English Succession

Actually the English Parliament has expressed a view regarding the succession at varying points before the Act of Settlement excluding a number of descendants of Charles I and James II from the throne.

You can argue it was one of the many powers that Parliament slowly accrued over the decades or became accustomed to believing that Parliament had a right to express a view or enact legislation when it believed it was in the country's interest to regulate the succession.

Or put simply when you had clear and obvious line of succession as you did from Henry II to Richard II then there was no need for anyone to interfere - from 1399 to 1603 there was very little clear line of succession due to usurpation, dynastic change or a lack of an obvious heir - so Parliament was used by successive monarch's to regulate the succession to their preferences.

During the Wars of the Roses Parliament was used by various King's to post legitimate their claim after deposing their rival - it was last used in that way by Henry VII in 1485 when his first Parliament recognised him as King by Conquest (not by right of descent or by right of his wife).

Henry VIII's marital adventures meant Parliament again was needed to approve new succession laws that either included or excluded Henry's children and relatives he had either declared illegitimate or in case of his sister Margaret disliked.
The culmination of that was Parliament granting him the right to name an heir in his final will.
That will was unsuccessfully set aside by Edward VI when he named Lady Jane Grey his heir (in part because his device had not gone through Parliament, that his father's right to name and heir in his will applied only to him and because his half sister Mary was viewed as the legitimate heir)

Henry's will was forgotten in 1603 when Elizabeth's throne passed to the senior heir general of Henry VII - James VI. However the heir in law was either Edward Seymour Viscount Beauchamp (if you accept the legitimacy of his parents marriage which Elizabeth didn't though James VI clearly did), or Lady Anne Stanley.

Parliament on that occassion rubber stamped the widely considered obvious and most advantageous successor.

From 1603 through to the restoration in 1660 - you again had very clear and obvious succession in place but from the 1660s as it became clear Charles II would most likely be succeeded by James Duke of York then Parliament again began to question the issue largely because of James public Catholicism which was by then anathema to the vast majority of the population.

Most would argue the senior dynastic heir of the Stuart dynasty (and certainly to the throne of Scotland) is Franz of Bavaria
He is also the senior heir general of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York and therefore the senior Tudor and Planagenet claimant to the English throne.

However the problem facing England at the Glorious Revolution ignoring prejudice was the fact that Roman Catholic's owe allegiance to a foreign Prince (the Pope) - in the views of many a Roman Catholic on the throne undermined England's independence and seriously undermined the English Church.
 
Actually the English Parliament has expressed a view regarding the succession at varying points before the Act of Settlement excluding a number of descendants of Charles I and James II from the throne.

You can argue it was one of the many powers that Parliament slowly accrued over the decades or became accustomed to believing that Parliament had a right to express a view or enact legislation when it believed it was in the country's interest to regulate the succession.

Or put simply when you had clear and obvious line of succession as you did from Henry II to Richard II then there was no need for anyone to interfere - from 1399 to 1603 there was very little clear line of succession due to usurpation, dynastic change or a lack of an obvious heir - so Parliament was used by successive monarch's to regulate the succession to their preferences.

During the Wars of the Roses Parliament was used by various King's to post legitimate their claim after deposing their rival - it was last used in that way by Henry VII in 1485 when his first Parliament recognised him as King by Conquest (not by right of descent or by right of his wife).

Henry VIII's marital adventures meant Parliament again was needed to approve new succession laws that either included or excluded Henry's children and relatives he had either declared illegitimate or in case of his sister Margaret disliked.
The culmination of that was Parliament granting him the right to name an heir in his final will.
That will was unsuccessfully set aside by Edward VI when he named Lady Jane Grey his heir (in part because his device had not gone through Parliament, that his father's right to name and heir in his will applied only to him and because his half sister Mary was viewed as the legitimate heir)

Henry's will was forgotten in 1603 when Elizabeth's throne passed to the senior heir general of Henry VII - James VI. However the heir in law was either Edward Seymour Viscount Beauchamp (if you accept the legitimacy of his parents marriage which Elizabeth didn't though James VI clearly did), or Lady Anne Stanley.

Parliament on that occassion rubber stamped the widely considered obvious and most advantageous successor.

From 1603 through to the restoration in 1660 - you again had very clear and obvious succession in place but from the 1660s as it became clear Charles II would most likely be succeeded by James Duke of York then Parliament again began to question the issue largely because of James public Catholicism which was by then anathema to the vast majority of the population.

Most would argue the senior dynastic heir of the Stuart dynasty (and certainly to the throne of Scotland) is Franz of Bavaria
He is also the senior heir general of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York and therefore the senior Tudor and Planagenet claimant to the English throne.

However the problem facing England at the Glorious Revolution ignoring prejudice was the fact that Roman Catholic's owe allegiance to a foreign Prince (the Pope) - in the views of many a Roman Catholic on the throne undermined England's independence and seriously undermined the English Church.

Franz of Bavaria is also the direct descendant of Joan of Brittany which makes him not only the de jure King of Britain but also the De jure Duke of Brittany if we want a monarchial split of Brittany from France..
 
Not being antagonistic.

If you're prepared to accept the notion that medieval monarchs who won the throne in battle legitimised themselves by right of conquest, as JedediahScott does, then William and Mary and the Hanoverians did exactly that.

Or we could just be grown-ups and recognise that might makes right in a monarchical system and there is ultimately no higher legitimisation than that.

However the problem facing England at the Glorious Revolution ignoring prejudice was the fact that Roman Catholic's owe allegiance to a foreign Prince (the Pope) - in the views of many a Roman Catholic on the throne undermined England's independence and seriously undermined the English Church.

Is this myth still going around?

James didn't lose his throne because he was a Catholic, he lost it because he was a politically maladroit dick, who didn't seem to be aware that this father had lost his throne and his life by being a politically maladroit dick; James - the avowed Catholic - was a popular figure at his accession and remarkably quickly squandered that goodwill.
 
To be honest I don't believe it is a myth but of course it wasn't the principal reason - his Catholicism was a problem as far back as the 1670s however it was tempered by the fact his heirs were brought up and remained Anglican's and on his accession he initially made no great move to offend his largely Anglican and presbytarian subjects and successfully fought off two rebellions.

Even some of his religious actions as his reign continued could be considered good things in retrospect.

His actions as King (and you are right a politically maladroit dick) in particular his desire to increase his standing army, his decision to allow catholics to hold office, his arguements with the Archbishop of Canterbury, his declaration of indulgence etc - all directly related to him being a Roman Catholic - it was tolerable just whilst Mary was still his heir but with the birth of a Prince and the prospect of another RC King was too much to many.

He lost his throne for a variety of reasons of course but being an RC was one of them - but he was on the whole just plain stupid.

Is this myth still going around?

James didn't lose his throne because he was a Catholic, he lost it because he was a politically maladroit dick, who didn't seem to be aware that this father had lost his throne and his life by being a politically maladroit dick; James - the avowed Catholic - was a popular figure at his accession and remarkably quickly squandered that goodwill.
 
Even some of his religious actions as his reign continued could be considered good things in retrospect.

James' religious intentions for the time were fairly admirable, that's less in dispute than the way he pursued them, which was undeniably outright absolutist. James would ask for often radical loosening of the impositions on Catholics and dissenters from Parliament, or the church, or a civic corporation, and when he was politely but firmly rebuffed, would impose his policy anyway.

Although the Monmouths and the Titus Oates of the world would never have reconciled themselves to James, most people would have if he pursued his religious aims with more circumspection and political nous - he didn't. It was therefore less about James' Catholicism and more about the heavy-handed and threatening way he pursued toleration.

Why is heavy-handed pursuit of toleration threatening, you ask. It was threatening because these actions were also set beside James' undoubted desire for a stronger, more absolute monarchy in other areas - his attempt to pack parliament, his reliance on a standing army, etc. All taken together it made James an immensely threatening figure politically, and ultimately this was all fairly tangential to his Catholicism.

it was tolerable just whilst Mary was still his heir but with the birth of a Prince and the prospect of another RC King was too much to many.

The notion that it was the prospect of a Catholic dynasty that set off a crisis is folklore history, I'm afraid. William was already preparing his invasion before the birth, (had indeed been courting the opposition for most of James' reign) and James had already marked his card by that point.
 
Top