Talk:Alternative successions to the English and British Crown/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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)

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)

The article says:

"This line’s claim to the Crown is based squarely upon the argument that Edward IV was not sired by Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, and thus had no legitimate claim to the Crown. [1] Therefore, when Richard was killed at the Battle of Wakefield, his claim passed to his eldest legitimate son, Edmund, Earl of Rutland. Unfortunately, Edmund was captured at the same battle and executed either the same or next day. Edmund’s claim then passed to his eldest "legitimate" brother and heir presumptive, George, Duke of Clarence. Supporters of the Clarence claim also draw on the debated validity of Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, which allows them to argue that, even if Edward was legitimate, his children were not."

I don't see that the claim of Edward IV's or Edward V's illegitimacy are necessarily part of this line. Even if both Edward's were legitimate, Clarence as the third son would have been the legal successor to them had he lived at the time, preceding the youngest son Richard III. After the death of Richard, the descendants of Clarence would still be the first in line. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am dubious that there are any actual Henricians, much less ones who demand that the 9th Earl of Jersey's divorce was illegitimate and refuse to recognize his son as rightful heir. The source given is from William Addams Reitwiesner, a genealogist, and his reference to "Henricians" is almost certainly tongue-in-cheek and referring to other armchair genealogists, not to an actual political movement that supports the claims of Lady Caroline.

http://books.google.com/books?rlz=1C1CHMA_enUS313US313&sourceid=chrome&q=a%20conference%20about%20the%20next%20succession%20to%20the%20crown%20of%20england&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly Richard Scott, 10th Duke of Buccleuch also has a claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Cheeseman (talk • contribs) 07:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Another interesting fact is what if George III's first marriage was true? If then, the heir of George Rex would have a rightful claim. But what if George III was married, but had no children by this marriage? Apparently, Hubertus Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha would be the heir general. Very interesting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Cheeseman (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there room in this article (indeed is this the right place) to mention Princess Felicitas of Prussia (b. 1934), granddaughter of William, German Crown Prince through his son Prince Wilhelm of Prussia. She is 334th in line to the throne. But the succession is determined by male-preference primogeniture, religion, and legitimate birth. In this modern age, one wonders whether the sexist approach will continue. It is not currently controvesial because the first in line is both the oldest and male (Charles) and indeed his first child is also male. The question whether the "male" requirement will be removed (as it has in other systems) will remain theoretical for many many years. - The last time a younger male took over the throne was in 1901 when Edward VII took ahead of his elder sister Victoria (The Princess Royal). She had been first in line the the throne until Edward was born. My point is that had the sexist rule not applied, Princess Felicitas of Prussia would be Queen today as the descendant from Victoria the Princess Royal. Of course, there are many factors - such as the fact that she would not have been married off to the German family Willhelm. Is it worth a mention in the article? Alan Davidson (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of an objection I would like to insert such a provision - but I would prefer a comment from others. Alan Davidson (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No makes no sense why do you choose Victoria's eldest daughter why not any of the elder daughters of earlier Monarchs of Britain?--

talk

) 07:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A note at the end of this section presently reads:

Note: This list excludes females from the crown. The precedent for female inheritance of the Crown would not have been set had George, Duke of Clarence inherited the crown. The principle that a woman could reign was only laid down by Henry VIII when he named Mary I as heir to the throne in 1525, and approved by Parliament by the First Succession Act which appointed Elizabeth I as heir.

This is nonsense. The principle that a woman could reign was equally laid down by Henry I, who named his daughter Matilda as his heir in 1127. This was agreed by the Barons, the nearest contemporary equivalent of Parliament. The fact that most of them went back on their word and supported the usurpation of Stephen in 1135 doesn't invalidate the principle. Opera hat (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Large portions of this article are nonsense.

talk

) 18:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is nonsense. 86.183.197.74 (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Which?--Streona (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There was never Salic Law in England; had there been, Henry II could never have acceeded to the throne, seeing as his claim was derived from his mother, Matilda. In point of fact, Henry VIII's father, Henry VII claimed the throne through his mother.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And Stephen inherited through his mother. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The new laws of succession(post-Henry I) were set down in 1153. These were neither the modern English/UK laws, nor the Salic Law. A woman could not reign in her own right prior to Henry VIII's naming Mary as his heir, but women most definitely could transmit their claims to their sons, as Lionel's claim passed through Philippa, through Roger, through Anne to the Duke of York. Likewise Henry Tudor bases his claim on his mother's descent from John of Gaunt. However, none of Princess Philippa, Anne Mortimer or Margaret Beaufort would have been able to reign in their own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick T (talk • contribs) 16:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the source of the principle that the monarch of England cannot be illegitimate? There have been three self-confessed illegitimate Kings (not including the Tudors who claimed each other were) - Athelstan (the first King of England), Hardicanute nad William I. The

If Charles Stuart and Lucy Walters had been married to other people then Monmouth was born in adultery, but if they were not he was merely born as a result of fornication & yes it was Harefoot.--Streona (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Charles II was aware that his brother James, Duke of York was unpopular with the people, yet he made no effort to legitimise any of his offspring. He also made no attempt to divorce Catherine of Bragnza and sire legitimate children.I think this was done to guarantee his life; as Fraser says in her bio of Charles II, the latter would often remark to James: "Nobody would assassinate me to make you king".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering something. Catherine Grey's line is excluded on the grounds that Elizabeth I ruled that her marriage was not valid. But certainly one could argue that Elizabeth herself was illegitimate, therefore she had no right to invalidate Catherine's marriage, and in fact Catherine was the rightful Queen! Who then is the direct heir to Catherine Grey? Henry F. Albert (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Third act of succession stated that the descendants of mary tudor would ascend the throne only after Henry's line became extinct. Sorry for being a pedant. 86.173.26.13 (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I gather, this question was another "alternate line", asking "what if...?" in this case, considering Elizabeth as being illegitimate. In this case however, it would probably be more likely that

This article states matter of factly that

Also, http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/henrician.html states that the heir-general of Mary Tudor(through Anne Stanley, as is the case with Lady Caroline Ogilvy) is in fact

The third act of succession counted Elizabeth I as a legitemate heir to the throne, though. 86.173.26.13 (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems scenario as the one posted above, resting on the assumption that Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn was null and void, thus making Elizabeth ineligible. On these grounds however, the Third Succession Act itself would be considered highly doubtful as it names Elizabeth as Edward's heir. Frederick T (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If Elizabeth is not the rightful heir, then you have to go to Mary Stuart after Mary Tudor, I think.

Why isn't his descendants considered an alternative line? Without the

Ok since nobody seems to be responding, I helped myself and researched it myself and got this. I think this succession would have been contraditctory to why

Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia to his brother Charles Felix of Sardinia instead to his daughter Maria Beatrice of Savoy

. Could someone check this?

1. Stephen of England
2. William I, Count of Boulogne, second son of Stephen
3. Marie I, Countess of Boulogne, youngest daughter of Stephen
4. Ida, Countess of Boulogne, eldest daughter of Marie I
5. Matilda II, Countess of Boulogne, only child of Ida
6. Marie of Brabant, Holy Roman Empress
   (it isn't clear if Matilda II died before or after Marie), cousin of Matilda II and granddaughter of Marie I
7. Adelaide, Countess of Boulogne, sister of Empress Marie
8. Robert V, Count of Auvergne
   , first son of Adelaide
9. William XI, Count of Auvergne
   , first son of Robert V
10. Robert VI, Count of Auvergne
    , second son of Robert V
11. Robert VII, Count of Auvergne
    , only son of Robert VI
12. William XII, Count of Auvergne
    , first son of Robert VII
13. Joan I, Countess of Auvergne, only daughter of William XII
14. Philip I, Duke of Burgundy, only son of Joan I
15. John I, Count of Auvergne, great-uncle of Philip I and second son of Robert VII
16. John II, Count of Auvergne
    , only son of John I
17. Joan II, Countess of Auvergne, only child of John II
18. Marie I, Countess of Auvergne, granddaughter of Robert VII
19. Bertrand V de La Tour d'Auvergne, only son of Marie I
20. Bertrand VI de La Tour d'Auvergne, first son of Bertrand V
21. John IV de La Tour d'Auvergne
    , only son of Bertrand VI
22. Anne de La Tour d'Auvergne, eldest daughter of John IV
23. Catherine de' Medici, niece of Anne and daughter of Madeleine de La Tour d'Auvergne
24. Henry III of France, fourth son of Catherine
25. Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia of Spain
    , niece of Henry III and daughter of Elisabeth of France
26. Victor Amadeus I, Duke of Savoy, nephew of Isabella
27. Francis Hyacinth, Duke of Savoy, eldest son of Victor Amadeus I
28. Charles Emmanuel II, Duke of Savoy, younger son of Victor Amadeus I
29. Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia
    , only son of Charles Emmanuel II
30. Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia
    , second son of Victor Amadeus II
31. Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia
    , eldest son of Charles Emmanuel III
32. Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia
    , eldest son of Victor Amadeus III
33. Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia
    , second son of Victor Amadeus III
34. Charles Felix of Sardinia, fifth son of Charles Felix of Sardinia
35. Charles Albert of Sardinia, descendant of Infanta Catherine Michelle of Spain
36. Victor Emmanuel II of Italy
    , first son of Charles Albert
37. Umberto I of Italy, first son of Victor Emmanuel II
38. Victor Emmanuel III of Italy
    , only son of Umberto I
39. Umberto II of Italy, only son of Victor Emmanuel III
40. Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples, only son of Umberto II

Wow! Talk about alternative history! Imagine how the history of England would have been irrevocably altered under the de jure reign of Catherine de Medici, and what fun to have such a good dancer as Emanuele Filiberto as heir to the British throne. You did a good job with the research, QEIILS!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

While this is certainly very interesting, and you no doubt put very much effort into it, it would probably be worth pointing out that there were no set rules of succession about the eldest son being Heir. William Rufus was William The Conqueror's second son, Stephen was Adela's third son, and Stephen himself named his own younger son as his successor.

Likewise one of the links asks the hypothetical "What if?" question as to the heirs of Harold II and Edgar II. Again, Anglo-Saxon succession did not automatically make the late King's eldest son his heir, and the crown frequently passed to a brother or cousin, even when the late King had left legitimate sons. Frederick T (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's very much foolish this line anyway. Because when I was creating it because from 3 to 7 it was all females with no males descendants. This would go against the point why Stephen was put on the throne in the first place which was to keep a male on the throne. I think in the end Stephen female descendants would have been overthrown by the English barons and nobles just like Queen Matilda.--

According to the one reliable source, the true Plantagenet heir is Sir Filmer Courtenay William Honywood, 11th Baronet of Evington. Charlie Cheeseman (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I found this too but I'm afraid Sir Honywood is a descendant of a previous heir's non-dynastic cousin. (see thepeerage) 86.173.26.13 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, didn't Richard III kill his sister's husband? It seems unlikely he would name their descendants as heirs in that case. Anyway, Richard III named first Warwick, and then De La Pole as his successor. In 1487 during the Stoke rising, De La Pole recognised Warwick as the Rightful king. Although Edmund and especially Richard De La Pole both claimed to be the King, with their deaths, and that of William in 1539, Richard III's claim would then move to the previously named heir's successors, it. Warwick's. After the death of Richard De La Pole, his supporters all shifted their attention to the Pole family anyway. Again, the heir to the will of Richard III is Michael Abney-Hastings. Frederick T (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As

4.John Holland, 2nd Duke of Exeter

5.Henry Holland, 3rd Duke of Exeter (Henry VI's rightful heir as "Henry VII")

6.Ralph Neville, 3rd Earl of Westmorland (cousin of "Henry VII", "Ralph I")

7.Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland ("Ralph II")

8.Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland ("Henry VIII")

9.Charles Neville, 6th Earl of Westmorland ("Charles I") Charles's sister married William Pelham (lord justice) but I have been unable to find any further descendants after her grandson. Henry's sisters have remaining desendants:

10.Edward Manners, 3rd Earl of Rutland ("Edward IV") His daughter

11.John Manners, 4th Earl of Rutland ("John II")

12.Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland ("Roger I")

13.Francis Manners, 6th Earl of Rutland ("Francis I")

14.Katherine Villiers, Duchess of Buckingham ("Katherine I")

15.George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham ("George I")

16.Elizabeth Willoughby, daughter of Francis Willoughby, 5th Baron Willoughby of Parham Great-granddaughter of "John II", "Elizabeth II"

17.Frances Jones, daughter of Richard Jones, 1st Earl of Ranelagh ("Frances I")

18.Frances, daughter of Thomas Coningsby, 1st Earl Coningsby ("Frances II")

19.Charlotte, daughter of Sir Charles Hanbury Williams ("Charlotte I")

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.Mary Dawson, Countess of Dartrey ("Mary I")

25.

26.

27.

What do you think? 86.173.26.13 (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the modern Lancastrian heir is the same Michael Abney-Hastings, Earl of Loudon, Baron Botreaux, Baron Hastings, Baron Stanley. You are right in that the Iberian line would be excluded as foreigners. However, in 1470, Henry VI and his parliament passed an act naming his Legal and Rightful heir (in the case that Henry and his son both died without further legitimate issue) as being, George Duke of Clarence. Henry also attainted Edward IV and his descendants. Both Clarence and his wife were descendants of a daughter of John of Gaunt, and thus when Henry was killed by Edward IV in 1471(after his son had already died) the Legal Lancastrian King should have been Clarence, whose descendants are thus both the Rightful Yorkist and Lancastrian heirs/claimants. Frederick T (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how Clarence's descendants are the rightful Yorkist claimants. There is an argument for this, but Elizabeth of York has just as good a claim. To say nothing of the de la Poles.

talk

) 13:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The one thing the author of the "Regnal Chronologies" site fails to take into account is that prior to Henry VIII naming Mary as his heir, there would not have been a Queen Regnant. A woman COULD pass her claim to her son, however at the time of Richard III's death, Elizabeth was not yet married. And the reason Richard III became King in the first place, was because of Edward IV"s children being illegitimate(which obviously included Elizabeth). After Richard III's own son died, he and his wife formally adopted Warwick and Richard named him as hir heir. When Henry Tudor's army landed, Richard instead named John De La Pole as his heir. This was most likely because De La Pole was an adult man with military experience, and Warwick was just a boy. However, during the rising of 1486-1487 De La Pole swore an oath to the Rightful King Edward (Warwick) and died fighting under Warwick's banner. Even if we accept the De la Poles as Richard III's heirs, with the detah of the last De La Pole in 1539, Clarence's line would become the next York line anyway.

Likewise, male-line descent was regarded as more significant. As the son of Clarence, Warwick would be viewed as senior to the De La Poles, whose claim came through their mother. Likewise, the children of Elizabeth would have been viewed far more as being the children of Henry Tudor than as the grandchildren of Edward IV. It was only when the male-line heirs were gone that Yorkist sympathies really turned towards Margaret and her children/grandchildren. Frederick T (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If foreign monarchs can't inherit, why does the Norwegian royal family always appear in the Line of Succession? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

They do so today. However in the 14th century things were very different. Certainly today there would be no problem with the Crown passing to a "foreigner"(and the Windsors are really far more German than British), back in c1400 or so things were very different. Just like attitudes to having a Queen Regnant would have been totally different than then they are today. It is a serious mistake to apply modern sensibilities and social norms to people six hundred years ago. Frederick T (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

a) Succession through a female line was permitted during and after the anarchy of the 1100s.

b) Richard III's succession was accepted by the english nobles because of the probable illegitemacy of Edward IV and his children and the execution of the Duke of Clarence for treason. Therefore the De La Poles (if we go by Richard III's wishes) or the descendants of

This also goes against the people who can't get their heads around why Lady Caroline Ogilvy rather than anyone else is the ONLY heir to the Third Succession Act and Last Will and Testament of King Henry VIII. Namely, that de facto rules do not apply as far as the Divine Right of Kings is concerned. The TRUE Line(whichever of the various that there are) continues regardless of who the de facto Monarch is, and ONLY the TRUE Monarch/TRUE Monarchs' Parliament can make legally binding laws. Frederick T (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you concerning regnal numbering and the Lady Cariline Ogilvy situation but in point a I was trying to get across the point of female line succession. not female succession.

I was not aware of the attainder being removed during the reign of Richard III but he obviously didn't consider Warwick and his family as being truly unattainted. If I may make another point, there has been a tradition of succession by public acclamation or conquest: William I, Henery IV, Richard III, Henry VII and James I. Therefore upon the accession of Richard III the entire succession was 'reset' and he could choose whoevever he liked as his successor. He ultimately chose the De La Poles over Warwick and thus Anne of york's was the surviving line. This is rendered moot by the Battle of Bosworth Field, of course.* 81.159.71.195 (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, shouldn't we just agree that the heir to the House of Lancaster is Either the Earl of Loudon or the Baron de Ros and that the only claim to the throne that Henry Tudor had was through conquest? 81.159.71.195 (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is however that in the cases of Henry IV, Richard III, Henry VII and James I each believed that he was the Rightful king as well. Not sure if William I truly believed he was the rightful King after Edward the Confessor's death, but the Tapestry would seem to say that he did(did Harold really swear an oath to him?).

The central problem is that (after Stephen) the next legitimate male should succeed. The Henry IV situation was he believed that as the next male-line male he should have precedence over Edmund Mortimer. Henry also "justified" his takeover by propaganda, especially viciously espoused by Rowse.

Richard III again truly believed that he was the Rightful King, and he never "usurped" anything, as a)Edward IV's children were illegitimate and b)Clarence's line had been attainted.

Henry VII truly believed that He was the Head of Lancaster and thus the true heir to Henry IV and ultimately Edward III.

James I truly believed that genealogy should take precedence over Acts of Succession(same as the Jacobites then). This again goes with the idea of the Crown being something b Divine Birthright, and to "skip over" legitimate Royals for a minor Royal that you may prefer, like say the descendants of a late King's younger sister or say the Elector of Hanover, is essentially blasphemy.

Again, after his own son's death, Richard III and his wife formally adopted Warwick, and Richard named him as his heir. After Tudor's forces landed, Richard instead named the 20-something man De la Pole as his heir. Richard knew that if he were to die in battle his family's cause would be better suited in Lincoln's than Warwick's hands. However, even when Richard did die it was Warwick who became the figurehead of Yorkist aspirations. Had Bosworth Field gone the other way, and Henry tudor had been defeated and killed, it is likely that Richard would have once again made Warwick his heir.

As you say, however, Succession by Conquest "resets" succession laws, as happened in 1066. However, by the Plantagenet succession laws, the line leading to the Earl of Loudon would be the Royal Line. Frederick T (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

England never had an explicit succession law until Henry VIII, and that succession law was discarded as soon as it was inconvenient. Pretending that there was some kind of clear law of succession in Plantagenet England is completely ahistorical. Also, what is the source for the claim that Richard named Warwick as his heir immediately after his son's death, and then named Lincoln right before Bosworth? Here's what the ODNB has to say. In the article on Lincoln, it say: "When Richard's only son, Edward, died in April 1484 no heir was formally designated, but the appointment of Lincoln to the lieutenantship of Ireland on 21 August may have been intended to signal that he, rather than Clarence's son Edward, earl of Warwick, was regarded as the heir apparent." In the article on Warwick, it says: [Warwick] may even have been heir apparent to the throne for a while on the prince's death in 1484. Richard is said eventually to have named John de la Pole, earl of Lincoln, as heir, and, whether formally named or not, he was undoubtedly preferred over Warwick." You similarly assert that in 1470 Henry VI recognized Clarence's reversionary interest should he and his son die. Here, again, is the ODNB's article on Clarence: "Clarence had to abandon his immediate title to the throne, though a reversionary right on the death of Henry VI and his son may have been accepted." You say that Edward IV's children were illegitimate. The ODNB article on Eleanor Butler: "[Eleanor's husband] died in 1461, and it may be that Eleanor's claims for dower brought her to the attention of the young king, a notorious womanizer and a bachelor at that time. But it is equally possible that the allegation derived from knowledge of discussions between Shrewsbury and York concerning a family alliance. In any case, the tendentious nature of the evidence makes it impossible to regard either the fact or the nature of the liaison as established." You take things where responsible historians say "may" or "perhaps" or even "probably not" and assert them as definitive truths. This is really problematic. Succession rules in medieval and early modern times were almost always unwritten customs, not well-defined laws, and when the king had neither sons nor brothers (or when he had daughters and brothers) there was always room for dispute. In a situation like 1485, where there had been no fewer than three usurpations and several attainders, as well as a number of lines of dubious legitimacy, and a lot of violent deaths to end various direct lines, there is simply no way to say that any specific individual was the true heir. The only thing that was clear was that Henry VII was king by right of conquest. All else was confusion. Warwick was certainly the most plausible alternative candidate, but that is all. Even at the time, there were no well-defined laws of succession to state any definitive heirs, and the nature of the surviving sources means that today we do not even know everything that people at the time did - for example, whether Richard III ever formally named either Warwick or Lincoln as his heir. It is best to acknowledge that uncertainty, and not pretend to a tendentious surety which has no basis in reliable sources.

Not sure how much this counts, but wikipedia's own article on Anne Neville mentions Richard and Anne adopting Warwick and naming him as heir. The cpedia article states the same, although this may be a mirror?

Jeremy Potter's books state the adoption and designation as heir, although state that this may have been Richard III's wife's wishes' rather than the King himself. They also states that after Anne's death, Richard switched to his preferred choice, John De La Pole. However, as I think I may have stated before, after Richard III was killed De La Pole himself recognized Warwick as the Rightful Yorkist Claimant, and even died in battle for that cause.

Professor A Rowse, one of the most pro-Tudor historians who ever lived, states in his "Bosworth Field" book that Henry VI DID indeed formally pass an Act of Parliament naming Clarence as the Rightful Lancastrian heir if both Henry VI and his son prince Edward were to die without further legitimate issue. It should be noted that later on, as far as 1483 goes, Henry Tudor is referred as the "undoubted Lancastrian claimant". Which may seem to back up the "confusion" argument.

Likewise, there are several books which state that Edward IV most likely DID have a precontract prior to his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville. Taking one source as definitive is perhaps not the best idea.

However, as every King had been succeeded by his oldest living male heir through the firstborn line, and the first problems only really arose c1399 as to whether the Mortimer and Lancastrian male was the "Firstborn line" (one passed through the elder son's daughter to HER son), or one was direct male-line descent, to say that "England never had an explicit succession law until Henry VIII..." is not really true. Clearly the next male in the senior legitimate line of succession would be the heir apparent. The only problems was exactly WHO was the senior male in the senior legitimate line.

However, under the law in 1485 at the time of Richard III's death, Edward IV"s descendants were all illegitimate. Clarence's were not. The De La Poles were not. And Buckingham's line had been attainted by Richard III. Likewise at the time of Henry VI"s death in 1471 Edward IV had been attainted, and Clarence formally recognized as his heir. Certainly then we enter the same argument as the Caroline Ogilvy vs. Earl of jersey argument. By recognizing later Acts or Decrees made by de facto Monarchs runs contrary to the "true" line. Frederick T (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Frederick, I know you are not making up your factual assertions, and that, so far as I can tell, all of the claims you are making are ones that have been made by reputable historians. Obviously there are some historians who think that Edward IV didhave a pre-contract, or that Richard III named Warwick as his heir or that Henry VI awarded Clarence reversionary rights. What I think the ODNB does a good job of showing, those, is that the evidence for all of these things is somewhat tenuous. There aren't any documents which lay out any of these things clearly; they are informed speculations by historians who are trying to interpret what are often fragmentary and unreliable sources. I study the nineteenth century, when we have much, much better archival and primary sources, and even there it's easy to come upon situations where the information is just missing and you have to speculate based on what is available to fill in gaps. That problem is much, much more significant for the 15th century, and so we see that on these questions what we have are a variety of historians making a variety of plausible guesses. The ODNB articles are generally attempts at synthetic summaries of what the specialist work says, and so are much more cautious about their claims. As you say, taking one source as definitive is probably not the best idea, which is why we should probably follow the ODNB's example and be cautious about such things. Did Edward IV have a precontract with Eleanor Butler? I think that most historians who've studied the period would have their guesses and favorite theories about these things, but would also admit that it is speculative, and that there's ultimately no way to know for certain. As to the law at the time of Richard III's death, Richard III on taking the throne had said that Clarence's children were ineligible because of their father's attainder. So far as I'm aware, that attainder had not been removed by 1485, so I'm not sure how that all works out. I still hold to the contention that England had no clearly written out succession law prior to Henry VIII, and really prior to 1689, since Henry's will was mostly honored in the breach. Prior to 1689 the only times when the successn was clear were either when the late king had a son, a son of a deceased eldest son, or when a childless king had a brother. This was the situation in 1189, 1216, 1272, 1307, 1327, 1377, 1413, 1422, 1509, 1547, 1625, 1649, and 1685. Every other succession provided some possibility of dispute: Arthur contested with John in 1199; Henry IV usurped the throne in 1399; 1461, 1483, and 1485 were all usurpations as well; Lady Jane Grey was proposed in 1553; Mary Stuart claimed the throne in 1558; there were several potential contenders in 1603. There are simply no grounds for saying that there were well-established precedents for who should succeed to the throne in all but the most obvious cases. George VI was the first king since Henry I to die leaving daughters and no sons, so there is no real way to know whether it was viewed as possible for a woman to succeed to the throne in the Middle Ages; certainly Matilda did her best to claim the throne. At any rate, once again, where are you getting your idea of the "true" succession? What reliable sources support such a notion? It's our job to follow reliable sources, not to extrapolate from them to produce original ideas, or to reproduce the writings of amateur internet genealogists. This whole article is pretty close to a violation of that idea.

talk

) 21:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as stated elsewhere(and in various historical books), attainders are only as good as who is on the throne. Edward IV and Henry VII were both attainted when they seized the throne. Richard III ascended the throne because Warwick was attainted, but after Richard died, Yorkist loyalties went to Warwick, attainder or not. Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury was attainted, yet Henry VIII still found the need to execute her, her son and grandson, and imprison another family member. James Stuart was attainted, yet the various Jacobite risings happened anyway.

As for the succession laws from 1153-1485. Well this is just something we(by which I mean me and my then-classmates) were taught as fact by our teachers years ago. As a boy I never thought to ask the History Masters what reliable sources they were using. It was just taken as fact the same way that Tuesday follows Monday or 1+1=2. It was accepted that the next legitimate male in the senior legitimate line would succeed the late King, unless he had been attainted. I've searched for "Plantagenet succession laws" on google, and am yet to find anything, but maybe that's because it's one of those "no-brainer" things? Frederick T (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, yes, Yorkist loyalties went to Warwick. Just as Lancastrian loyalties went to Richmond. And yet you insist that Warwick was the Lancastrian heir, as well. You are basically using whatever standard gives you the results you want here. Obviously attainders can and are ignored when people want to support who they want to support. But you are the one insisting on finding the legal heir to Richard III. The difference with Henry VII or Edward IV or the Old Pretender's attainders is that they were attaindered by kings whose claim to the throne the attaindered claimant denied. You, on the other hand, are arguing that Warwick was the legal heir to Richard III, whose own claim to the throne was based on the validity of that attainder and Warwick's exclusion. As far as the succession laws, you've gone to "I learned it in school, it's so obvious I don't even need sources"? Seriously? The only way we would know if females were excluded were if there were an obvious female who was excluded. There was not. That an adult son would take up his mother's rights even if his mother was still alive seems reasonably clear. That a childless woman would be skipped is much less clear. BTW, found a useful article on succession law in 15th century England at JSTOR, if you can access it. Michael Bennett, the author, discusses Richard of York's claims to the throne in 1460, and the counter-arguments to them by the Lords, and then goes back and discusses the supposed entail of Edward III of 1376, by which he apparently gave the succession to his heirs-male. The discussion of all this shows pretty clearly the lack of clarity to medieval succession laws - the possibility that John of Gaunt might take the throne rather than his nephew is brought up, as is the possibility of Philippa herself, as well as her son Roger Mortimer, as next heir after Richard of Bordeaux. It also notes a statement on the succession made by Edward I in 1290 by which the throne would passed first to his son, then to any future sons, then to his eldest daughter and her heirs, then to his next daughter and her heirs, and so forth. No mention is made of daughters not being allowed to succeed, and in fact, this is explicitly denied. Bennett writes: "Edward I certainly believed that, in the event of his sons' dying without male issue, they could be succeeded by their daughters, and, in the event of their dying without any issue, by Edward's own daughters." Later, in discussing Philippa's claims, Bennett notes that it was "a moot question" (i.e., an open question, a debatable question) whether a woman could succeed to the throne, but notes that her claims could obviously be transmitted to her son. Your definitive statements about a clear royal law of succession after 1153 find no support in this article.

talk

) 14:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This article from Google Books also has some useful material - it goes into more detail about Edward I's testament, which pretty clearly envisioned his daughters as having rights ahead of his brother, even if those daughters were unmarried and had no children. Your claim that it was well-established that women could not succeed to the throne has no merit, I think.

talk

) 15:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The case of loyalties going to Warwick was just to emphasize a point, not the pint itself. In 1483 Clarence's line had been attainted by Edward IV. However, by 1485, most historians agree(as does wikipedia!) on the fact that Richard III had formally adopted his nephew and had, albeit temporarily, named him as his heir apparent. Even if we take into account that the De La Poles were the legal heirs to Richard III, when Richard lay dead at Bosworth, Clarence's line was at least no longer barred, while as of August 22 1485, Edward IV's children and descendants were legally and lawfully regarded as illegitimate. Even taking into account that the De La Poles were the lawful Yorkist/Ricardian claimants, when that line ended, the next Yorkist line that was the genealogically senior unattainted one under strict Yorkist or if you prefer "Ricardian" law, was Clarence's line. It is certainly possible that Richard III may have intended for some other branch to inherit his claim in the event of the De La Pole line ending, but legally and lawfully with the death of William De La Pole, the legally(by Yorkist Law) senior legitimate and eligible family line was that of Clarence.

Likewise, while some Lancastrian loyalties may have gone to Richmond, under strict Lancastrian Law Henry Tudor had no claim whatsoever, as Henry IV had barred the Beaufort line from succession, and Henry VI had formally and legally named Clarence and his descendants as his heirs in the event of Henry's own line becoming extinct(which in the event it did). Furthermore, Henry VI had attainted Edward IV and his line, long before Richard III and Titulus Regius. Thus, even if female succession were possible, under strict Lancastrian Law. Elizabeth of York would have been barred from the throne in her own right anyway. Since Henry VII never removed the attainder placed by Henry VI(who he claimed to be the successor to), Edward IV"s line were not in the line of succession, and under strict Lancastrian Law, guess who the senior Yorkists in line would then be? Frederick T (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You're treating this like it's a legal argument rather than a historical one. We are not lawyers arguing the case on behalf of our clients. We are looking back at history and trying to understand what happened and why. You keep insisting that Elizabeth of York had no legal claim, in spite of the fact that people at the time, in fact, clearly perceived that she did have a claim as the heir-general of Edward III, assuming her parents' marriage was valid, as it had been assumed to be for almost twenty years. As for Henry VII, his genealogical claim was indeed weak, but he was the heir-general of John of Gaunt if you assume the Beauforts to be legitimized by their father's marriage to their mother. This was good enough for most Lancastrians, as the alternatives were unappealing (Clarence/Warwick, the king of Portugal) or had even weaker genealogical claims (Buckingham). The upshot of all my readings on this subject is that succession law was unsettled and unclear. It was widely seen that a king might have a right to determine who his own successor was (in the absence of an obvious candidate like an eldest son), but that whatever rules he might set up could not bind his successors (this is more or less Bennett's argument). That makes any attempt to find the "true legal heir" to any medieval king at the present time a hopeless exercise, and I don't see why it's one we'd want to undertake, anyway. Who was the legal successor to Richard III? In the only sense that matters, it was Henry VII. Any discussion of alternatives has to be in the light of their political significance, not some abstract conception of their legal rights that we are imposing on them from the twenty-first century. As the last male Plantagenet, Warwick was obviously an important potential rival to Henry VII, which is why he imprisoned and eventually executed him. But of course so was Elizabeth of York, which is why he married her. And so were various de la Poles, and Buckingham, and whoever else you like. So, indeed, were Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, even though they were not members of the House of York at all. On the other hand, despite his impeccable genealogical credentials, the first marquess of Hastings, say, was not a rival to anybody. To bring it back to the "Henricians", the most dubious list by far, Anne Stanley does not seem to have been regarded as an important rival to James I even in 1603, when she was arguably the legal heiress; Beauchamp was much more important, whether he was officially illegitimate or not (just as Elizabeth of York's putative illegitimacy was not a barrier to her being seen as having a real claim). This article gives entirely false notions of certainty about complicated, confusing situations. It ought to be gone.

talk

) 18:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the introduction itself states "it is of scholarly interest to trace what the succession to the Crown would have been". I agree wholeheartedly with that, whereas you strongly disagree.

The reason for the "legal argument" bit was simply meant to show that the "Various claimants" idea is seriously flawed. Under the strict laws of 1471(when Henry VI the last Lancastrian King of England died with no surviving legitimate issue) the Beaufort line was legally regarded as illegitimate, Edward IV was attainted, and Clarence and his heirs had been recognized as Henry VI's heir apparent. In 1485(when Richard III the last Yorkist King died with no surviving legitimate issue), the Beaufort line was legally regarded as illegitimate(and Henry Tudor had been attainted by Richard III anyway), Edward IV's children were legally regarded as illegitimate, and Richard had formally Warwick nephew and had (albeit temporarily) named him as his heir apparent. In the event he named John De La Pole as his heir apparent. The point about De La Pole recognizing Warwick as the true claimant was just to emphasize that even though Richard III designated De La Pole, John himself recognized Warwick. When William De La Pole died in 1539, the senior genealogical branch of the House of York that was eligible for a claim under the laws of the last Yorkist King was Clarence's line. Henry VIII killed Margaret, her son and grandson, and imprisoned Cardinal Pole all between 1538 and 1541. Thus there can be no doubt under both Lancastrian and Yorkist law who the sole Plantagenet--claim line was.

However, Henry Tudor's victories at Bosworth and Stoke make this whole thing simply "of scholarly interest". Likewise Henry Tudor(as Henry VII) overturned Titulus Regius, legitimizing Elizabeth and marrying her. However by the Laws of both the last Lancastrian as well as the last Yorkist King of England, neither Henry nor Elizabeth had any claim whatsoever. But victory in battle can be a good way to simply ignore laws. There can't be many people today calling for Michael Abney-Hastings to be placed on the throne, however, at least as late the 1540's the Tudors felt a real and immediate threat by people like Henry Pole just being alive. The Simnel and Warbeck risings show that there was pro-Plantagent sympathies post-Bosworth, and the extirpation of the De La Poles shows that it survived well into the reign of Henry VIII. Thus I would say that it is indeed "of scholarly interest" to see where this line(and there is only one clear line) leads.

Likewise, the "Henrician" line is also noteworhty as "Scholarly interest". Unlike the support for Warwick, and continued perceived threat by the Tudor Monarchs, there couldn't have been too many Stanleyite risings. However, it is widely stated(indeed by people on this page) that when Henry VII took the throne, the old ways were wiped clean, and Tudor laws replaced them. Thus these Tudor laws should be ironclad. And since no one ever legally overturned the Third Succession Act or the Last Will of King Henry VIII, it is indeed "of scholarly interest" to see where the line of the legal heirs to Elizabeth I leads. Note also that an Act was passed making it treason to attempt to alter the Line of Succession as set out by Henry VIII. Likewise, James Stuart succeeded to the throne, not by Conquest of Arms as Henry Tudor did, but through his claim as the senior legitimate descendant of Margaret Tudor. Unlike Henry VII who stated that he was King through force of arms, James I stated that he was king by Birthright. Thus, he and all those who supported him are guilty of High Treason. It is thus certainly "Scholarly interest" to trace where the true legal Tudor line would lead. Frederick T (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I could continue to argue with your characterizations of things here, but really, and basically, what is lacking are reliable sources. We can certainly find sources which discuss these genealogical lines, but I'm not sure they meet our normal standards for article inclusion. And why these three successions only, when there's plenty of others that have had comparable amounts written about them? Why is the discussion of Warwick's claim focused around ("based squarely on," even!) the dubious idea that Edward IV himself was illegitimate, rather than the more plausible Ricardian claim that his children were? If we're going to go with that, why not Henry IV's silly claim that Edmund Crouchback was the elder son of Henry III? What about Edward III's 1376 entail to heirs male, for example? Numerous significant alternative claims aren't mentioned here. Most of them, I guess, die out and don't have a current claimant, but why should the politically insignificant Eleanor Brandon claim be discussed at length here, but not for example, the Beauchamp claim, de la Pole claim, the Portuguese claim (which was raised by Philip II in 1588, notably), the potential Yorkist claim through Richard III's elder sister Anne, the claims through Margaret Douglas, hell, even the claims of Edgar Atheling, Robert Curthose, Empress Matilda, and Arthur and Eleanor of Brittany? Instead, the only alternative successions presented are 1) a modified Yorkist claim based on the dubious claim that Edward IV was illegitimate; 2) a claim based on the descendants of Eleanor Brandon, who, except briefly in 1593, appear never to have been taken seriously by anyone; and 3) the well-known Jacobite line. I don't see any basis for such a selection, and we ought to have sources to indicate why we think these particular lines are so important.

talk

) 20:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be my fault. I was new to Wikipedia when I initially carved out this article. However, my source was the website Peerage. I didn't know how to use citation at the time, although I don't think Wikipedia had yet set and promulgated their policy on reliable sources and citation (I might be mistaken on that, however).

Anyway, my thinking when I wrote the initial article reflects much of what Frederick has written. I took a very strict approach to following the lines of succession, using the idea of "what were the laws and customs were at the time of the last legal monarch's death?"--sort of like a snapshot of the law at that point. I then used those rules to proceed down the genealogy to arrive at the present living "claimant." This snapshot idea parallels what Frederick has called using the laws of the "true" monarch--that is, after the so-called usurper took the throne, any subsequent acts of Parliament were null and void as they did not receive the rightful monarch's royal assent.

Then again, I'm a yank, so take much of my thought process with a grain of salt. ;) -- Foofighter20x (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, Edgar Atheling was King by election not primogeniture, thus there can be no clear heir, as his claim did not rest on genealogy. Matilda's line DID inherit the throne in the person of her son. Again, Beauchamp could inherit the throne only through the Third Succession Act, which placed the legitimate descendants of Mary Tudor immediately after Elizabeth(should she die childless, which she did). But under strict Tudor law, Beauchamp was illegitimate. The De La Poles were killed off by Henry VII and Henry VIII. The Crouchback as elder claim was indeed silly, but even taken seriously, that leads directly into the Lancastrian claim. Again, the Portuguese line was barred, as at the time of the marriage foreigners could not inherit the English throne(though that was changed).

I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that Warwick's (and Margaret's descendants') claim is based sqaurely on Edward IV being illegitimate. As noted, there are various other scenarios that all lead to Michael Abney-Hastings. However the "Edward IV is illegitimate" is probably today the best-known, due to Baldrick's tv show. And again, a movement to place Clarence's line on the throne existed from Clarence himself in the 1470's(as the Lancastrian heir), through attainders and executions at least until the 1540's therefore it is noteworthy. Likewise, the Jacobite movement has never really died, although it is nowehere near the level it was in the 1700's.

The Mary Tudor line, while never having had the same sort of support as the Clarence or Stuart line, is nonetheless noteworthy. I once brought up the point of Henry VII's and Elizabeth's marriage not receiving the papal dispensation(due to their blood relation), and was rudely snubbed by someone whose response was "Well, the Tudors were a new Dynasty through Right of Conquest, therefore they could make their own new laws". Well, were that true, then the Mary Tudor succession, as well as the illegitimizing of Catherine Grey's descendants is the same Tudor Law. Remember that people were executed in 1554, for attempting to alter this Law. And no Tudor Monarch up to the death of Elizabeth I ever formally changed or even mentioned changing Mary Tudor's legitimate heirs succeeding after Henry VIII's own line had become extinct. While this has never had the historical or social significance of a Battle of Stoke or a Battle of Culloden, and there have been no Lambert Simnels or Count Michael of Albanys it is still significant and worth mentioning. All the other lines fail due to their own laws, yet these three are the ones that came to an unnatural end, and whose laws were subsequently altered by someone other than the Rightful Monarch under those same laws.

However, more reliable sources are indeed needed.

Frederick T (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"The De La Poles were killed off by Henry VII and Henry VIII." Not even close. Reginald died hours after Mary I, and Ursula Pole married Henry Stafford. As John Kenney has stated, nothing has been presented to indicate why only certain lines are being entertained within this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, you are confusing the de la Poles (descendants of Richard III's sister Elizabeth's marriage to the duke of Suffolk) with the Poles (descendants of Richard III's niece Margaret's marriage to Sir Richard Pole).

talk

) 14:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And those Poles were the legitimate descendants of George, Duke of Clarence. Frederick T (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you are making legalistic arguments, not historical ones. Was Beauchamp illegitimate? His parents' marriage had never been proven, but it had never been disproven, either. If people in 1603 had wanted to make him king, it would have been perfectly easy for them to rule that his parents had in fact been married, and that this might happen was always far more likely than that Anne Stanley would take the throne. More broadly - the fact that you don't think a claim has legal merit is not important. What is important is whether a claim was considered important by people at the time, and has been written about by historians. The Jacobite claim certainly was. Both the Clarence and de la Pole claims also get considerable attention, the former down to at least Elizabeth I's bout with smallpox, the latter until its extinction. As for the claims of Mary Tudor's descendants, I don't see how these deserve any more mention than the claims of the Margaret Douglas line, nor do I see why the Eleanor Brandon line should get more mention than the Frances Brandon one. None of these claims is discussed very much, but the Eleanor Brandon one is clearly the least important, from a historical perspective. It's not our job to judge for ourselves the legitimacy of these claims. It's to look at their historical importance. Completely factually and legally dubious claims, like the Crouchback legend or Philip II's claims based on descent from John of Gaunt, were at least asserted by important political actors and played a part in how English history played out. The Jacobite line since 1807 is barely relevant to anything; the Clarence line since 1570 is of even more questionable significance; the Eleanor Brandon line is of such little importance that we don't even actually know its genealogy for certain, given the obscurity of Anne Stanley's descendants. How on earth is it more important that this article treat with Michael Abney-Hastings or Lady Caroline Ogilvy (who might not even be the heir under Henry VIII's will even if you accept her father's second marriage as illegal) or even Franz of Bavaria than that it mention actual historical claimants whose claims had historical importance? Also, please change the intro to the Clarence text if you disagree with it.

talk

) 15:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had thought(and I may very well be wrong on this one), that the point of the article was to trace the descendants of claimants, and legal Acts to the present day, using the Laws in use at the time that the "wrong" person became Monarch. Where a claim became dormant, then one must trace the senior genealogical heir.

As far as Clarence, the claim survived until c.1570, having basically existed since Henry VI's death in 1471(and according to the article, owing to Edward IV's possible illegitimacy to 1460). While nobody would be willing to die fighting for the Earl of Loudon the way people died fighting for Clarence's line at Stoke, it is certainly notable.

Likewise, Jacobitism lasted as a real force from the Glorious Revolution(1688) at least until Cardinal York's death in 1807. There are still Jacobite societies today, although of course it's unlikely there'll ever be another Battle of the Boyne of Culloden. Still it is certainly noteworthy.

The "Henrician" one does seem to be a bit fishy as there were no "Stanleyite" uprisings. However, since James VI/I took the throne through legal rather than conquest means, it must follow that his succession was following Tudor Law? However, under Tudor Law Anne Stanley was the Rightful Queen. Again, more people may have written of Beauchamp, but under strict Elizabethan/Tudor Law, he was illegitimate. Even if he had succeeded, the Stanley line would still have been a notable "Alternative line". Things get fishier with the numerous Acts passed to recognize the Senior Genealogical Heir's Right, and then the aforemenetioned Glorious Revolution and the Act of 1701. In fact, William III also took the Throne by using Parliament as his tool. This then causes the dilemma of how Jame Stuart became King James I due to genealogy always taking preference over Succession Acts, whereas George I took the throne over Succession Acts being able to take precedence over genealogy. Thus any previous(before 1701) legally-binding Succession Act(especially one that was never overturned, simply ignored), given with the Treason Act becomes very notable indeed. Frederick T (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That does seem to be the purpose of the article as presently conceived; I am taking issue with that purpose, and suggesting it is not a valid purpose for an encyclopedia article. As to the specific claims: 1) I perfectly agree that the first century of the Clarence line is notable and worth discussing; 2) that does not mean that the later heirs to that claim are notable, unless sources can be found discussing them; 3) I think the Savoyard, Habsburg, and Wittelsbach Jacobite claimants are perhaps borderline, but have certainly been discussed enough to warrant discussion in wikipedia; I am not, however, convinced that an article called "Alternate successions of the English crown" should give them attention while giving none to actual practical claimants; 4) I agree that the Tudor succession law is significant, and deserves discussion on Wikipedia, including the fact of the incompatibility of James I's claim with that of his great-grandson and daughter. I don't think that, in the absence of sources, we should rule definitively on the validity of Catherine Grey's marriage, nor do I think that there's any good reason for attempting to trace this obscure line down to the present. Since I've said that the article should not exist in its present form, I tend to think that it should be organized based around different moments when the succession was disputed, with a discussion of all relevant candidates. That would allow us to discuss alternate successions that arise in 1100, 1135, 1199, 1399, 1471, 1483, 1485, 1553, 1558, 1603, 1688, and any other years where we could find reliable sources discussing the same (including, of course, claims that later merge back with the throne), without either fetishizing the continuation of these lines down to the present or emphasizing a few claims that happen to have current claimants. For example, our discussion of 1471 could mention Clarence's claim to the Lancastrian succession; the two Beaufort-derived claims via Henry Tudor and Henry Stafford; the Portuguese Lancastrian claim asserted by Philip II; and any other claims for which we can find sources as to the existence of. Our discussion of 1603 could discuss the claims of Arabella Stewart, Beauchamp, and Anne Stanley. There could perhaps be in text discussion of the later continuation of each of these lines, if any, but there is no need to trace anything out generation by generation to the present day.

talk

) 14:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As for

There were no legitimate male De La Pole descendants at the time of William De la Pole's death, just like Elizabeth of York's first sone wasn't born until after Richard III had died, just as Anne had no male descendants at the time. The only way that people can recognise the Tudors as the legitimate heirs is to recognise Perkin warwbeck as having been Richard Duke of York. Thus we get:

Edward IV (1461-1483)

Edward V' (1483-1483)

Richard IV (1483-1499)

Arthur (1499-1502)

Henry VII (1502-1547)

This would require both Edward IV and his children being legitimate, Elizabeth's marriage to Henry Tudor being valid, Richard III having killed "Edward V" but not his brother, who survived as "Perkin Warbeck", and the "Henry VII" here being the person we know as Henry VIII. It is astounding that people continue to apply modern succession laws to the Medieval era. It is equivalent to depicting the Battle of Bosworths as having been fought with tanks, fighter planes, and machine guns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.213 (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no grounds for treating it as an established rule that childless women could not succeed to the throne. It was obviously not established that they could, but neither was it established to the contrary that they could not. In 1290, Edward I had clearly envisioned that a daughter could succeed him. In 1376 Edward III had felt the need to write out a specific document denying the rights of females to inherit. And as soon as an actual situation arose where the only close relative of a dead king was a childless woman, that woman became queen (in 1553). Peerage titles could be inherited by women, as could many other European polities at the time; Castile, in fact, had a reigning queen in 1483, the Burgundian lands had been ruled by a woman the year before, and Navarre within a couple of years before that. Margaret Beaufort, I suppose, did not become queen, but her son's claim was barely hereditary anyway; I guess Richard III overlooked his niece Anne St. Leger, and sister Elizabeth in favor of his nephew Lincoln, but that's about the best that can be done as far as finding a precedent, and it's a precedent asserted by a usurper that never went into effect. There is precisely no case in English history when a childless woman was barred from succeeding on the basis of her sex.

talk

) 15:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Peerage titles are not Crowns. Also, The Kingmakers's Earldom of warwick went to his daughter's grandson, not his daughter herself(to name just one of several hundred examples). Likewise, what happened in Burgundy, Castile or Navarre is not really relevant to English Laws. At the time of Elizabeth I's reign, the male line of Valois became extinct, so the Last King's ninth cousin once removed became King, despite various women being far closer to Henri III. Would it be relevant to say that the senior female member of Valois should have taken the French throne, because England had a Queen Regnant at the time?

No childless woman was ever barred, but no childless woman had ever been barred, but in Matilda's case a woman with a son had been. However, it was plainly clear that the next senior legitimate male heir would inherit. Mary I only became Queen regnant as after Edward VI's death, there were no male Tudors left. When Richard III died there was Warwick as well as the De La Poles. And again why was John rather than his mother designated heir? Why was Henry Tudor rather than his mother recognized as head of his House? You claim Richard III to be a usurper. Regardless, he was the last Yorkist king of England, and at the time of his death, Edward IV's line was legally and lawfully illegitimate(and accepting the standard tale, the male line of Edward Iv was at an end). Thus the Yorkist heir is Richard III's heir. Likewise, had Elizabeth been head of her House, there never would have been a Battle of Stoke, a Lovell rising, and people like Simnel and Warbeck would have had no reason to impersonate others. Frederick T (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If this was "plainly clear", you ought to be able to present a source. As I noted before, in the two articles I cited above, Bennett states that in 1376 it was an open question whether women could succeed; Given-Wilson (the second source) says that Edward I specifically envisioned the possibility of his daughters or granddaughters inheriting the throne. I was looking at Alison Weir's Wars of the Roses, and she notes that some time around 1460

talk

) 14:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether a woman could or could not succeed to the throne, under 1485 law Elizabeth(and all Edward IV's children) were illegitimate, thus barred from the Yorkist claim. Likewise your claims about "virtually all Lancastrians supporting Henry Tudor" are both inaccurate as well as not really relevant to the fact that the legal heir of Lancaster was the Clarence line. The Clarence line rests not on the claims of "Britain's Real Monarch" tv show, but on the fact that under both Lancastrian and Yorkist Law, Clarence's descendants were the de jure monarchs, and under both Lancastrian and Yorkist Law both Elizabeth and Henry Tudor were entirely removed from the Line of Succession. And people were still losing their lives a hundred years later because of this. Everything else is just clouding the issue. Frederick T (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There were many Yorkists who did not recognize Richard III's usurpation and illegitimization of Edward IV's children as legitimate or legal. Thus the large number of erstwhile Yorkists who opposed Richard III and ended up supporting Henry VII. Beyond that, the Courtenays lost their lives fifty years later because of this, even though they, too, were descended from a daughter of Edward IV. The third duke of Buckingham lost his life 35 years later, even though he was not the heir under either Lancastrian or Yorkist law. What does the one have to do with the other? And, again, when I point out that there's a plausible legal claim for Elizabeth of York, you go to a pragmatic claim that (some) Yorkists didn't accept it. When I make the pragmatic argument that Lancastrians supported Henry Tudor, you go to a legalistic argument that Clarence was Henry VI's heir. So here is the basis for Elizabeth's claim: Richard III was a usurper, who illegally excluded the legitimate claims of his nephews and nieces in order to claim the throne. Though recognized by parliament, that usurpation was an illegal violation of the laws of England, and Edward V remained de jure king in spite of it. After his and his brother's likely deaths some months later, his eldest sister, Elizabeth, became rightful heir to his claims. This is not a claim I am making up now; it is a claim many important people made at the time and have made ever afterwards. Are you, BTW, admitting defeat on the claim that it was well-established that women could not succeed to the throne? And see my response above, where I suggested an alternative set-up for this article.

talk

) 16:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No one ever denied the scenario you laid out here. The whole point is that the "multiple heirs" idea is nonsense. Under the Tudor reasoning/logic/law Henry Tudor was the Lancastrian heir and Elizabeth the Yorkist heir. Under the various scenarios and laws having been passed laid out by myself and others Clarence's line were both the Yorkist and Lancastrian heirs, at least by either 1539(with William De La Pole's death) or 1556(with Edward Courtenay's death). The central points are that a)the idea that the St Leger/Manners family was the "other" Yorkist claimant line or the Portuguese Royal family being the "other" Lancastrian claimant line is false. Depending on your take, either the Henry VII/Elizabeth line OR the Clarence line are the Rightful heirs to both York and Lancaster. There is no third line, at least not one with any serious claim of seniority. b)Under the Laws of both the final De Facto Lancastrian King and the final De facto Yorkist King, it is the Clarence line that is the Rightful one. However, Henry Tudor's military victories, and Right of Conquest altered that succession. However, under the last Plantagenet laws the only "rival claimant" line was the Clarence line, not the St legers, or the Portuguese Royal Family or anyone else. Hence the notability of this Clarence line. Frederick T (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad to hear it. I'm not sure I agree that other claims actually made (like Philip II's claim via the Portuguese line) should be ignored because we find them to be defective. The St. Leger/Manners line I'm less sure of, because, like the Anne Stanley claim, I've never heard that it had any actual supporters in the real world, but certainly there's an argument to be made there, at least as much as the argument for Anne Stanley and her descendants. The Portuguese line, on the other hand, ought to be taken somewhat seriously. In the 1580s and 90s English Catholics were writing pamphlets in support of Infanta Isabella's claim on this very basis. Which is more than anyone was doing at that point about the earl of Huntingdon, no? Basically, my point is that this article ought not be a list of three genealogies, selected on whatever basis, but should endeavor to give a good written summary of all the different alternative successions which have been proposed throughout English history, and for which we can find reliable sources.

talk

) 00:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. How would you structure the article? I think it would still be a good idea to to state who presently is at the end of each claim's genealogical line, even if the claim itself has long since died. Frederick T (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's fine, if we can find reliable sources. There's certainly reliable sources about the Clarence and Jacobite lines. The Eleanor Brandon line seems a lot more questionable. The one source we have (Reitwiesner), is arguably a self-published internet source and thus not appropriate for use here, and at any rate acknowledges that it's not completely clear that there are no surviving descendants of Anne Stanley, and also equivocates as to whether Caroline Ogilvy or her nephew should be considered the heir, mentioning both. The Grey/Seymour line is fairly clear genealogically, but I'm not sure if there's too many reliable sources discussing it specifically. For many of the other claims, I think it can be problematic to trace them beyond the point where they had political relevance. For example, after the extinction of the de la Poles in 1539, where does their claim go? It's certainly arguable that William de la Pole's heir was his first cousin the Countess of Salisbury or her son Lord Montagu. It is just as arguable that they were excluded by Clarence's attainder and that the claim passes back to Anne St. Leger's son, the earl of Rutland. So far as I'm aware, nobody ever really viewed Rutland as a potential Yorkist claimant; indeed, he was one of the few (the only?) Plantagenet descendants Henry VIII never managed to persecute. But that's not really the point. The point is that after William de la Pole's death, it's not completely clear what happens to his claim. We shouldn't draw any definitive conclusions unless reliable sources do. The Portuguese claims would be a similar case. After the death of King Henry in 1580, the heir-general to Philippa of Lancaster was Ranuccio Farnese, son of the prince of Parma. However, Farnese never made any claims that I'm aware of. We shouldn't list his descendants or his heir of the line, because that would be OR. His cousin, Philip II of Spain, on the other hand, did make such claims, even though his genealogical claim was weaker. He made those claims largely on behalf of his elder daughter, Isabella - presumably Philip himself and his son the prince of Asturias were ready to renounce their rights. But then Isabella died childless in 1633. Who inherited her claims? The erstwhile Prince of Asturias' son, Philip IV of Spain, or her sister's son, the duke of Savoy? (The Savoyard claim, of course, would eventually meet up with the Jacobite claim; the Spanish line goes down to Alicia of Bourbon-Parma) I don't think we should discuss this at all. By 1633, this claim to the English throne was entirely moribund; neither the duke of Savoy nor the king of Spain had any interest in claiming the English throne at that point, and they had no supporters in England to assert that claim for them. As such, we shouldn't touch it. We should mention Philip II's claim and its basis, but decline to discuss its continuation beyond the death of his daughter.

talk

) 18:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As for organization, I would say that we should do it chronologically based on the time that the claim derives from the de facto succession. Start in 1066, then go 1) Robert Curthose's claim in 1100; 2) Matilda in 1135; 3) Arthur of Brittany in 1199; 4) Edmund Mortimer in 1399, continue with Richard and Edward of York's claims until he took the throne in 1461, with perhaps a brief mention of Edward IV's possible illegitimacy; 5) the alternate possible Lancastrian claims after 1471, specifically Clarence's claim, Richmond's, Buckingham's, and the Portuguese claim - we should draw the Buckingham claim down to 1521 and the Portuguese claim down to Philip II; 6) alternate Yorkist successions in 1483-1485; here we can discuss the de la Poles and the Courtenays, and give the full discussion of Clarence's line, with Warwick, Margaret Pole, and the earl of Huntingdon; 7) the claim based on Edward VI's will in 1553, Jane Grey and the like; 8) the actual claims of Mary Stuart and the potential ones of the countess of Lennox and her son Darnley, in 1558; 9) the claims of Arabella Stewart (descended, obviously, from the countess of Lennox's), Lord Beauchamp, and Anne Stanley in 1603; 10) the Jacobite line after 1688. I'd think main sections should have titles like "Alternative successors to Richard II"; "Alternative successors to Elizabeth I"; "Alternative successors to Henry VI", and so forth. When there are multiple lines for a single time, they can be discussed in separate sub-headers.

talk

) 18:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently he was a changeling. Thus Arbella Stewart should have been Queen, and then after her, either William Seymour or Anne Stanley. Meanwhile the Scottish monarch would have been someone different entirely! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick T (talk • contribs) 10:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no concrete proof. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Historian Antonia Fraser completely dismisses the story in her 1969 biography of Mary, Queen of Scots. The story was not even a contemporary one; it began in the 18th century when the skeleton of a baby was discovered by workmen at Edinburgh Castle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This article has a misleading title, as it's including the British succession. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

ENGLISH crown???? James VI was a SCOTTISH/BRITISH king, and NOT an ENGLISH king...Get it right, sassenachs!!82.6.1.85 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Although somewhat redundant to the article itself, is the question "Who was the legal heir to Henry VI?" The answer was none other than George, Duke of Clarence. In 1470 King Henry VI and His son Prince Edward were the last 2 descendants of Henry IV. By Legal Act of Parliament Henry VI made it Law that should both He and His son Prince Edward die without further legitimate issue, the Crown was to pass to George, Duke of Clarence and his heirs. In fact, both George and his wife Isabella Neville were descended from John of Gaunt, albeit via an illegitimate line. In any case the closest supporters of The House of Lancaster were the Neville family, And George's mother was one Cecily Neville. Edward IV was passed over, both for having committed High Treason against Henry VI(which earned him an attainder), as well as the issue of his illegitimacy, which has never been satisfactorily proved or disproved. Thus with the death of Henry VI in 1471(by order of Edward IV), and with His son having died in battle shortly before, the Head of the House of Lancaster was none other than George, Duke of Clarence. Rebellions in His name by devoted Lancastrian supporters erupted and resulted in his execution and attainder. Again after Henry Tudor usurped the throne, the first rebellion against him was in the name of Lancaster, and the Lancastrian heir Edward, Earl of Warwick! Then in 1487 Yorkists rose in the name of the Rightful Yorkist heir, Edward Earl of Warwick(Edward IV and his children believed to have been illegitimate, Richard III having named Warwick as His heir, and the fact that there were no male descendants of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville anyway at the time of Richard III's death)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick T (talk • contribs) 09:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that Richard III had named his nephew the earl of Lincoln as his heir after his own son's death.

He first named Warwick as his heir. After the Tudor army landed, Richard named Lincoln as his heir. After Richard III died, Lincoln actually recognised Warwick as the Rightful king, and swore an oath to him, dying on the battlefield in the name of Warwick. Even taking Lincoln as the Rightful Yorkist claimant, John died in 1487, Edmund in 1513, Richard in 1525, and William in 1539. Thus the De La Pole claimants became extinct. We must then to the last person Richard III formally recognised as his heir, who was Warwick and his(or more pedantically his sister's) descendants.

The only difference here is WHEN(not IF) Clarence's line became the Rightful Yorkist or Lancastrian claimant. Under different scenarios it was either 1460(death of the Earl of Rutland), 1471(death of Henry VI), 1483(death of Edward IV), 1485(death of Richard III), or 1539(death of William De La Pole). However by the 1540's all roads lead to one line. Frederick T (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think you're being far too definitive about what was, in fact, a very murky and unclear situation. Considering the number of usurpations, attainders, and so forth in the fifteenth century, I don't think there are any clear answers to the question of who was the heir to any of the different lines by 1485. And I don't think it was at all clear that women couldn't inherit, given that the question never arose in practice - Henry VII claimed the throne by right of conquest as much as by right of descent, and both Philippa and Anne Mortimer were long dead by the time the Yorkists were making their claim. The only possible example is that Matilda allowed her son to succeed after Stephen's death, rather than claiming the throne herself, but Henry II's succession was anomalous anyway, since Stephen recognized him as his heir, in spite of the fact that Stephen had a living son. Certainly one questionable case is not enough to erect a general rule out of.

talk

) 18:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, after 1153 it was(or rather should have been) a clear-cut case. The Anglo-Saxons and early Normans never used primogeniture. However, the agreement of 1153 between Stephen, Henry and Matilda set out clear succession laws. These were that beginning after Stephen's death with Henry as his successor the next legitimate male in the line of descent from Henry would be King. Excluding John's usurpation and killing of his nephew, things were clear-cut up until Richard II's successor. The next male in the line of descent was Edmund Mortimer, however the next male in the direct male-line was Henry Bolingbroke, as Edmund's claim was through his grandmother. However, HER claim came through her father who was the older brother of John of Gaunt, Henry's father. So it is still undoubtedly male-based. Henry IV did indeed "succeed" Richard, whereupon Edmund's nephew became the "Rightful" king. And thus the whole basis of the "Wars Of The Roses". What is without doubt though is that Henry VI named Clarence and Clarence's descendants as his heirs if Henry VI's own line became extinct(which in the event it did), and that Henry VI attainted Edward IV and HIS line. Clarence(and his siblings were all descended from john of Gaunt as well as Edmund Duke of York and Lionel Duke of Clarence)Likewise, Richard III named Warwick as HIS heir. He also named John De La Pole(his sister's son) as his heir, but after Richard III's death De La Pole swore an oath to Warwick. Also note that Richard III named his sister's son, NOT his sister as his successor. Any attainder placed upon Clarence by Edward IV became null and void when Richard III formally adopted Warwick and recognised him as his heir. Likewise, it is often overlooked that Clarence's wife was also descended from Edmund Duke of York AND John of Gaunt, and had a claim to pass to her children quite apart from her husband. Further, the recent uncovering of evidence that Edward IV was himself illegitimate(and his mother would have testified to that in court had she had the chance) makes any attainders placed upon Clarence null and void. Richard III only became king due to Edward IV's offspring being illegitimate, barring them and their successors from the throne. As a female(and had she been legitimate), Elizabeth could transmit a claim to a son. Accepting that her brothers were dead, and even if they were in the legitimate line, she would have had to have been amrried with a son for HER SON to be next in line. However at the time she was not yet even engaged, therefore the claim must move on to the next legitimate male heir, quite apart from any other factors. Lastly, Henry Tudor was barred from the line of succession as he descended from an illegitimate son of John Of Gaunt. Again, while his mother was still alive it was he, not her, who became the claimant.

The only thing that enabled Henry Tudor to become Henry VII was his(or rather the French army) winning the Battle of Bosworth. That's it. By descent he had no claim whatsoever. This is a repeat of 1066 where a foreign bastard uses an invading army from France to establish him and his descendants as the Royal Family. Who he married was irrelevant. In fact under the strict law of the time, Henry Tudor and Elizabeth "of York" needed a papal dispensation to get married, and they never waited for one. In fact, all their descendants are illegitimate(as were both of them in their own right), and under the Succession Laws of 1153 would have no claim whatsoever. However, those laws no longer exist, as Tudor's descendants remain on the throne today, and even THAT is iffy, as Lady Caroline Ogilvy's and Franz Duke of Bavaria's supporters would state.

However, as per the succession laws set down in 1153, there is only one man today who is the Rightful claimant to Lancaster and York, and also to Stephen and Matilda, and that is Michael Abney-Hastings. However those laws were thrown out the window in August 1485. Frederick T (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any source for the claim that there was a clear and definitive succession law agreed to in 1153? I have never heard anything of the sort. In general, your discussion here is long on extravagant claims and short on any references to back them up. The fact that you are advocating the incredibly dubious claim that Edward IV was not Richard of York's biological son (which is, in any event, legally irrelevant) does not help me find your more extravagant claims more convincing. The basic fact is that medieval and even early modern succession laws were normally unclear, and, in general, backwards-derived by whoever the present king happened to be. So suddenly England was under Salic law when Henry IV usurped the throne. England's succession was governed by Henry VIII's will until 1603, when that will was completely ignored. Trying to determine definitively, from the vantage point of 2010, who was the rightful heir to the English throne in 1485 is hopeless. Elizabeth of York, Warwick, and Lincoln all had claims to a "Yorkist" succession. Henry VII, Warwick, the king of Portugal and perhaps others had claims to a "Lancastrian" succession. The only thing that makes any sense is to work out who contemporaries thought had the best argument - what we think now is pretty irrelevant, and certainly it isn't our job as wikipedia editors to come up with our own theories that haven't been published by any reliable sources. This whole article is a morass of dubious nonsense, though, so I suppose this fits right in.

Well, the King of Portugal was out due to the Law forbidding foreigners that was in effect at the time of Gaunt's daughter's marriage. Tudor had no RIGHTFUL claim due to his descent from gaunt being through an illegitimate line. At the time of Richard III's death, Parliament recognised Edward IV"s and Elizabeth Woodville's "marriage" to have been null and void, thus in 1485 even if female succession were possible, Elizabeth of York would have had no claim, being illegitimate in the eyes of the law. Richard III had named both Warwick and Lincoln as his heir(after his own son had died), thus both could have said to have a claim. However, Lincoln recognised Warwick as the "Rightful" King. And anyway, when the De La Pole line became extinct, Warwick's heirs became also the De la Pole heirs.

Yoour own argument states that succession law changed with every usurpation. What is noteworthy is that if Richard III "usurped" the throne, his heir using his succession laws is Michael Abney-Hatings. When Henry IV "usurped" the throne, his legitimate descendant was Henry VI who attainted Edward IV, and named Clarence as the next-after-Henry-and-his-son heir. Thus the heir to Henry IV is Michael Abney-Hastings. Under NO succession laws up until 1485 did Henry Tudor have ANY claim whatsoever. His becoming King rests solely on victory in battle. Under these circumstances, it matters not whether he had any "Lancastrian" blood, just as it matters not whether his wife-to-be had any "Yorkist" blood. Under both Yorkist and Lancastrian reasoning Clarence's descendants and heirs (leading to Michael Abney-Hastings) should be the Royal Family. However, Bosworth(as well as Tewkesbury in 1471) changed the true line of succession. The point of this article is not to state that Michael Abney-Hastings should be the King of England, it's that he would be had either Yorkist or Lancastrian legitimate succession been followed. Likewise neither Lady Caroline Ogilvy or Franz, Duke of Bavaria should be the Rightful monarch. However, one of them would be the Rightful Monarch had Tudor succession laws, or strict primogeniture after the Restoration been maintained, respectively. Frederick T (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all clear who would be Richard III's heir using his own succession laws - he recognized Lincoln as his heir, and that line died out without descendants. It is your innovation that we must then go back to Clarence's descendants because Richard III had previously decided that Warwick would be his heir. At any rate, for a "true" Yorkist succession one can just as easily argue that the "true" Yorkist succession was violated by Richard III's usurpation and that Elizabeth of York was her brothers' rightful heir. The Beauforts' illegitimate status was somewhat unclear - John of Gaunt had married their mother, and they had been legitimized. It is true that they were legally excluded from the succession but the idea that a Beaufort might succeed had certainly been a serious one during Henry VI's reign. I'm sure plenty of Tudor hacks could have written up an argument for why Henry VII was the rightful Lancastrian claimant. Once we get past that - yes, Clarence's line were obviously seen as significant, which is why Henry VIII killed so many of them, and why Huntingdon was considered as a possible successor to Elizabeth. Can we say, though, that they were definitively the heirs under the old rules? I don't think so, especially given the matter of Clarence's attainder. To take this back to wikipedia, I'm not really sure that this article should exist at all - it's all incredibly speculative, and mostly based on the work of amateur genealogists on the internet. The Jacobite line is well-documented; the descendants of Margaret Pole and Eleanor Brandon are not. In the case of the latter, you insist that Lady Caroline Ogilvy is indisputably the heir when, in fact, the only source we have on the subject, Reitwiesner, specifically notes that this is a position only held by "some Henricians" (and, of course, there's no such thing as a Henrician - WAR's reference to them is tongue-in-cheek). An article that talked about alternative or potential alternative claimants during times when they were politically relevant would be one thing. In that case, the de la Poles, the earlier portion of Clarence's line (down to 1603 or so), the various descendants of Margaret and Mary Tudor around from 1553 to 1603, and the Jacobites down to Cardinal York's death could be discussed. This article is just an abstruse genealogical exercise, and does not really belong on wikipedia.

talk

) 19:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is noteworthy to take note of who the English monarch may be today if earlier succession laws and Acts had been followed. These three scenarios oin the article point out the most prominent and clear-cut cases. As far as Elizabeth becoming Queen Regnant, well it is a matter of common sense that she could not have. Now, yes Richard named Lincoln as his heir, but after Richard's death, all Yorkist loyalists(including Lincoln) recognised Warwick as Richard's true and Rightful successor. I'm quite sure that's been mentioned already. And Henry VII held both Edmund and William De La Pole, yet chose only to execute Warwick as the real threat. Henry VIII eliminated various descendants of Edward III, both legitimate and illegitimate. However, in the aftermath of Bosworth everyone recognised who the true Plantagenet claimant was, and it wasn't Lincoln.

The idea that a Beaufort may succeed being considered in Henry VI's time? This is Shakespearean nonsense. Henry had his own son, and as noted various times listed Clarence as second-in-line after Henry's own son, not a Beaufort. It should be noted that Richard II made Beaufort succession a possibility, but Henry IV(the first Lancastrian King) was the one who made it legally impossible. As for "Henricians", well obviously that is not really a movement such as Jacobitism. However, anyone who follows the laws exactly would and could only arrive at one legal and Rightful heir to the Third Succession Act and the Will of Henry VIII and that is Lady Caroline. Any source listing any other potential claimant can not be seen as reliable.

Lastly, as far as being noteworthy? I would say it is. There are articles about Carlism, French Legitimism, Orleanism, and various strands of Napoleonic claims. I'm sure there are other similar articles too. Again, for encyclopedic purposes, one small article stating who would today be Monarch of England if the succession had not been altered is perfectly acceptable. Frederick T (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Frederick - you are cherry-picking whatever argument you find useful to get to your preferred outcome. If it is not relevant that after Bosworth virtually all Lancastrians recognized Henry VII as the rightful Lancastrian heir, or that many erstwhile Yorkists were willing to accept Elizabeth as the Yorkist heiress, whatever "common sense" might say*, then why is it relevant that Yorkists recognized Warwick after Bosworth? (Oh, and BTW, the "rightful Yorkist heir" that Lincoln died fighting for was

*And common sense says nothing of the sort - both British peerage titles and continental monarchies were inherited by women all the time in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries - sometimes they weren't allowed to exercise the responsibilities of such office, but their inheritance rights were usually recognized.

talk

) 22:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you on the subject of "Henriciams", however I do disagree with you on the subject of "not being relevant".

The Wars Of The Roses were undoubtedly one of the most significant sagas in not just English, but world history. To say that they ended in 1485 and that the marriage of Henry Tudor and Elizabeth ended this war is nonsense. (I am not saying that YOU said that, merely that this is trotted out all the time). The fact that Lambert Simnel could receive such support, not to mention The Battle of Stoke, the Warbeck saga, and Henry VII's and VIII's extreme amount of killings and imprisonments on trumped-up charges of "treason" shows that the popular support for the "true legitimate" Monarch did not end in 1485 or even 1499. While there were multiple other people who may have claimed the throne(the Courtenays, Staffords etc) by 1556 and the death of Edward Courtenay(who himself was still widely hailed by many as the True King), thanks to the killings of Henry VII and VIII there was really only one senior line left(apart from the Tudors). And in the 1560's many still looked to Henry Hastings as the "Real" King, though there would never be another Stoke. So 70 years or so after Bosworth people were still recognizing someone other than the Tudor monarch as being the true, legitimate monarch. While there isn't such support today, the fact that generations after Bosworth people still looked to Clarence's descendants as having more claim, and Elizabeth seriously considering Hastings as her heir is notable and significant. And that the Roses, and descent continue to inspire movies, tv shows, books, articles etc. keeps the idea of a Plantagenet heir alive.

Oh, and going by Beaufort law, the Staffords had a legitimate claim, which is why Henry VIII extirpated the line. After he had named the senior member of the family as his heir.

Jacobitism did not die in 1807. It still lives, albeit in smaller numbers.

As far as "Henrician" descent and claims, well that is purely of scholarly interest. Again, the idea of laws post-1603 is just common sense. Only the true monarch can call a Parliament and give the Royal Assent, thus the obvious about laws passed since then.

Another interesting point is that people who frown upon these sort of articles are usually hardline Windsor-supporters who seek to either a)completely bury Henry VIII's Will and the Treason Act b)say "Oh that was then, it's irrelevant to modern people) or c)cause confusion by throwing up rival claimants such Princess Alicia or The Earl of Jersey Baronet Honywood and stating "well, no one can even agree on who the claimant would be!"

In fact in each of the three scenarios or "Alternate Successions" only one modern claimant emerges. I feel that this is "of scholarly interest" as the creator of the article states. You however do not.

Again, with the possible exception of Henricians, there WERE strong movements backing these claimants for many years. Jacobitism still exists today, albeit in reduced form. To simply state that something has died out and is therefore ireelevant from a modern perspective, would be to remove all knowledge of the Roman Empire or the Age of Exploration. Frederick T (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem discussing the continuing potential (and actual) claimants after 1485; an article on that subject would actually be really interesting, and there doesn't seem to be a general article on this subject on wikipedia. That is not what this article is, however. As to the idea of how many modern claimants arise, I don't find this convincing. Are there reliable sources that state such? The only source we have for the "Henrician" line, Reitwiesner, specifically notes that there are two possible claimants. Anyway, should we have articles talking about the history of these movements when they were politically relevant? Of course we should. But extending these movements to the present is really problematic - even the Jacobites have barely existed for the past 200 years; the Henricians never existed, and dissenters from the Tudor succession have been gone for 400 or so. The Earl of Loudoun and his descent were talked about on that silly television program, but it is already discussed at

talk

) 15:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent evidence suggests that Victoria was not the daughter of Prince Edward. In this case Ernst August of Hanover should be The King! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Cheeseman (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice that somebody changed Lady Caroline Ogilvy to William Child Villiers. While this may make sense from a modern perspective, the legitimate heir to Lady Anne is Lady Caroline, and the Earl of Jersey has NO claim whatsoever.

The reason, as stated in the article, is that following the line up to 1998, we come to the present Earl's grandfather. Upon his death, his grandson inherited his earldom, the late Earl's son having predeceased his father. However, the laws of 1603 would have made the late Earl of Jersey's remarriage invalid. Since this is supposed to be following a strictly legitimist line, any law passed since the death of Elizabeth I is invalid. It wasn't until 1836 that the conditions allowing for the late earl's remarriage were made possible by an Act of Parliament. However, following the above reasoning, this Parliament was, itself, illegitimate as only the Legitimate Monarch can call a Parliament, and give their Royal consent. While William IV's Parliament and consent are perfectly legitimate as regards Elizabeth II being Queen, and William Child Villiers being regarded as legitimate, and thus inheriting the earldom, by 1603 reasoning, William IV and Elizabeth II are both usurpers, and William Child Villiers' father was a bastard, thus making him and all his own descendants ineligible. By strictly legitimist reasoning, the previous Earl of Jersey had only one legitimate child, his daughter Lady Caroline. It is obvious however, that there is no such thing as a "Henrician", which the author on the linked site, admits that he made that term up himself.

The reason that Catherine Grey's descendants are invalid follows a similar line of reasoning. While she did get married and have legitimate offspring, the then Queen Elizabeth I annulled her marriage, and bastardised her children, removing her and her descendants from the line of succession. Queen Elizabeth I was head of both Church and State and thus her Acts were law. While it is true that the Stuart monarchs reversed this Act and placed the Seymours back in the line of succession, behind the Stuarts and ahead of the Stanleys, we encounter the same problem as above. By the strict reading of the Third Succession Act, and the will of Henry VIII, in 1603 the Seymours were illegitimate and thus had no claim. Any law passed, or attainder lifted after 1603 is invalid as the Monarch was not the Rightful Monarch, and the Parliament was an illegitimate one. While the Grey/Seymour marriage is TODAY considered valid, by 1603 laws, and by the Act of Elizabeth I it was not. Just like by the strict Tudor laws of 1603, the late Earl of Jersey was only ever married once, and had only one legitimate child. Frederick T (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the present Earl's father(and the late Earl's son) ALSO remarried during his ex-wife's lifetime and had a son by this remarriage(invalid by strict legitimist reasoning). This son is the present Earl himself! Thus the "King William Child Villiers" reasoning encounters a Catch-22 situation. The very thing that would may appear to give him a claim to the throne, itself bastardizes him, thus giving him no claim at all. Frederick T (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Remember the will of Henry VIII also debarred the Scottish Stuarts from the throne, yet they succeeded. We will never know how the Seymours would have reacted had the Stanleys made a bid for the throne. Primogeniture usually wins out in th end; anyway, there would likely have been a civil war.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Stuarts were indeed the genealogical heirs to Elizabeth I, but the article(as far as I interpret it anyway) gives the hypothetical "What if" if the Third Succession Act/Will of Henry VIII had been followed exactly, and to the strictest letter of Tudor Law. Under this hypothetical scenario, the ONLY legitimate heir-general to Elizabeth I (through this hypothesis) was Lady Anne Stanley, and her ONLY heir-general is Lady Caroline Ogilvy (although some of Lady Anne's family tree is sketchy, there may yet be a legitimate descendant of Lady Anne out there somewhere).

On the same tack, A most joyful and just recognition of the immediate, lawful and undoubted Succession, Descent and Right of the Crown would have to be invalid. In fact, there is a sense of overdoing it with that title. Had Lady Anne been a man with control of an army, and not a young woman, things may have been very different. Frederick T (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am confused as to where Richard III and Edmund II are coming from in the map of succession for the Clarence line. According to the text in the article the claim to the crown passes from