Talk:Alternate successions of the English crown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Clarence line

As it makes more sense to put the counter-arguments to the claim that Edward IV was illegitimate directly after the argument for that claim, I've moved them to Edward IV of England. The points about attainders passed by Henry VII and Henry VIII are irrelevant, as had the Clarence line occupied the throne, H7 and H8 would never have been kings and so couldn't have attainted Edward of Warwick and his sister and nephew. Jess Cully 06:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I included the attainders in the original entry since Henry VII deposed Richard III and took the crown by force of arms (it seems someone edited out my link to the entry about the hierarchy of claims to the crown), justly and by "right of conquest" making him King. As rightful King, all Parliaments he called and all laws to which he gave his royal assent were both de facto and de jure laws, thus any attainders passed by Parliament were legal. Remember, right to the crown by force of arms means everything. It's why Elizabeth currently sits on the throne. Had William III not conquered England and deposed James II, Elizabeth wouldn't be there. Right of Conquest is and always will be kind of a reset button on crown descent, the right to call Parliament, and the right to assent to the laws; all subsequent acts have the full force of law, except for those who contest the claim but have no recourse to try it, nor force to retake the crown. --Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.35.100 (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of the article isn't to argue that the Clarence, Stanley or Jacobite claimant IS rightful king, just to trace the descent of their claims to the throne. A Yorkist legitimist would have rejected H7 and H8's claim to the throne and regarded their attainders as invalid, so would have accepted Edward Warwick and Henry Pole as his rightful sovereign, just as Jacobites rejected William III despite his conquest of James II. Jess Cully 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Third Succession Act

Although it is true that the Second Succession Act (28 Hen VIII c. 7) authorized Henry VIII to set the succession by his Last Will and Testament, it would be most germaine to list the Third Succession Act (35 Hen. VIII, c. 1) instead. The text of the Third Succession Act supports the argument:

“Be it enacted by the authority of this present Parliament, that the King’s Highness shall have full power and authority to give, dispose, appoint, assign, declare and limit, by his gracious Letters Patent under his Great Seal, or else by His Highness’ last Will made in writing and signed by his most gracious hand, at his only pleasure from time to time hereafter, the Imperial Crown of this Realm...to such person or persons in remainder as shall please His Highness, anything contained in the said former Act [28 Hen VIII c 7] in any wise notwithstanding.”

Additionally:

(1) It was under the terms of the Third Succession Act (35 Hen. VIII, c. 1) that Mary I and Elizabeth I succeeded to the Crown of England. This was acknowledged in 1 Elizabethae c. 3 (1559), also called “The Act of Recognition of the Queen’s Title to the Crown According to 35 Hen. VIII, c. 1."

(2) Mary I , in 1 Mariae, St. 2, c.1 (1553) altered and repealed 25 Hen. VIII c. 22 and much of 28 Hen.VIII, c. 7. The Third Succession Act remained unaltered, as it would be illegal to do so: “The doing of any thing for the interruption, repeal, or annulment of this Act, of what estate, dignity, degree or condition soever they be, under this Act, is declared high treason.” (35 Hen VIII c. 1)

Consequently, Tudor Legitimists hold that the Third Succession Act and the last Will of Henry VIII remain the law governing English succession to the current day.

--Ribicswerdna 19:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Did the Third Succession Act specify that the heirs of Mary Tudor Queen of France would succeed in the event of Henry's issue failing? Jess Cully 13:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

According to 35 Hen. VIII, c. 1 (1544), the succession was to be determined by the last Will of King Henry VIII. His last Will (30 December 1546) settled the Crown of England upon his children, and failing their issue, first upon the heirs of the body of his youngest sister, Mary Tudor Queen of France. After the extinction of her legitimate descendants (of whom there are very many today), then the succession "shall wholly remain and come to the next rightful heirs." --Ribicswerdna 23:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)