husband to treat her kindly).

 

ETA: Henry VIII's daughter Mary, was the first Queen of England to inherit the title outright. Prior Queens of England were married to Kings who had inherited the title. Henry's naming of his daughters as his heirs was actually unprecedented; but he knew he had very limited options if he wanted to keep the throne amongst the Tudors.  His older brother died as a teen and had no children.  His sisters, were married off for political reasons.  His sister Margaret was married to James IV King of Scotland and had a surviving son by him, James.  However, the Scots and the Brits were not friendly during Henry's lifetime (the British Army, under command of Catherine of Aragon, killed James IV).  They were also Catholic, so Henry couldn't name Margaret's son his heir.  His sister, Mary, was married to the King of France and, after being widowed, married Henry's best friend, Charles Brandon; without Henry's permission (he wanted to arrange a politically convenient marriage for her and her elopement with Brandon messed that up).  Since Brandon wasn't royal, no way Henry could name any of their 4 kids his heirs.  So, he eventually put his own daughters in line in hopes of keeping the crown in the family.

Edited February 6, 2017 by doodlebug

[dubbel zout]

At the same time the rules of succession for the monarch were changed, there was a bill in Parliament to change the male primogeniture law for peerages, but it didn't make it out of committee, and no further action has been taken.

There have been some interesting articles about what would happen if the first born was a transgender person. How would that affect inheritance?

[andromeda331]

On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 7:39 PM, doodlebug said:

That was true back in the day.  Primogeniture was the rule (male offspring before female).  That was the case throughout the history of the monarchy, right up to present day.  It was only when William and Catherine, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, were expecting their first child that the rule was changed to birth order regardless of the sex of the child.  Hence, had Prince George been a girl and not a boy; she'd have been next in line after William anyway,  Princess Charlotte remains in line behind George (unless/until George has children) without regard to whether any future children born to William and Catherine are boys or girls.

That's why Henry VIII was so desperate for a male child to be born to one of his wives (he had a bastard son, Henry Fitzroy, born to his mistress Bessie Blount.  He gave the boy a title, but by law, only legitimate offspring could rule).  Henry tried to get his son, who was named Duke of Richmond, into the line of succession at one point, fearing he'd never have a legitimate son, but Henry Fitzroy died in his teens before Henry died, thwarting that plan.  For that matter, every time Henry divorced or beheaded a wife, or married a new wife; he intermittently declared his daughters, Mary by Catherine of Aragon and Elizabeth by Anne Boleyn, legitimate or not; to put them into the line of succession or not; depending on his feelings for their respective mothers at the time.  He ultimately did place both of them in the line of succession and they both ruled as Queen after their brother died.  However, Mary's husband, Prince Philip of Spain, had a lot of power in England and, it is suspected that at least part of the reason Elizabeth never married, instead remaining the 'Virgin Queen' was because she knew that any man who married her would be able to rule alongside her and she didn't want to share (and considering her mother's fate at her father's hand, it's no wonder she didn't trust a husband to treat her kindly).

 

ETA: Henry VIII's daughter Mary, was the first Queen of England to inherit the title outright. Prior Queens of England were married to Kings who had inherited the title. Henry's naming of his daughters as his heirs was actually unprecedented; but he knew he had very limited options if he wanted to keep the throne amongst the Tudors.  His older brother died as a teen and had no children.  His sisters, were married off for political reasons.  His sister Margaret was married to James IV King of Scotland and had a surviving son by him, James.  However, the Scots and the Brits were not friendly during Henry's lifetime (the British Army, under command of Catherine of Aragon, killed James IV).  They were also Catholic, so Henry couldn't name Margaret's son his heir.  His sister, Mary, was married to the King of France and, after being widowed, married Henry's best friend, Charles Brandon; without Henry's permission (he wanted to arrange a politically convenient marriage for her and her elopement with Brandon messed that up).  Since Brandon wasn't royal, no way Henry could name any of their 4 kids his heirs.  So, he eventually put his own daughters in line in hopes of keeping the crown in the family.

Wouldn't there also be concern on whether or not anyone would accept a female ruler? Or if a Queen would last long? In general they either face everyone and their brother raising an army thinking she'll be easily defeated and become King or it all goes to the husband. The last attempt at a female ruler in England was way back in the 1100s with Matilda, Henry II's daughter. His only male heir, her brother died and he tried to make barons swear oaths to that she was the heir over his nephew Stephen. After the king died it still went to Stephen even though Matilda was married and had two sons at the time. She spent the next decade or so fighting Stephen over it before it was agreed her son would become Stephen's heir.

[PinkRibbons]

I think one of the issues Henry VIII was facing was that after his own son, the entire possible pool of inheritance was female.From his older sister he had Mary, Queen of Scots, and from his younger sister there was Francis Brandon and her three daughters; Mary, Katherine, and Jane Grey, the last of which was in fact backed by a rogue army determined to put her on the throne, which led to her beheading. Katherine Grey was hated by Elizabeth I because of the threat she posed as hers was the strongest claim to be next-in-line after her. Katherine Grey was was badly treated by Elizabeth I and died young. Mary, Queen of Scots also had a strong claim to the throne (probably about the same as the Grey sisters, and would have been stronger if she wasn't Catholic) and plenty of supporters, and we all know how that ended.

So I think in the end, when faced with a totally female succession, Henry VIII just felt better with his own daughters on the throne, since they were of his direct bloodline, not to mention that he had seen to their upbringing and education himself (to the extent that Royal Fathers bothered to.)

[doodlebug]

Yes, exactly.  Part of the reason Henry's daughters were able to reign as they did was because there weren't adult males in the line of succession.  Had there been an adult male cousin or two, things might've been a lot different.  As it was, there was no direct male descendant after Edward VI, which made the ascension to the throne of Henry's daughters possible; but it is not as if both of them didn't face challenges to their claims to the throne.

[dubbel zout]

1 hour ago, PinkRibbons said:

his direct bloodline

This is probably more important than gender. The French monarchy (such as it is today) has factions divided over whether the current Count of Paris or Prince Louis Alphonse of Bourbon is the legitimate pretender. Each have Louis XVI has a common descendent, but from different branches after that. It's nuts.

[TaurusRose]

On 12/1/2016 at 0:35 PM, Deanie87 said:

Maybe its our current political situation or the fact that Elizabeth is roughly the age of my father, but that generation knew how to sacrifice and did it with a minimum of whining and navel gazing. I'm probably romanticizing all of it, but I do think that is something that has been lost over the years.  I'm glad that Diana was able to raise her boys the way she wanted and I'm glad that William was able to marry the woman of his choice and that they seem like a normal couple, able to live a relatively normal life (at least by British Royal standards), but I also admire the stoicism, majesty, traditionalism (and I'm sure snobbery and bloodline arrogance) of those who came before.  Society needs progress and institutions need to modernize to stay relevant, but there is beauty and value in some tradition too.  

Speaking of Diana, this series gave me the same sort of feelings as The Queen with Helen Mirren.  It humanized Elizabeth for me and boy, is there something to be said for reserve and dignity, especially in these days of reality TV, social media and every z list celebrity going on Dr. Phil to talk about their latest scandal.  There was a scene in the movie outside of the gates of Buckingham Palace with hordes of people wailing and tearing their hair out about Diana, angry that Elizabeth hadn't shown "proper" emotion, it really annoyed me.  Honestly, I think that world could use quite a dose of that kind of decorum right about now.  

Yes!  This!  If I could like your post a thousand times, I would.

On 2/5/2017 at 8:39 PM, doodlebug said:

ETA: Henry VIII's daughter Mary, was the first Queen of England to inherit the title outright. Prior Queens of England were married to Kings who had inherited the title. Henry's naming of his daughters as his heirs was actually unprecedented; but he knew he had very limited options if he wanted to keep the throne amongst the Tudors.  His older brother died as a teen and had no children.  His sisters, were married off for political reasons.  His sister Margaret was married to James IV King of Scotland and had a surviving son by him, James.  However, the Scots and the Brits were not friendly during Henry's lifetime (the British Army, under command of Catherine of Aragon, killed James IV).  They were also Catholic, so Henry couldn't name Margaret's son his heir.  His sister, Mary, was married to the King of France and, after being widowed, married Henry's best friend, Charles Brandon; without Henry's permission (he wanted to arrange a politically convenient marriage for her and her elopement with Brandon messed that up).  Since Brandon wasn't royal, no way Henry could name any of their 4 kids his heirs.  So, he eventually put his own daughters in line in hopes of keeping the crown in the family.

Foot note to the above: Although Henry VIII did return both Mary and Elizabeth to the line of succession after Edward, Edward actually nominated Jane Grey, a cousin, as his heir, and she had support for about a minute.  She was queen for 9 days before Mary Tudor rallied her supporters and took the crown.  Jane was thrown in the Tower and beheaded shortly thereafter. 

Quote

Mary, Queen of Scots also had a strong claim to the throne (probably about the same as the Grey sisters, and would have been stronger if she wasn't Catholic) and plenty of supporters, and we all know how that ended.

Mary's claim was stronger than the Greys because her father (King James) was the son of Henry VIII's oldest sister.  

Edited February 8, 2017 by taurusrose

[Hyacinth B]

On 2/7/2017 at 0:49 AM, andromeda331 said:

Wouldn't there also be concern on whether or not anyone would accept a female ruler? Or if a Queen would last long? In general they either face everyone and their brother raising an army thinking she'll be easily defeated and become King or it all goes to the husband. The last attempt at a female ruler in England was way back in the 1100s with Matilda, Henry II's daughter. His only male heir, her brother died and he tried to make barons swear oaths to that she was the heir over his nephew Stephen. After the king died it still went to Stephen even though Matilda was married and had two sons at the time. She spent the next decade or so fighting Stephen over it before it was agreed her son would become Stephen's heir.

Just a quick correction, Matilda was the daughter of Henry I, not Henry II. Poor Henry Two had enough headaches already because of his rebellious brood without adding another one to the mix. Henry II was Matilda's son by her second marriage to Geoffrey of Anjou.

 

A quick plug here for one of my absolute favorite films about Henry Two and the rest of the dysfunctional early Plantagenets - the 1968 film version of The Lion In Winter, brilliantly acted by Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn, who's apparently a direct descendant of Henry's fiery queen Eleanor. Great dialogue (even if more 20th than 12th Century) and perfect casting. 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Hyacinth B

[andromeda331]

2 minutes ago, Hyacinth B said:

Just a quick correction, Matilda was the daughter of Henry I, not Henry II. Poor Henry Two had enough headaches already because of his rebellious brood without adding another one to the mix. Henry II was Matilda's son by her second marriage to Geoffrey of Anjou.

 

A quick plug here for one of my absolute favorite films about Henry Two and the rest of the dysfunctional early Plantagenets - the 1968 film version of The Lion In Winter, brilliantly acted by Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn, who's actually a direct descendant of Henry's fiery queen Eleanor. Great dialogue (even if more 20th than 12th Century) and perfect casting. 

Oh, your right! I've watched that movie and read enough on Henry II and Eleanor that I should have known that. There's a royal family someone should consider doing a series about too.

[blackwing]

Yes, as has been pointed out, there were other males in Henry VIII's family, it's just that they all predeceased him.  His older brother Arthur of course had died without issue.  There were no other brothers who survived childhood.  His older sister Margaret was married to James IV of Scotland, she had a son James V who died before Henry.  James V had sons who did not survive.  His daughter was Mary Queen of Scots.  His sister Mary Tudor didn't have any sons who outlived Henry.

Henry no doubt wanted more sons than just Edward, but it was not to be.  Reports have always said that Edward was a sickly child.  But Henry didn't have any other sons, and there were no other cousins or nephews, so I think that's why Mary and Elizabeth were restored to the succession.  After Edward VI died at 15, he had made plans for his cousin Jane Grey to succeed him.  Jane Grey was the granddaughter of Henry's sister Mary Tudor .  Edward and Jane were both Protestant, while Edward knew that Henry's daughter Mary by Catherine of Aragon was a staunch Catholic.  So Edward attempted to pass her up.

England had never been ruled by an undisputed Queen in her own right.  But there was little choice.  There was no one else.  So either England would be ruled by Mary or England would be ruled by Jane.  The people rallied around Mary, and she had a stronger claim.  Her Spanish husband was crowned King of England and was very unpopular.  So while the right to rule rested with her, Philip was a reigning king, and not simply a king consort.

After Mary came Elizabeth.  Elizabeth ruled for so long and was so glorious that people probably no longer cared whether their ruler was a king or a queen.  But I think it's worth noting that some years and some monarchs later, James II was king and was deposed during the Glorious Revolution.  He was Catholic and the country had become staunchly Protestant.  His daughter Mary was Protestant and was seen as an acceptable alternative.  However, while some wanted to see her rule as Queen in her own right, she thought that women should defer to men.  Others wanted her to be crowned along with her husband William, so William and Mary were crowned together and were co-regnants.  After Mary died, William continued to rule in his own right.  They had no children, so when William died, Mary's sister Anne became Queen.

So long story short, there has long been precedence for a woman to rule as Queen, but only when there are no more males in the direct line of succession.  We see that with Victoria.  Her father was the heir but then he died, so she became the heir presumptive, much to the chagrin of her father's younger brothers.

Edited February 10, 2017 by blackwing

[PinkRibbons]

I think it's also interesting to note that before Victoria was born, for a while the only direct heir to the throne was Princess Charlotte of Whales , who would have been expected to rule as Queen Regnant if she hadn't died young in childbirth. Apparently Charlotte was very popular, and Victoria ruled much of the era that Charlotte could have presided over. Another case of girls getting in ahead of male relatives. It's almost funny how unexpected and unlikely almost every queen to rule in her own right on the English throne has been. Mary and Elizabeth I were never ever expected to actually have the throne (rumors about Edward being sickly as a child are generally believed to be untrue, and there was much speculation that he would wed a French Princess or Mary, Queen of Scots before he became ill as a young teenager. There was every reason to believe that he would have issue and the succession would never have been much of a problem). Hell, Elizabeth I was never expected to rule after her sister married and had at least two hysterical pregnancies. That Liz I even survived to be queen was mostly sheer luck.

Then you have Victoria, who was the only child of the fourth son in a family full of what you'd expect were strong, fertile men who were probably expected to have many legitimate children too. Except they didn't, or they did and those children didn't outlive their parents.

And of course we have Elizabeth II, who was the daughter of a second son and no one seriously thought she'd be Queen when she had a living Uncle with many years ahead of him to produce heirs.

For a country that has had, as it is quite charmingly acknowledged, a lot of luck with their Queens, they sure didn't seem to see many of them coming.

[Brn2bwild]

On 2/9/2017 at 10:53 PM, PinkRibbons said:

And of course we have Elizabeth II, who was the daughter of a second son and no one seriously thought she'd be Queen when she had a living Uncle with many years ahead of him to produce heirs.

For a country that has had, as it is quite charmingly acknowledged, a lot of luck with their Queens, they sure didn't seem to see many of them coming.

The daughter of the second son of a second son, no less.  If Albert Victor had lived and married Mary of Teck, the royal family's history would have been completely different.

[vibeology]

On 2017-02-09 at 6:09 PM, andromeda331 said:

Oh, your right! I've watched that movie and read enough on Henry II and Eleanor that I should have known that. There's a royal family someone should consider doing a series about too.

If you can believe it, Empire is based on them to the point the family is the Lyon family. I still agree that a PBS style series would be excellent. 

[millk]

On 2/10/2017 at 1:53 AM, PinkRibbons said:

Then you have Victoria, who was the only child of the fourth son in a family full of what you'd expect were strong, fertile men who were probably expected to have many legitimate children too. Except they didn't, or they did and those children didn't outlive their parents.

And of course we have Elizabeth II, who was the daughter of a second son and no one seriously thought she'd be Queen when she had a living Uncle with many years ahead of him to produce heirs.

For a country that has had, as it is quite charmingly acknowledged, a lot of luck with their Queens, they sure didn't seem to see many of them coming.

Back in the day, I wanted to put money down on us seeing a King Henry IX because first sons don't have the best track record.

[Roseanna]

On 11/7/2016 at 1:13 PM, Pallas said:

That's probably the Philip Ziegler biography from 1991. It's informed, compassionate and fair. It's the one I read last and found that no other was needed. There are no heroes and no villains either. 

Regarding Edward VIII I agree with you but when Ziegler calls Wallis "greedy", he doesn't really explain why she was such, unlike That woman.

On 11/8/2016 at 3:33 PM, monakane said:

I think he clung to "that woman" because he felt unloved. 

No doubt, but unlike the Duke of Windsor, a few people feel loved when they are bossed and even humiliated, also in public.

On 11/23/2016 at 11:39 AM, Athena said:

The BBC Magazine had a recent article about Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend:

I have read it before. However, if the government allowed them to marry but they simply noticed that there was no more love between them, it would "spoil" romantic story.

Because of drama, The Crown stick to the old version plus make Elisabeth directly to forbid the marriage (which she didn't).  

[Roseanna]

On 11/5/2016 at 0:35 PM, Jeeves said:

I watched the first three episodes late (very late) last night, into the wee small hours. I don't remember which episode it was, but spotted a disappointing mistake - obviously dramatic license, but it's glaring if you're up on the Wallis Simpson history. The scene has Queen Mary entering a room where the newly created Duke of Windsor, former King Edward VIII, is preparing to make his famous radio address to the nation. A dark-haired woman who appears to be Mrs. Simpson is in the room too, and is snubbed by Queen Mary. Ouch. In truth, Mrs. Simpson had fled the UK with the press on her trail, and was staying in France by the time of the Abdication. 

If I'm mis-remembering the scene (it was very late when I watched), I hope someone will correct me. 

I realize they need to dramatize the story. However, it's one thing to create reasonably possible private scenes, and another to create a scene that could not possibly have happened that way because one of the participants was in another country at the time.

EDITED later to add: I've now watched the whole season. Other episodes also showed Mrs. Simpson as being present when Edward signed the Abdication papers as well as during his broadcast to the nation. That bugged me every. time. 

I understand that it buggs you - it's a side effect of knowing "too much" of history that one can't fully enjoy historical fiction unless one "lets go".

In the drama it's necessary to have characters together even of they irl were in different places for without interaction there can be no drama. 

It's not details that are most important in the drama but the psychology of the characters and whether the result is a good drama.

On 1/19/2017 at 7:34 AM, Jeeves said:

That sounds like they'd be the human equivalents of wallpaper. My take on it is different: I'm fine with the series not being cluttered up with the seventh or twelfth in line to the Crown, or whatever they were by 1947 when the series begins. That's because although I'm interested enough in the British monarchy to have read several books (including most recently Princes at War, That Woman, and several lengthy bios)? I have no clue who's in line for the Crown after, say, Prince William's kids, and I don't really care. 

I suppose those who are interested in that stuff, would be interested to see the understudies sitting around with Queen Mary. But, not me. This is a highly dramatized TV show about the Crown and those who wore/wear it, and the private/public issues faced by the monarch. If only for dramatic purposes, the less cluttered it is, the better.

It would be fun if in future seasons the show brings us some relevant stories of issues faced by the monarch, that haven't been publicized/dramatized to death already. If Prince Henry or Princess Mary feature in them, all the better.

Although I am quite good with the genealogy of the British royal house, I agree with you. The series is made to people all around the world who are not supposed to know very much beforehand and in case, characters must somehow be introduced and they must have a function in the series. That means there mustn't be too many of them, otherwise the audience can't recognize them and understand the plot.

In this case, the main point is that the duke of Windsor is the very antithesis to Queen Mary, the Queen Mother, the Private Secretary Tommy Lascelles and the Archibishop. Elizabeth's attitude is ambivalent, as seen later when she asks advice from the duke (something she didn't irl, but it's OK in the series). 

In any case, here is simply no room to other realatives who have no function in the plot.  

[Roseanna]

On 11/5/2016 at 8:02 PM, PRgal said:

Yeah, but that stable upbringing still caused three out of four to divorce. 

Did it? Could the reason rather be that Diana's parents were divorced and, if I am remember, Fergie's as well, so they didn't have a succesful model for marriage?

In Diana and Charles' case, they didn't really know each other before marrying as their dating was quite superficial. The press and public could also take some of blame by falling in love with Diana and thereby pushing Charles to the hasty decision to marry. Like Philip (?) said, her had to propose or break the affair, unless he wanted to ruin Diana's reputation. So maybe one of the reason was "virgin ideal" that was out-of-date in the 80ies. 

I can't really understand how Andrew's "stable upbringing" could be blamed for Fergie's unability to be a faithful wife when her husband was on duty, and for the vulgarity of her affairs.

As for Anne and Mark, I have never read the reasons of their divorce. In this, they behaved admirable, unlike the other two couples.         

On 2/7/2017 at 10:02 AM, PinkRibbons said:

I think one of the issues Henry VIII was facing was that after his own son, the entire possible pool of inheritance was female.From his older sister he had Mary, Queen of Scots, and from his younger sister there was Francis Brandon and her three daughters; Mary, Katherine, and Jane Grey,

Henry had also himself to blame having no other male heirs than his young son when he died in 1547. He could a long ago have married Mary off and, with luck, got grandsons by her.

Henry had had no legal right to make Mary a bastard for she, if anybody, was conceived in good faith when both her parents believed to be married as did everybody else. But eveidently he was afraid that an adult Mary would a dangerous rival to baby Elizabeth and even a son he expected Anne Boley to bear to him as the legality their marriage and their children wasn't undisputed. Who knows what had happened if Henry's jousting accident in January 1536 had been more serious it was?

But after Katherine and Anne dead, Mary's potential supporters couldn't deny the legality of Henry's marriage with Jane Seymour and their son's right to inherit before Mary.  (However, from the May 1536 to October 1537, Henry had no heir, having made also Elizabeth a bastard.) 

If Henry wanted more male heirs, he had after Edward's birth over ten years to arrange Mary's marriage. Why didn't he do it? Maybe the Wars of the Roses had made him so paranoid of throne disputes that the forgot an even danger, not having enough heirs in time of great infant mortality.         

Actually, one must think how the situation looked in the middle of 1520ies when Henry decided to annul his marriage with Katherine of Aregon. Then there were several male relatives to whom Mary (born 1516) could have married off after a couple years and, with luck, Henry's grandson would become the king. (After all, his father's "right" to the throne, if any, came from the female line, via his mother Margaret Beaufort, if one leaves out the far greater right of his wife, Elizabeth of York.)

True, there was no guarantee that Mary wouldn't have died in childbed. But the situation when Henry's died was no more ideal for a minor male heir had also been a huge risk in history, as the fate of Edward V had showed. 

Of course Henry couldn't possible anticipate that he could marry Anne Boyleyn only in 1533 and get a son only in 1537. Nevertheles, he took a huge risk by defying the Pope and the Emperor after his attempt to annulment failed.

That makes one suspect that there was more than rational reason for his cravings for a legimate son and heir. Evidently he felt that without a son he wasn't properly a man. 

[dubbel zout]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Evidently he felt that without a son he wasn't properly a man. 

Henry was very much a man of his time with that attitude. (I suspect more men than would like to admit it today might also feel that way.) And given that women had few if any, rights of their own, a female heir was definitely a last resort. But if one is worried about blood, better a direct female heir than some minor male heir, probably. 

[Roseanna]

37 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Henry was very much a man of his time with that attitude. (I suspect more men than would like to admit it today might also feel that way.) 

I am not find odd Henry's desire to have a male heir, but his insistence that God somehow "owed" to fulfill his desire. Wouldn't a religious man had submitted to God's will? 

At that time it was usual that parents lost children, sometimes all of them died. Would they believe that God punished them of some sin?  

[PinkRibbons]

With regards to marrying off Mary Tudor, there was a lot of politics and religion involved. Even though she had  signed a paper accepting her father as head of the church, everyone knew that she was not-so-secretly a staunch Catholic. She represented something of a threat to her father for much of her life -- even in Henry's lifetime there was talk of deposing him in favor of Mary to get the country back to Catholicism. Much of Europe still considered Mary a legitimate child and therefore an extremely desirable bride. Had she been married off to a Catholic (especially a Royal from Spain or France, for example) before her accession she would have become an ever more more credible threat to her father's (and later brother's) rule and succession. A powerful country backing her could have forced Henry's hand by destroying the Church of England to re-legitimize her. As it is once on the throne she did exactly what Henry and Edward had feared she would: she destroyed the Church of England and forced the country back to Catholicism.

We also should consider the fact that Henry genuinely loved Mary. If he didn't he could have forced a Protestant marriage on her, which would have neutralized her threat quite a bit -- she would have been out of the country where she was a rallying point for rebellious Catholics, and married to someone who would be an ally to Henry and his religious pursuits. Even if she was still a bastard when married, Henry left her a wealthy landowner in her own right, a dowry that would have been accepted by any number of suitors willing to overlook her illegitimate status for it.

Incidentally, Elizabeth I was just shy of marriageable age when her father died, and I think there was already talk of marrying her off to a Protestant Noble too, and obviously that would have been an easier sell as Elizabeth was already Protestant herself. Personally (and I'm not sure I have the historical basis for this) I think the reason she wasn't married off in Edward's reign was because Edward in fact loved Elizabeth enough to respect her wish to never be married. When Mary was on the throne there was a lot of talk about marrying Elizabeth off to a Catholic Noble to quiet her down and make her less dangerous in the same way Mary would have been neutralized by being married off to a a Protestant..

[dubbel zout]

2 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I am not find odd Henry's desire to have a male heir, but his insistence that God somehow "owed" to fulfill his desire. Wouldn't a religious man had submitted to God's will? 

This was a guy who founded his own religion, so...maybe not. ;-) 

[Booger666]

Has there ever been a situation where the next in line deferred the position to another successor?  Is this technically abdication?  Charles is getting quite old and given the Camilla situation is it possible/ likely he wouldn't become the next king and it would go to William even if Charles were alive?

[dubbel zout]

Charles will never abdicate in favor of William. He's waited way too long to be king. The most William could be is  regent because Charles is somehow incapacitated.

Of course there are people who don't like Camilla (for whatever reasons, Diana-related or not), but she isn't a deterrent to the throne. She said when she married Charles she wouldn't be called queen consort, but I wouldn't be surprised if that changed. She and Charles have been married nearly 12 years, and Diana's been dead for nearly 20. Time goes on.

[doodlebug]

3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Charles will never abdicate in favor of William. He's waited way too long to be king. The most William could be is  regent because Charles is somehow incapacitated.

Of course there are people who don't like Camilla (for whatever reasons, Diana-related or not), but she isn't a deterrent to the throne. She said when she married Charles she wouldn't be called queen consort, but I wouldn't be surprised if that changed. She and Charles have been married nearly 12 years, and Diana's been dead for nearly 20. Time goes on.

Absolutely.  While the public might favor the younger, more photogenic, Wills and Kate, Charles would never abdicate, except in the case of grave health issues.  Just as the Queen, now in her 90's, will never abdicate, no matter how old she gets.  Elizabeth was raised to believe that the monarchy was her job until the day she died and Charles has been given the same message.  There will be no abdication as long as either is capable of the job.  I also agree, Camilla agreed to decline the role of queen consort in deference to public opinion/Diana's legacy.  However, Diana has been gone a very long time and Camilla has proven to be an asset to the throne; she will become queen consort when the time comes.

 

5 hours ago, PinkRibbons said:

With regards to marrying off Mary Tudor, there was a lot of politics and religion involved. Even though she had  signed a paper accepting her father as head of the church, everyone knew that she was not-so-secretly a staunch Catholic. She represented something of a threat to her father for much of her life -- even in Henry's lifetime there was talk of deposing him in favor of Mary to get the country back to Catholicism. Much of Europe still considered Mary a legitimate child and therefore an extremely desirable bride. Had she been married off to a Catholic (especially a Royal from Spain or France, for example) before her accession she would have become an ever more more credible threat to her father's (and later brother's) rule and succession. A powerful country backing her could have forced Henry's hand by destroying the Church of England to re-legitimize her. As it is once on the throne she did exactly what Henry and Edward had feared she would: she destroyed the Church of England and forced the country back to Catholicism.

We also should consider the fact that Henry genuinely loved Mary. If he didn't he could have forced a Protestant marriage on her, which would have neutralized her threat quite a bit -- she would have been out of the country where she was a rallying point for rebellious Catholics, and married to someone who would be an ally to Henry and his religious pursuits. Even if she was still a bastard when married, Henry left her a wealthy landowner in her own right, a dowry that would have been accepted by any number of suitors willing to overlook her illegitimate status for it.

Incidentally, Elizabeth I was just shy of marriageable age when her father died, and I think there was already talk of marrying her off to a Protestant Noble too, and obviously that would have been an easier sell as Elizabeth was already Protestant herself. Personally (and I'm not sure I have the historical basis for this) I think the reason she wasn't married off in Edward's reign was because Edward in fact loved Elizabeth enough to respect her wish to never be married. When Mary was on the throne there was a lot of talk about marrying Elizabeth off to a Catholic Noble to quiet her down and make her less dangerous in the same way Mary would have been neutralized by being married off to a a Protestant..

Yep, unfortunately for Mary, her parents' marriage fell apart just as she came to a marriageable age.  She remained a staunch Catholic and supporter of her mother which not only pissed Henry off, but made him wary of arranging a marriage for her. If he married her into a Catholic royal family; she and her husband would've presented a huge threat to his continued rule and eventually to the succession of his son.  And, since it was well known that Mary was a devout Catholic despite her pledge to support Henry and the Church of England, which would've made her less than desirable as a bride to the non-Catholic ruling class in Europe.  He also had Ann Boleyn around for almost a decade and her disdain for Mary and desire to keep her well away from the throne as well as to keep her from forming alliances with other royals in order to protect Elizabeth's position was pretty well known.  At the time Ann came along and the King's 'Great Matter' came to be the focus, Mary was about 15, the usual age for a princess to be married off.  Her mother was sent to England to marry Henry's older brother at about that age.  By the time her brother, Edward died, Mary was mid 30's which was considered elderly and almost beyond childbearing (which she was it turned out).

[Fireball]

24 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

Absolutely.  While the public might favor the younger, more photogenic, Wills and Kate, Charles would never abdicate, except in the case of grave health issues. 

I agree that Charles will not abdicate. But I do wonder does the public really have favorable opinions of William & Kate? There have been articles about their lack of work ethic and other not so glowing articles lately about them. I guess compared to Charles & Camille the public does probably view William & Kate favorably. But I can't say either William or Kate have impressed me.

[dubbel zout]

People have been griping that William and Kate aren't doing enough, but there have been reports that the queen is okay with that, given they're raising young kids. William and Kate are third in line, so I don't think it's outrageous; plus, their workload will eventually increase. In some ways, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't. They spend too much time with their kids, they don't spend enough time with their kids.

[Roseanna]

22 hours ago, doodlebug said:

At the time Ann came along and the King's 'Great Matter' came to be the focus, Mary was about 15, the usual age for a princess to be married off.  Her mother was sent to England to marry Henry's older brother at about that age. 

As a child Mary was engaged a couple times, notably with Katherine's nephew Charles, but nothing came of them.

On 2/8/2017 at 4:08 PM, taurusrose said:

Mary's claim was stronger than the Greys because her father (King James) was the son of Henry VIII's oldest sister.  

From the latter time's POV, yes. But Henry had in his testament, after confirming Mary and Elizabeth succession after Edward as in the Third Act of Succession, excluded his older sister Margaret's descendants as well as Frances, Grey sisters' mother who, as a eldest living child of her younger sister Mary would have had a priorioty before her daughters. 

Thus he made two offenses against the principle of primogenture. And of course, normally bastars didn't inherit (although normally, even if the marriage was annulled, children conceived "in good faith" were regarded legitimate). 

The Parliament had given Henry the right to name his successor, but hadn't give the right to Edward VI although he tried to do in his testament.

But that in theory. In practice, Henry VII had quite dubious right to the throne, but he won the battle.

[millk]

22 hours ago, Fireball said:

I agree that Charles will not abdicate. But I do wonder does the public really have favorable opinions of William & Kate? There have been articles about their lack of work ethic and other not so glowing articles lately about them. I guess compared to Charles & Camille the public does probably view William & Kate favorably. But I can't say either William or Kate have impressed me.

I love you. It isn't very often you see people not completely enamored with William and Catherine. Its almost like the days back when people were very hard on people who thought Charles' first marriage might not work because of the age difference or that Sarah might not fit with royal duty because she was very flighty. In terms of William and Catherine, yes, they are pretty but IMO they do need to start stepping up. Especially if Charles' rumoured plans to shrink working royals to him and his heirs. Whomever Harry marries will have to hop right into duty right away too. 

[Arynm]

William and Kates children are one and three. I think they should be left alone to at least see them both to preschool. The Queen doesn't seem to mind and I am sure they will take their place like the many that have come before. William had a job flying helicopters that I think he just finished. They have been working, but I will cut them a little slack to spend time raising their children.

[millk]

This is a subject that will never change anyone's mind. The people who want to give them a break will, the people who want them to step up, will be disappointed.  They are quite lucky that the Queen and Philip have been so long lived and it really hasn't been an issue. 

God Save The Queen

I am of the view that Camilla will be Queen Consort. Anyone who still "hates" her hasn't been paying attention. She has been so good for Charles and the Monarchy in generaL. 

Edited February 28, 2017 by millk
Formatting

[Fireball]

On ‎2‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 4:45 PM, dubbel zout said:

People have been griping that William and Kate aren't doing enough.

I was just wondering if public opinion had changed regarding them. I remember after the wedding and for a number of years all articles about them were glowing where now articles about them don't seem (to me) quite as positive. I was just wondering if the change in tone reflected a change in public opinion.

But this isn't really the right forum to get into this and I apologize for bringing it up.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Fireball

[Roseanna]

On ‎23‎.‎1‎.‎2017 at 9:02 PM, OtterMommy said:

The world knows him as Charles and for him to take another name would be jarring to the public, even though it was something that was accepted in the past.  

But even then it was an exception. Queen Victoria insisted that all his male descendants were named Albert after her beloved husband, the Price Consort. His eldest son was christened as Albert Edward but once her mother was dead, he dropped off Albert and reigned as Edward VII. As for George VI, who was christend as Albert Frederick Arthur George, after Edward VIII's abdication he wanted to stress on continuity by chosing the same name as his father.

[SeanC]

On 2/5/2017 at 9:01 PM, gingerella said:

2. If the above is true, then why has the British Aristocracy only passed down titles and holdings to the next in line male heir, as opposed to the eldest next of kin regardless of their gender? It seems odd that a country that accepts either gender as a potential monarch, has a male-only rule for passing down titles and holdings within the aristocracy.

Thanks to anyone who might have the answers to the above.

I think the simplest reason is that there has to be a sovereign, so recognition of female-line inheritance is vital to that, but there's no requirement that any other title of nobility exist.

Of course, each noble title proceeds according to its own enumerated succession law, unless modified by a general law.  So there have been individual titles of nobility created in many instances (particularly for soldiers) that allowed for specific (or in some cases, general) female inheritance, as with Lord Mountbatten, whose earldom specified that it would pass to his daughters, as it was known he had and likely would have no sons.  It was also not uncommon, in cases where certain titles became extinct as a result of the last holder having only daughters, for the daughter's husband to be given a new iteration of the same title.  The current Dukedom of Northumberland, of the Percy family (think Harry Percy in Henry IV, Part 1), was actually created for the husband of the granddaughter of the original Percy Earls of Northumberland.  The first Duke changed his surname to Percy for the prestige.

Gender equality amongst the peerages has avoided being revisited in the modern age likely because the government stopped handing them out decades ago as long as they continue to have access to the House of Lords, so the only new hereditary peers these days are members of the royal family (and, in that instance, it arguably serves as a certain amount of title control; i.e., the Dukedom of York will revert for future use on Andrew's death).

[gingerella]

5 hours ago, SeanC said:

I think the simplest reason is that there has to be a sovereign, so recognition of female-line inheritance is vital to that, but there's no requirement that any other title of nobility exist.

Of course, each noble title proceeds according to its own enumerated succession law, unless modified by a general law.  So there have been individual titles of nobility created in many instances (particularly for soldiers) that allowed for specific (or in some cases, general) female inheritance, as with Lord Mountbatten, whose earldom specified that it would pass to his daughters, as it was known he had and likely would have no sons.  It was also not uncommon, in cases where certain titles became extinct as a result of the last holder having only daughters, for the daughter's husband to be given a new iteration of the same title.  The current Dukedom of Northumberland, of the Percy family (think Harry Percy in Henry IV, Part 1), was actually created for the husband of the granddaughter of the original Percy Earls of Northumberland.  The first Duke changed his surname to Percy for the prestige.

Gender equality amongst the peerages has avoided being revisited in the modern age likely because the government stopped handing them out decades ago as long as they continue to have access to the House of Lords, so the only new hereditary peers these days are members of the royal family (and, in that instance, it arguably serves as a certain amount of title control; i.e., the Dukedom of York will revert for future use on Andrew's death).

Thanks for that detailed explanation, I appreciate you taking the time to lay that out for me. You mention that the government stopped handing out titles decades ago...which reminded me...I've seen on various shit TV shows, and in shit celeb news, and in some magazines (I think the New Yorker used to advertise these in their small advert section at the back of the mag), that one can buy a title. Didn't Zsa Zsa's scumbag last husband "adopt" some playboys as his 'sons' so that they could then have fake 'title'? How the hell does that even happen? I don't think they're British titles but still...I find that very bizarre. But I do remember adverts that seemed to be related to purchasing British titles. Do you know anything about that?

[dubbel zout]

The British titles for sale are Lord of the Manor, which is linked to a property. It's useless except being able to call yourself Lord/Lady of the Manor of X. See here for more.

[Badger]

Until very recently, neither William or Kate were full time working royals.  William was working as a rescue helicopter pilot, but that's really not the same thing.  However, he resigned from that job not too long ago so he and Kate are now full time working royals.  

[millk]

They are needed. In the last 2 days Princess Alexandra and the Duke of York have both canceled engagements. She has a broken wrist and he has a chest infection. Not good when you are 80 & 81. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎3‎.‎3‎.‎2017 at 3:07 PM, millk said:

They are needed. In the last 2 days Princess Alexandra and the Duke of York have both canceled engagements. She has a broken wrist and he has a chest infection. Not good when you are 80 & 81. 

Duke of York (Prince Andrew) is born in 1960. Perhaps you mean Duke of Kent (born in 1935)?

[millk]

Yes. Kent.

[dubbel zout]

Given Charles's desire to downsize the number of working royals, I suspect a lot of the work the Kents and Gloucesters do will stop once that generation dies. Or if their children continue, they won't be paid for it with the Civil List.

[Hanahope]

So why did Victoria get to be queen when Willian IV still had living younger brothers?  Why weren't they considered in the line of succession?  Weren't men still preferred over women then?

i recall seeing some movie about Victoria when she was young (maybe it was the with Emily Blunt) that suggested Victoria was so pampered and sheltered because they were afraid of her getting hurt or dying which made it sound like it would have been a real struggle to find another heir.  But if I there were still younger brothers, why the big deal? 

Edited March 11, 2017 by Hanahope

[Pallas]

I'm guessing that the concern was by the people surrounding Victoria: her mother, Conroy, their families, friends and households. Those who gained privilege by their connection to the Heiress Presumptive (and in time, the Queen), and who would forfeit their status if she were lost -- at least before she gave birth to another heir. 

[Jeeves]

1 hour ago, Hanahope said:

So why did Victoria get to be queen when Willian IV still had living younger brothers?  Why weren't they considered in the line of succession?  Weren't men still preferred over women then?

i recall seeing some movie about Victoria when she was young (maybe it was the with Emily Blunt) that suggested Victoria was so pampered and sheltered because they were afraid of her getting hurt or dying which made it sound like it would have been a real struggle to find another heir.  But if I there were still younger brothers, why the big deal? 

I'm sort-of quoting an explanation I found online here. 

Before the crown goes to another brother, you have to go to the descendants of the deceased brother first. 

After George III died, the crown went to his oldest son George IV. When George IV died, the crown would have gone to his eldest legitimate son and if no son to his eldest legitimate daughter. George IV had no legit son and outlived his only daughter.

Because George IV's line was extinguished, you'd then look to George III's next eldest son, who was deceased (Frederick Duke of York) with no legitimate issue.

Therefore when George IV died, the crown went to George III's third son, William IV. 

When William IV died, he had no legit descendants. Therefore the crown would have gone to George III's son #4, Edward, Duke of Kent. Edward was dead, but he had a legitimate child. Therefore the crown went to Edward's only living descendant, Victoria. 

(If Victoria had died before becoming queen or died before she had children, then the line of George III's fourth son Edward, would have been extinguished. And in such case the crown would have gone to George III's next younger son.)

It wasn't just "next son [of George III] up" - it was either the next son OR said son's legitimate issue. 

Look at the current line of succession to the Crown. Princes William and Harry, as sons of Charles Prince of Wales, are in line ahead of the Queen's younger sons (Charles' younger brothers), and Prince William's two kids are now in line ahead of Prince Harry. 

Edited March 11, 2017 by Jeeves
Typos are bad. And paragraph breaks are helpful.

[Rinaldo]

I miss the old days of Wikipedia, when that page was computed out to thousands of places. This page remains, but it isn't as elegantly laid out or as readable. (It also doesn't attempt to exclude "Papists" from the line.) I loved the idea that there was some German ex-Count somewhere who got excited every time someone died and he moved up a slot. 

But anyway, it does show how you keep going in a single line of succession -- boys first, but then girls, each time on down to their descendants -- before the line is considered extinguished and you move back up to the last junction on the tree and start to follow that one down. And of course you must be an "heir of the body": no adopted kids or impatient types whose arrival preceded the wedding need apply.

[Roseanna]

On 3/10/2017 at 4:14 PM, dubbel zout said:

Given Charles's desire to downsize the number of working royals, I suspect a lot of the work the Kents and Gloucesters do will stop once that generation dies. Or if their children continue, they won't be paid for it with the Civil List.

If I remember, they aren't nowadays paid by Civil List but by the Queen.

There are lots of charities and other organizations that want royals to attend. It seems that the the core of thhe royal family isn't interested in f.ex. tennis or football, so the lesser relatives take care of these happenings.  

On 3/10/2017 at 7:38 PM, Hanahope said:

So why did Victoria get to be queen when Willian IV still had living younger brothers?  Why weren't they considered in the line of succession?  Weren't men still preferred over women then?

Jeeves expalained it well.

I want to add only that even in the time there was no reigning queen, in England the crown could be inherited via female line (Henry II via Henry I's daughter Empress Matilda, Henry Tudor via Margaret Beaufort, the surviving descendant of John of Gaunt, a son of Edward III, and of course Stuarts via Henry VII's elder daughter Margaret).

That was impossible in France.  Thus, no male descendant of a princesses who had married foreign rulers, could inherit the crown. Unlike in England, there always were male descendants via royal male line, however distant.  

23 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

And of course you must be an "heir of the body": no adopted kids or impatient types whose arrival preceded the wedding need apply.

The latter ones was excluded because only a child born in wedlock was regarded "a legitimate issue of the body".

However, Beauforts were born to Katherine Swynford and John of Gaunt when he was married to a Spanish princess.  After his wife died, they were married and teh children were legitimized although excluded from succession - which later was forgotten.

[dubbel zout]

13 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

I loved the idea that there was some German ex-Count somewhere who got excited every time someone died and he moved up a slot. 

"Woo-hoo! Now I'm only 437th in line to the British throne! My day will come!"

Edited March 11, 2017 by dubbel zout