Temporal
A Channing
days, don't suppose she did much reigning)
Unless somebody knows better, I expect the shortest Dukedom was Charles
(Brandon), 3rd Duke of Suffolk (-1551) who is said to have survived his
elder brother by half an hour.
As it happens they are related:
Charles Brandon 1st Duke by Princess Mary left (with other daughters)
Frances m1 Henry Grey (later Dk of Suffolk) and left (Lady) Jane Grey
Charles Brandon 1st Duke by Katherine Willoughby de Eresby left Henry, the
2nd Duke and the above Charles 3rd Duke.
ŠAdrian (Surrey, UK) <ACha...@CompuServe.Com>
NB There should _not_ be an(y) attachment(s) to this plain text message
John Steele Gordon
news:200108120936_...@compuserve.com...
> The shortest (temporal) English reigning monarch was Lady Jane Grey (11
> days, don't suppose she did much reigning)
Isn't it nine days? Lady Jane was proclaimed Queen on July 10th and, to her
own vast relief, withdrew on July 19th when it had become abundantly clear
that the English people would have none of it. I know of at least two
biographies of her entitled The Nine-Days' Queen.
Also, was she ever Queen at all? She is certainly included on no list of
English monarchs and being proclaimed Queen and being Queen are not quite
the same thing.
> Unless somebody knows better, I expect the shortest Dukedom was Charles
> (Brandon), 3rd Duke of Suffolk (-1551) who is said to have survived his
> elder brother by half an hour.
I wonder what the record is for someone created a peer. Thomas Cromwell was
created Earl of Essex in April, 1540 (I don't know the exact date) and
whacked on July 28th.
JSG
Chris Bennett
John Steele Gordon <ance...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:obwd7.23359$vp.36...@news02.optonline.net...
> "A Channing" <ACha...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:200108120936_...@compuserve.com...
> > The shortest (temporal) English reigning monarch was Lady Jane Grey (11
> > days, don't suppose she did much reigning)
>
> Isn't it nine days? Lady Jane was proclaimed Queen on July 10th and, to
her
> own vast relief, withdrew on July 19th when it had become abundantly clear
> that the English people would have none of it. I know of at least two
> biographies of her entitled The Nine-Days' Queen.
>
> Also, was she ever Queen at all? She is certainly included on no list of
> English monarchs and being proclaimed Queen and being Queen are not quite
> the same thing.
>
<snip>
She's listed as such on the official website of the monarchy:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/history/since802.htm which also credits Sweyn and
Edgar Atheling as monarch, and gives Charles II a reign in 1649, the basis
for which is unclear to me. However the empress Matilda's brief reign in
1141 is not recognised.
Chris
Phil Moody
The shortest (temporal) English reigning monarch was Lady Jane Grey (11
days, don't suppose she did much reigning)
PLM: Adrian, Mike Ashley has in his book that she reigned only 9 days. I was
just curious about the discrepancy:-)
Best Wishes,
Phil
Ernst Hoffmann
John!
Under the auspices of the Government of the United Kingdom there is an
official web site of the British Monarchy
http://www.royal.gov.uk/history/since802.htm
You will find a Jane (somewhere between a certain Edward VI and a Mary I
with "reigned:10-19 July 1553"
How much more "official" could you think of ? <sm>
If you accidently click on that "Jane" you will find the following
paragraph:
> Northumberland took greater trouble to charm and influence Edward; his
powerful position as Lord President of the Council was based on his personal
ascendancy over the King. However, the young King was ailing. Northumberland
hurriedly married his son Lord Guilford Dudley to Lady Jane Grey, one of
Henry VIII's great-nieces and a claimant to the throne. Edward accepted Jane
as his heir and, on his death from tuberculosis in 1553, Jane assumed the
throne. Despite the Council recognising her claim, the country rallied to
Mary, Catherine of Aragon's daughter and a devout Roman Catholic. Jane
reigned for only nine days and was later executed (as was her husband) in
1554. <
Ernst
PS: Looks as if there was a temporary shortage of painters, throughout her
reign, since the Royal Collection was unable to provide a "state picture" on
the site. (LOL).
Phil Moody
I wonder what the record is for someone created a peer. Thomas Cromwell was
created Earl of Essex in April, 1540 (I don't know the exact date) and
whacked on July 28th.
PLM: Not quite sure, but here are a few candidates.
1.) Earl Copsi (Copsige) [former ally of Tostig Godwinsson. made earl by
William I; after 5 weeks he was slain by Oswulf, son of Eadwulf].
2.) Earl Robert de Comines (d. Jan. 28, 1069)[sent by William I to reclaim
Northumbria but Robert was slain in battle by the Northumbrians before
taking possession].
I don't have when Earl Robert was created Earl of Northumbria, but the fact
that he never took possession of Northumbria, suggests that it was an
extremely short Peerage?
I don't know if Harald Godwinsson created any Peers after Stamford Bridge,
but those Peerages would be of fairly short duration, if they fell at
Hastings?
Best Wishes,
Phil
John Steele Gordon
news:B79C72FD.1028F%ErnstHo...@compuserve.com...
> Under the auspices of the Government of the United Kingdom there is an
> official web site of the British Monarchy
>
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/history/since802.htm
>
> You will find a Jane (somewhere between a certain Edward VI and a Mary I
> with "reigned:10-19 July 1553"
>
> How much more "official" could you think of ? <sm>
Well, official is not co-terminous with correct, unless you think
bureaucrats--even royal ones--don't make mistakes.
For one thing, it calls her of the House of Tudor, but she would have been
of the House of Grey, I suppose, the hands-down winner of the
shortest-dynasty-in-English-history contest.
She was never crowned, but that does not make a difference, as Edward V and
Edward VIII were not crowned either.
> PS: Looks as if there was a temporary shortage of painters, throughout her
> reign, since the Royal Collection was unable to provide a "state picture"
on
> the site. (LOL).
Well, they could have got one right down the hall, so to speak, as the
National Portrait Gallery has a splendid one, painted about 1545, by "Master
John." How true to life it is I wonder, however. She was only 8 in 1545, and
the picture shows her as a mature woman.
There is no known generally accepted portrait of Queen Catherine Howard,
however.
JSG
A Channing
> news:200108120936_...@compuserve.com...
> > The shortest (temporal) English reigning monarch was Lady Jane Grey (11
> > days, don't suppose she did much reigning)
>
John Steele Gordon replied,
> Isn't it nine days? Lady Jane was proclaimed Queen on July 10th and, to
her
> own vast relief, withdrew on July 19th when it had become abundantly
clear
> that the English people would have none of it. I know of at least two
> biographies of her entitled The Nine-Days' Queen.
>
> Also, was she ever Queen at all? She is certainly included on no list of
> English monarchs and being proclaimed Queen and being Queen are not quite
> the same thing.
>
Yes, you are quite right, it was nine days, I should not rely on memory (I
am sure at School, we were taught 11 days, oh well I failed history). CP
states she was _de facto_ Queen of England
> > Unless somebody knows better, I expect the shortest Dukedom was Charles
> > (Brandon), 3rd Duke of Suffolk (-1551) who is said to have survived his
> > elder brother by half an hour.
>
> I wonder what the record is for someone created a peer. Thomas Cromwell
was
> created Earl of Essex in April, 1540 (I don't know the exact date) and
> whacked on July 28th.
>
CP:- 17 April 1540
D. Spencer Hines
She is assigned dates of 6 July to 19 July 1553, in that source.
Edward VI died on 6 July.
The Council of State proclaimed Lady Jane to be Queen of England on 10 July 1553.
Opinions obviously differ.
"The proper study of mankind is woman and, by common agreement since the time of Adam, it is the most complex and arduous." -- Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918] -- _Mont-Saint Michel and Chartres_
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"John Steele Gordon" <ance...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:obwd7.23359$vp.36...@news02.optonline.net...
John Steele Gordon
news:j3Ad7.1254$f77....@eagle.america.net...
Lady Jane Grey is indeed listed as Queen Jane in Cheney.
> She is assigned dates of 6 July to 19 July 1553, in that source.
> Edward VI died on 6 July.
> The Council of State proclaimed Lady Jane to be Queen of England on 10
July 1553.
> Opinions obviously differ.
The death of Edward on July 6th--which is supposed to have taken place while
he was held in the arms of Sir Thomas Wroth, an ancestor of many here--was
kept secret for four days while furious maneuvering and arm twisting took
place. Lady Jane Grey was proclaimed Queen by the Privy Council on July
10th. One imagines several members of that Accession Council unconsciously
rubbing the backs of their necks while they proclaimed her. Mary I was
proclaimed Queen by the Privy Council on July 19th.
Well, the King is dead, long live the king (or queen in this case), so
somebody succeeded Edward VI on July 6th, but who? On July 10th the Privy
Council said that Lady Jane Grey did. On July 19th--Oops! Sorry. Cancel that
last announcement--the very same Privy Council (at least those members who
hadn't headed for the hills) said that Mary Tudor did.
The succession to the Throne was not fixed in granite in the mid-16th
century as it is today, and both Henry VIII and Edward VI (with a little
help from his friends), tried to dispose of the throne in their wills.
What are Mary I's regnal dates? I bet her reign is counted as beginning on
July 6th. I believe that Charles II's reign began on January 30th, 1649,
even though he didn't actually get the job until eleven years later.
Perhaps someone more versed in the intricacies of the English Constitution
than I can elucidate whether Lane Jane Grey was ever, de jure, Queen of
England, or was it just a matter of several power-hungry (and Protestant)
men proclaiming she was.
JSG
John Steele Gordon
> > "A Channing" <ACha...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> > news:200108120936_...@compuserve.com...
> > > The shortest (temporal) English reigning monarch was Lady Jane Grey
(11
> > > days, don't suppose she did much reigning)
> > > Unless somebody knows better, I expect the shortest Dukedom was
Charles
> > > (Brandon), 3rd Duke of Suffolk (-1551) who is said to have survived
his
> > > elder brother by half an hour.
> >
> > I wonder what the record is for someone created a peer. Thomas Cromwell
> was
> > created Earl of Essex in April, 1540 (I don't know the exact date) and
> > whacked on July 28th.
> >
>
> CP:- 17 April 1540
Making him the 103 day earl. :-)
JSG
Chris Dickinson
>Under the auspices of the Government of the United Kingdom there
>is an official web site of the British Monarchy
>http://www.royal.gov.uk/history/since802.htm
>You will find a Jane (somewhere between a certain Edward VI and a
>Mary I with "reigned:10-19 July 1553"
>How much more "official" could you think of ? <sm>
All I can say is that history seems to have been re-invented by
this 'official' site.
Lady Jane Grey was not included in any list of kings & queens when
I was a lad 40 years ago, and doesn't figure in any other list
that I have. She is not included in Antonia Fraser's 1975 'King
and Queens of England'; nor in a list I have from 1848.
This site has simply got it wrong. No way would a new queen be
called Jane II!
Chris Bennett
John Steele Gordon <ance...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:SaBd7.24381$vp.42...@news02.optonline.net...
<snip>
I believe that Charles II's reign began on January 30th, 1649,
> even though he didn't actually get the job until eleven years later.
That's surely the date HE counted his reign from. What is odd is that the
official website of the British monarchy gives his reign as "1649,
1660-1685". I would expect 1660-1685 and could understand 1649-1685 (with
the Commonwealth being suppressed). I find this hybrid hard to understand.
I can only imagine that it means they wish to consider him king between the
execution of his father on January 30 1649 and the abolition of the monarchy
by Parliament in March, even though he was never proclaimed -- but to me
that means that the throne was vacant.
Chris
Phil Moody
For one thing, it calls her of the House of Tudor, but she would have been
of the House of Grey, I suppose, the hands-down winner of the
shortest-dynasty-in-English-history contest.
PLM: True, but had you said the British Isle's, that title would have to go
to king Ragnald of Man, 4 days, 1164, per Mike Ashley.
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of John
Steele Gordon
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 12:22 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Temporal
Chris Phillips
Chris Bennett wrote:
> She's listed as such on the official website of the monarchy:
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/history/since802.htm which also credits Sweyn and
> Edgar Atheling as monarch, and gives Charles II a reign in 1649, the
basis
> for which is unclear to me.
If I remember correctly, it's legally correct that Charles II succeeded as
king on the execution of his father, because the Parliamentary leaders
forgot to abolish the monarchy before they abolished the king. I think they
did rush through legislation before the execution, forbidding anyone to
_proclaim_ Charles II king, though.
Charles II was also - for the time being - accepted as king by the Scots,
who still had a separate Parliament.
So, apart from the later legal fiction, Charles probably became de jure
king of England, and de facto king of Scotland, in 1649 - though of course
he didn't remain either for long.
Chris Phillips
Renia
secretly proclaimed Queen of England and Ireland on July 6, 1883, and
publiclin, in London, on July 10, 1553, age 16. She was sent to the Town
on July 19, 1553, having reigned nine days.
She was first cousin of her redecessor, Edward, being granddaughter of
Henry VIII's sister, Mary (briefly Queen of France), later Countess of
Suffolk. Mary's daughter Frances married Henry Grey who became Duke of
Suffolk, and Jane was their eldest daughter. So, maternally, she was of
the House of Tudor.
On Catherine Howard, there was a portrait long considered to be her
likeness, but it is now thought that no authentic portrait of her
exists. The one previously supposed to be her likeness, shows a
dark-skinned woman with reddish hair, looking far older than a teenage
Catherine Howard.
Renia
Renia
Mary succeeded as Queen of England and Ireland on July 19, 1553, at the
age of 37. On her marrige to Philip she was grandiosely styled Queen of
England, France, Naples, Jerusalem and Ireland. She died at St James's
Palace on November 17, 1558, age 42.
Charles II succeeded as King of England, Scotland and Ireland after the
execution of his father on January 30, 1649, at the age of 19. He was
crowned King of Scotland at Scone on New Year's Day 1651. Parliament
proclaimed Charles as King on May 8, 1660. His regnal years, however,
are "backdated" to the date
of his succession, in 1649.
> Perhaps someone more versed in the intricacies of the English Constitution
> than I can elucidate whether Lane Jane Grey was ever, de jure, Queen of
> England,
Yes, she was.
Renia
D. Spencer Hines
6 July to 19 July is obviously more than 9 days.
That's why the 10 July date is often cited.
"Sent to the Town" ????
She was still 15 at the time these events transpired ---- not yet 16.
Deus Vult.
"The proper study of mankind is woman and, by common agreement since the time of Adam, it is the most complex and arduous." -- Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918] -- _Mont-Saint Michel and Chartres_
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Renia" <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message news:3B7706E9...@cwcom.net...
D. Spencer Hines
Good analysis by JSG.
Cheney says Queen Mary's reign began on 19 July 1553. Hines is not saying that is definitive, just reporting it.
Parliament declared that Charles II had been _de jure_ King since his father's death on 30 Jan 1649.
Charles II actually arrives in London and takes the reins of power on 29 May 1660.
Deus Vult.
"The proper study of mankind is woman and, by common agreement since the time of Adam, it is the most complex and arduous." -- Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918] -- _Mont-Saint Michel and Chartres_
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"John Steele Gordon" <ance...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:SaBd7.24381$vp.42...@news02.optonline.net...
Renia
Lady Jane Grey was and is known as the Nine Days' Queen. She was secretly
proclaimed Queen of England and Ireland on July 6, 1553, and
publicly, in London, on July 10, 1553, age 16. She was sent to the Tower on July
19, 1553, having reigned nine days.
(Thanks to DSH.)
Her reign began with her public, not secret proclamation.
Renia
D. Spencer Hines
Lady Jane was reportedly born in October 1537, so she was not yet 16 years of age.
Cheers.
"The proper study of mankind is woman and, by common agreement since the time of Adam, it is the most complex and arduous." -- Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918] -- _Mont-Saint Michel and Chartres_
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Renia" <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message news:3B771216...@cwcom.net...
William Addams Reitwiesner
<snip goes the cyber-mohel>
>She's listed as such on the official website of the monarchy:
>http://www.royal.gov.uk/history/since802.htm which also credits Sweyn and
>Edgar Atheling as monarch, and gives Charles II a reign in 1649, the basis
>for which is unclear to me.
Charles II considered himself to have succeeded to the Throne at his
father's death in January 1649, and dated his reign accordingly.
--
Ceterum censeo DSH delendam esse.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Chris Dickinson
>Well, the King is dead, long live the king (or queen in this
>case), so somebody succeeded Edward VI on July 6th,
>but who? On July 10th the Privy Council said that Lady
>Jane Grey did. On July 19th--Oops! Sorry. Cancel that
>last announcement--the very same Privy Council (at
>least those members who hadn't headed for the hills)
>said that Mary Tudor did.
<snip>
>Perhaps someone more versed in the intricacies of the English
>Constitution than I can elucidate whether Lane Jane Grey was
>ever, de jure, Queen of England,
I'm certainly not, but how about this as an argument:
If I remember right, members of the Privy Council are technically
only so during the lifetime of the monarch. They have to be
re-appointed by the next one.
So, the 'Privy Council' who declared LJG didn't actually have any
legal status, if you take the point of view that Mary was the next
legitimate sovereign. As that legitimacy was what her eventual
victory set in stone, then in retrospect the declaration on 10th
July had no legal validity. The Privy Council only had legitimate
power once she had appointed them. Hence LJG was never a monarch.
D. Spencer Hines
WAR is not particularly proficient when it comes to dealing with these HISTORICAL details. He prefers straight GENEALOGY ---- unpolluted by History.
He and I often used to argue about that and associated issues. I won. <g>
"Parliament declared that Charles II had been _de jure_ King since his father's death on 30 Jan 1649." [DSH]
[N. B. What Parliament says is more important than what Charles II *considers* to be true. ---- DSH]
"Charles II actually arrives in London and takes the reins of power on 29 May 1660." [DSH]
[N. B. What is even *more* important is the date at which Charles II *assumes the reins of power* ---- such as they are ---- certainly not with a Divine Right To Rule. Richard Cromwell, Oliver's son, had abdicated on 24 May 1659, so Parliament ruled for almost a year, sans King, before deciding to bring back Charles II. Charles II was proclaimed King on 5 May 1660.
So, the actual Restoration actually dates from May 1660 ---- even though Charles, cheeky fellow that he was, jumped the gun a bit [from ONE perspective] and dated his Declaration at Breda "this 4/14th day of April 1660 in the twelfth year of our reign" and, as noted supra, Parliament agreed, [sort of, _de jure_] when they proclaimed him as King on 5 May 1660. ---- DSH]
Yes, Virginia, historical dates DO matter.
Deus Vult.
"The proper study of mankind is woman and, by common agreement since the time of Adam, it is the most complex and arduous." -- Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918] -- _Mont-Saint Michel and Chartres_
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"William Addams Reitwiesner" <reitw...@stop.mail-abuse.org> wrote in message news:3b7820e...@news.erols.com...
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/history/since802.htm which also credits Sweyn and
> Edgar Atheling as monarch, and gives Charles II a reign in 1649, the basis
> for which is unclear to me.
I suspect it was simply that his father had abdicated in Charles II's favour
& it took a couple of days for the roundheads to declare the monarchy
defunct. FWIW, Charles (the son) was offered the crown of Virginia by the
House of Burgesses. How different might History have been had he accepted?
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
> somebody succeeded Edward VI on July 6th, but who? On July 10th the Privy
> Council said that Lady Jane Grey did. On July 19th--Oops! Sorry. Cancel
that
> last announcement--the very same Privy Council (at least those members who
> hadn't headed for the hills) said that Mary Tudor did.
>
> century as it is today, and both Henry VIII and Edward VI (with a little
> help from his friends), tried to dispose of the throne in their wills.
>
> What are Mary I's regnal dates? I bet her reign is counted as beginning
on
> July 6th.
> Perhaps someone more versed in the intricacies of the English Constitution
> than I can elucidate whether Lane Jane Grey was ever, de jure, Queen of
> England, or was it just a matter of several power-hungry (and Protestant)
> men proclaiming she was.
>
The matter in English Law is 'by the grace of God', not by the wish and
desire of the last monarch. That is what lends a certain air of legitimacy
to the Jacobitists. However, the 1701 Act of Settlement decreed that God
did not grace Roman Catholics. Apparently he doesn't grace their spouses,
nor those who wed without the sovereign's conssent. It was rather poimtless
for HRH Ernst August of Braunschweig to request permission of HM to marry
Her Higness of Monaco. She was (&, I believe, is) an adherent of the Church
of Rome; so permission or no, he can not ever hope to make good any claim to
the succession.
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Bennett" <cben...@adnc.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, 12 August, 2001 1545
Subject: Re: Temporal
>
>
> John Steele Gordon <ance...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:SaBd7.24381$vp.42...@news02.optonline.net...
> <snip>
> I believe that Charles II's reign began on January 30th, 1649,
> > even though he didn't actually get the job until eleven years later.
>
> That's surely the date HE counted his reign from. What is odd is that the
> official website of the British monarchy gives his reign as "1649,
> 1660-1685". I would expect 1660-1685 and could understand 1649-1685 (with
> the Commonwealth being suppressed). I find this hybrid hard to
understand.
> I can only imagine that it means they wish to consider him king between
the
> execution of his father on January 30 1649 and the abolition of the
monarchy
> by Parliament in March, even though he was never proclaimed -- but to me
> that means that the throne was vacant.
>
All due respect. Technically the throne is NEVER vacant. It is NOT a
peerage, and does not fall abeyant. 'The King is dead. Long live the
King!'
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
> Henry VIII's sister, Mary (briefly Queen of France), later Countess of
> Suffolk. Mary's daughter Frances married Henry Grey who became Duke of
> Suffolk, and Jane was their eldest daughter. So, maternally, she was of
> the House of Tudor.
>
Dear Lady,
That would make her first-cousin-once-removed, or by some's imprecise usage,
second cousin.
Respectfully, & with all best wishes,
Ford M-M-B
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
> >Constitution than I can elucidate whether Lane Jane Grey was
> >ever, de jure, Queen of England,
>
>
>
> If I remember right, members of the Privy Council are technically
> only so during the lifetime of the monarch. They have to be
> re-appointed by the next one.
>
> So, the 'Privy Council' who declared LJG didn't actually have any
> legal status, if you take the point of view that Mary was the next
> legitimate sovereign. As that legitimacy was what her eventual
> victory set in stone, then in retrospect the declaration on 10th
> July had no legal validity. The Privy Council only had legitimate
> power once she had appointed them. Hence LJG was never a monarch.
>
Well, I've studied Law, Comparative, Constitutional, International,
Parliamentary, etc. (I probably would have done better in life,
financially, had I made Law School my choice ahead of a Master's in
History!) This is all correct & true; &, also, has a STRONG bearing on
TITULO REGIS of Richard III (& Edward, the so-called V).
D. Spencer Hines
First cousins, once removed.
The common ancestors are Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, who are the grandparents of Edward VI and the great-grandparents of Lady Jane Grey.
Full second cousins, _au contraire_, are descended from a common set of great-grandparents.
"The proper study of mankind is woman and, by common agreement since the time of Adam, it is the most complex and arduous." -- Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918] -- _Mont-Saint Michel and Chartres_
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne" <smo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message news:006b01c123a9$b70e56e0$3ebe0404@hppav...
Roz Griston
snip
>Perhaps someone more versed in the intricacies of the English
>Constitution than I can elucidate whether Lane Jane Grey was
>ever, de jure, Queen of England,
chris dickinson wrote
I'm certainly not, but how about this as an argument:
If I remember right, members of the Privy Council are technically
only so during the lifetime of the monarch. They have to be
re-appointed by the next one.
So, the 'Privy Council' who declared LJG didn't actually have any
legal status, if you take the point of view that Mary was the next
legitimate sovereign. As that legitimacy was what her eventual
victory set in stone, then in retrospect the declaration on 10th
July had no legal validity. The Privy Council only had legitimate
power once she had appointed them. Hence LJG was never a monarch.
not quite so chris. edward vi left a will naming jane as the next in
succession. both mary and elizabeth had been declared illigetimate
during their father, king henry's life time. but, henry still named
them in his will as his heirs.
jane grey was forced into marrying guildford dudley..(grey bloodline on
his maternal side). the descent for both jane and guildford is via
elizabeth woodville and her first husband john grey d. 1461.
the privy council was following king edward vi's instructions. however,
mary was able via popular support to take control and have jane removed
as queen and herself appointed queen.
i think she used henry viii's will to set the precedent, nullifying
edward vi's will. which is how elizabeth i also, came into power.
if some legal eagle way back when had wanted to risk life and limb, i
suppose they could have seriously challenged elizabeth's reign. as
jane's successors according to edward's will were her two sisters mary
and katherine or their issue.
elizabeth i died without a will and did not name a successor, her
councillors did so. they did not like the grey family; who again, with
a good lawyer, could probably have picked up the reins of power.
however; they did not. this was probably due to the fact, that most of
the people who could, would, might oppose the tudor dynasty had been
done in or locked up.
one's just gotta wonder if henry vii and his descent read machavelli's
"the prince".
using a good search engine you can turn up a massive amount of
information on lady jane grey, edward vi, bloody mary and elizabeth i.
roz
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
> John Steele Gordon wrote:
> I wonder what the record is for someone created a peer. Thomas Cromwell
was
> created Earl of Essex in April, 1540 (I don't know the exact date) and
> whacked on July 28th.
>
> PLM: Not quite sure, but here are a few candidates.
> 1.) Earl Copsi (Copsige) [former ally of Tostig Godwinsson. made earl by
> William I; after 5 weeks he was slain by Oswulf, son of Eadwulf].
> 2.) Earl Robert de Comines (d. Jan. 28, 1069)[sent by William I to reclaim
> Northumbria but Robert was slain in battle by the Northumbrians before
> taking possession].
> I don't have when Earl Robert was created Earl of Northumbria, but the
fact
> that he never took possession of Northumbria, suggests that it was an
> extremely short Peerage?
> I don't know if Harald Godwinsson created any Peers after Stamford Bridge,
> but those Peerages would be of fairly short duration, if they fell at
> Hastings?
>
See my notes as to studying law in another posting. One arcane form of law
which I studied was Peerage Law. There was no peerage prior to, nor
immediately following The Conquest. But don't take my word for it, check
out Gadd, the leading authority on Peerage Law, in his aptly titled book,
PEERAGE LAW. It begins, according to differing opinions, with Baronies by
tenure, (post Domesday - an official publishing of such tenures), or
Baronies by Writ, which would commence with either the arguable parliament
of Montfort, or the first Official Parliament of Edward I. The argument
could be made, ('though seldom is, as it is not a legal basis), that the
peerage, as a class, began when they took concerted action at Runnymede in
1215. But this sociological, not political, nor legal.
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
> succession. both mary and elizabeth had been declared illigetimate
> during their father, king henry's life time. but, henry still named
> them in his will as his heirs.
Parliament, (which did not cease with the king´s death), can ´legitimate´.
>
> jane grey was forced into marrying guildford dudley..(grey bloodline on
> his maternal side). the descent for both jane and guildford is via
> elizabeth woodville and her first husband john grey d. 1461.
Still causing trouble.
>
> the privy council was following king edward vi's instructions. however,
> mary was able via popular support to take control and have jane removed
> as queen and herself appointed queen.
With consent of Parliament.
>
> i think she used henry viii's will to set the precedent, nullifying
> edward vi's will. which is how elizabeth i also, came into power.
>
> if some legal eagle way back when had wanted to risk life and limb, i
> suppose they could have seriously challenged elizabeth's reign. as
> jane's successors according to edward's will were her two sisters mary
> and katherine or their issue.
>
> elizabeth i died without a will and did not name a successor, her
> councillors did so.
She did name a successor, just not in a will.
> they did not like the grey family; who again, with
> a good lawyer, could probably have picked up the reins of power.
>
> however; they did not. this was probably due to the fact, that most of
> the people who could, would, might oppose the tudor dynasty had been
> done in or locked up.
>
> one's just gotta wonder if henry vii and his descent read machavelli's
> "the prince".
Most assuredly they did. Henry VIII & Elizabeth both cited & disparaged
him.
Renia
For generations, the succession of the English crown was at the will, or
in the gift of the reigning monarch. "By the grace of God" is not in
itself a matter of English law. The Act of Settlement was partly to
ensure that a Catholic never again inherited the English throne, because
the Stuart kings had taken "By the Grace of God" too far.
Renia
Renia
second cousin. Had Jane had a surviving child which inherited the
throne, then that child would have been second cousin to Edward VI.
Renia
Ian Cairns
> Indeed, first cousin once removed, and still a first cousin. But not a
> second cousin. Had Jane had a surviving child which inherited the
> throne, then that child would have been second cousin to Edward VI.
>
> Renia
Edward VI and Frances Brandon (LJG's mother) were frist cousins.
So, any surviving child of LJG would actually have been first cousin
twice removed from Edward VI; whereas LJG would have been second cousin
to any surviving child of Edward VI.
Ian
David R Teague
On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 09:29:59 +0100 Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> writes:
<snip>
Had Jane had a surviving child which inherited the throne, then that
child would have been second cousin to Edward VI.
<snip>
Second cousin, or first cousin twice removed? IIRC it was Jane's mother
Frances who was the first cousin of Edward VI, they being the
granddaughter and grandson, respectively, of Henry VII and Elizabeth of
York.
David Teague
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Chris Bennett
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne <smo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:006001c123a9$219bfa40$3ebe0404@hppav...
Hence the connection to the queen Jane thread. Edward VI died on July 6,
Jane was proclaimed on July 10, and Mary on July 19. The question got
asked: who was queen between July 6 and July 10, and I think it never got
answered. Since no-one was procliamed on January 30 1649, the situation is
precisely analogous. [Despite your earlier comment, Charles I did not
abdicate in favour of Charles II.]
BTAIM, CHarles II was certainly de facto king of Scotland till 1651. But
this notional first reign of his in England, for a few weks in 1649, is
something I have never seen in any other regnal list. If the theory behind
it is that the throne is never vacant then how can you also recognise its
abolition?
Chris
Phil Moody
For generations, the succession of the English crown was at the will, or
in the gift of the reigning monarch. "By the grace of God" is not in
itself a matter of English law. The Act of Settlement was partly to
ensure that a Catholic never again inherited the English throne, because
the Stuart kings had taken "By the Grace of God" too far.
PLM: I disagree, Renia. You cannot lay the anti catholic sentiment at the
Stuart's feet because that honour belongs to the house of Tudor. First, with
Henry VIII and then the atrocities committed by his daughter Mary I, on
behalf of Catholicism. I believe it is an injustice to the Stuart's for you
to assert that they committed excesses, which resulted in Catholics being
barred from the Throne. Catholics were hated before the Stuart's came to the
Throne of England.
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Renia
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 3:30 AM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Temporal
Roz Griston
> not quite so chris. edward vi left a will naming jane as the next in
> succession. both mary and elizabeth had been declared illigetimate
> during their father, king henry's life time. but, henry still named
> them in his will as his heirs.
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne said
Parliament, (which did not cease with the king?s death), can
?legitimate?.
rg/
check out this url. its quite informative
http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/vallieres.htm
its topic is Tudor Succession Problems
>r/g
> jane grey was forced into marrying guildford dudley..(grey bloodline
on
> his maternal side). the descent for both jane and guildford is via
> elizabeth woodville and her first husband john grey d. 1461.
ford/
Still causing trouble.
rg/
i don't know if i'd put the total problem on woodville clan. the greys
were moving in and around the royal bedchamber for several generations.
daughters and granddaughters marrying into several of the powerful
families. jsg, maybe quite right when he states the house of grey.
i've even found gedcoms on line..not verified..that show the grey line
starts as first cousins to the conq. the father of the grey line was
the brother to herleve. given how close the grey's got to the throne,
via females..i'm actually surprised there has been more research done
on this family.
>
> the privy council was following king edward vi's instructions.
however,
> mary was able via popular support to take control and have jane
removed
> as queen and herself appointed queen.
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne said
With consent of Parliament.
rg/ true and some diddling to ensure their heads remained in place.
mary was popular. she was henry's first born child, who had been made
illigetimate by his marriage to the *witch* anne.
>
> i think she used henry viii's will to set the precedent, nullifying
> edward vi's will. which is how elizabeth i also, came into power.
>
> if some legal eagle way back when had wanted to risk life and limb, i
> suppose they could have seriously challenged elizabeth's reign. as
> jane's successors according to edward's will were her two sisters
mary
> and katherine or their issue.
>
> elizabeth i died without a will and did not name a successor, her
> councillors did so.
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne said
She did name a successor, just not in a will.
rg/the url above questions/doubts elizabeth did name a successor. it
was high treason to discuss the matter.
this url shows some dialogue, and records her final days.
http://e3.uci.edu/~papyri/camden/1603e.html
scroll down to where the queene sickeneth. elizabeth couldn't
talk..yet, by some miracle is able to get out that james is her
successor? seems pretty funky to me..especially when one knows there
were secret negotiations with james just prior to her death. sounds
like a good cover story, and a little propaganda.
so..unless there are primary documents with witnessed signatures
declaring they (witnesses) heard elizabeth state james i, was her
successor..i'd be in strong doubt that she did. the woman was extremely
ill and distraught. and upon her orders..no one was to discuss
succession.
she stood for days on end praying. possibly, a form of madness caused
from the lead used in her make up, that she wore constantly for years
to cover the pox marks on her face. her high hair line is also
attributed to the lead makeup..it causes hair loss.
> they did not like the grey family; who again, with
> a good lawyer, could probably have picked up the reins of power.
>
> however; they did not. this was probably due to the fact, that most
of
> the people who could, would, might oppose the tudor dynasty had been
> done in or locked up.
>
> one's just gotta wonder if henry vii and his descent read
machavelli's
> "the prince".
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne said
Most assuredly they did. Henry VIII & Elizabeth both cited &
disparaged
him.
rg/ ah..true students of machavelli then. he is an interesting read,
especially if you want to understand how even our modern governments
work.
Renia
> Renia wrote:
> For generations, the succession of the English crown was at the will, or
> in the gift of the reigning monarch. "By the grace of God" is not in
> itself a matter of English law. The Act of Settlement was partly to
> ensure that a Catholic never again inherited the English throne, because
> the Stuart kings had taken "By the Grace of God" too far.
>
> PLM: I disagree, Renia. You cannot lay the anti catholic sentiment at the
> Stuart's feet because that honour belongs to the house of Tudor. First, with
> Henry VIII and then the atrocities committed by his daughter Mary I, on
> behalf of Catholicism. I believe it is an injustice to the Stuart's for you
> to assert that they committed excesses, which resulted in Catholics being
> barred from the Throne. Catholics were hated before the Stuart's came to the
> Throne of England.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Phil
It's not a case of whether you disagree, Phil, it's a matter of English history.
The Church of England was born in the reign of Henry VIII. At Henry's death,
however, he was still a Catholic, even though he proclaimed himself head of the
Church of England. The C of E was the English wing of Catholicism, at the time.
The only difference was that Henry refused to accept the Pope as head of the
Church in England, because the Pope would not sanction his divorce from
Katherine of Aragon. Henry was not anti-Catholic. He was anti-Pope.
The three children of Henry VIII all had differing ideas on religion.
The youngest, Edward, was staunchly protestant. He resolved to turn the country
away from Catholicism in an era when protestant dissention was growing. He was a
young boy when he took the throne, and died when still a pubescent 15-year-old.
He embraced the new order, much as today's teenagers embrace the internet,
body-piercing, or environmentalism. Edward was not so much anti-Catholic, as
anti-anything-of-the-old-order.
The eldest, Mary, was a staunch Catholic, because that was how she was brought
up, and because she, too, naturally enough, could not sanction a divorce between
her parents, for that would put her own position in jeapordy. She resolved to
turn back the Catholic clock, and set about her burnings of protestants, in
complete contrast to her brother's policies. Mary was not anti-Catholic. She was
anti-protestant.
Elizabeth was more pragmatic and was generally tolerant of Catholicism and
protestantism, hence the development of the sects during her period. However,
towards the end of her reign, came the fear of invasion by the Spanish, a
Catholic nation with marital links to her sister, Mary. Elizabeth's spies
convinced her that the Catholic priests training at Valladolid and other places
in Spain, were really spies, and her government set about trapping, imprisoning,
and executing these priests (and other supposed Catholic spies) in order to
avert war. Elizabeth was neither anti-protestant, nor anti-Catholic, but she was
anti-Spanish invasion, and Spain was Catholic.
James I of Scotland ruled over a growing Calvinist (protestant) nation. Scotland
had been governed by a succession of Regents during a series of child-monarchs.
James succeeded to the Scottish throne when he was a year old, being saved from
the axe by his infant status. His French alliance saw that he was, in principle,
a Catholic, though Elizabeth of England encouraged his protestantism with a
suitable pension, thus, Scottish dissention was allowed to grow. His firm belief
in the Divine Right of Kings did not sit well with the English nation, nor did
his Catholic tendencies, which he intended to impose on his new kingdom of
England. Thus the scene was set for the Civil War.
It was Charles I, son of James who took these issues to the extreme. As soon as
he sat on the throne, he was embroiled in the prospect of a war with Spain, and
France. He needed money, which Parliament would not grant him. He imposed his
will, and demanded and got taxes. The next 20 years saw a complex series of
events with Charles imposing his divine will. In the meantime, Archbishop Laud
introduced a new liturgy, which saw the Church of England, and the Church of
Scotland as organisms of Catholicism. Scottish protestantism had been growing
more or less unfettered over the previous half-century, and this was too much.
In 1639, the Scottish Parliament abolished episcopacy, and established an army
in northern England. Charles had no option, but to call a Parliament, which
impeached Laud, and abolished the courts of Star Chamber and High Commission by
which Charles had imposed his divine will. With the dictatorship of Charles now
broken, Parliament began to impose its own will, which the king fought against.
The origins of the English Civil War are much more more complex and diverse than
this, and constitute long essays on town versus country, Catholic versus
Protestant, Crown versus Parliament, north versus south. England had now leapt
out of medieval thinking, had grown up, and was questioning everything. The
result was a war of brother against brother and father against son, resolved
only with the imposition of a Constitutional Monarchy, upon the invitation to
Charles II to accept the throne. England's first elected monarch, if you like.
Charles II liked his head. It was attractive to women, so he wanted to keep it.
He was an easy-going fun-loving person, so it was easy for him to forgive and
forget, to not vengefully hunt out those who had killed his father and the
monarchy. Similarly, Parliament forgave and forgot in return, and allowed his
reign to have begun in 1649. His religion was women, not Catholicism. As he grew
older, he advised his brother, James never to publicly admit to Catholicism,
which James unwisely ignored. Charles, the party king, died naturally of a
stroke, having kept his head.
His brother, James II, lasted less than three years. He was, perhaps, England's
first deselected king. He was encouraged to go to France. Kings are not supposed
to leave their thrones, except on official business. James's business in France
was not official. He had not abdicated, but a convention in London in 1689
announced that he had abdicated, because he had left the country.
Next, came England's second and third elected monarchs, the suitably protestant
William (son of Mary, the sister of Charles II and James II), and his wife Mary
(daughter of James II), who reigned jointly by Act of Parliament. James II
cursed his daughter Mary from his exile in France. Mary had been removed from
her father at the age of nine, to encourage her protestant faith. Mary died in
1694, leaving the childless William to reign alone for less than 10 years.
Princess Anne, the fourth (if you like) elected English monarch, sister-in-law
of William, and sister of Mary, had 17 pregnancies, but not one child lived
beyond the age of 11. The accession of William and Mary had been complex. The
throne was Mary's, but William could not see himself as subordinate to his wife,
so it was agreed that he would be monarch for life, and that Princess Anne and
her descendants would follow him on to the throne after any descendants he had
by Mary (which was now unlikely) but before any descendants he had by another
wife.
William, Duke of Gloucester, heir apparent, died in 1700, leaving a gaping hole
in the succession. William had had no children by Mary or anyone else, and Anne
seemed unlikely to produce another heir.
While William and Mary had reigned by Act of Parliament, there had a natural
successor to the throne of the abdicated James II, in his son, James Stuart,
known as the Old Pretender. With this in mind, had been devised the Act of
Settlement, which ensured that the succession would follow only a protestant
line. So such a line was sought and it fell to the descendants of the Electress
Sophia, granddaughter of James I, through James's daughter, Elizabeth. Sophia's
son, the Hanoverian George, was a good protestant, an able man, and an enemy of
France.
The fifth elected monarch of Britain never even spoke English, and his reign saw
the first of the two Stuart invasions of Britain, in 1715, by the Old Pretender.
The second was that by The Old Pretender's son, Bonnie Prince Charlie, also
known as The Young Pretender, in 1745. Both failed, and the chosen Hanoverian
dynasty lived on, while the Stuarts fumed, and swore never again to open the
gates of Traquair House until a Stuart was again on the throne. The gates remain
shut.
Renia
Renia
The throne was Mary's, by virtue of the will of Henry VIII. Lady Jane Grey was
thus a usurpur, hence her reign did not last long.
> Since no-one was procliamed on January 30 1649, the situation is
> precisely analogous. [Despite your earlier comment, Charles I did not
> abdicate in favour of Charles II.]
Again, the throne was Charles II's on January 30, 1649, the second his father's
head fell in the basket. This time, Parliament was the usurper.
You won't see these sorts of details on regnal lists, however.
Renia
Chris Bennett
Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:3B780FE8...@cwcom.net...
<snip>
> > Since no-one was procliamed on January 30 1649, the situation is
> > precisely analogous. [Despite your earlier comment, Charles I did not
> > abdicate in favour of Charles II.]
>
> Again, the throne was Charles II's on January 30, 1649, the second his
father's
> head fell in the basket. This time, Parliament was the usurper.
And if you accept this logic then you also do not believe that Parliament
"really" abolished the monarchy in March.
Either Parliament had established its supreme authority by virtue of the
trial of Charles I, in which case the throne became vacant on his death
because Parliament did not proclaim anyone to be his successor, or
Parliament had no such authority and the reign of Charles II lasted
continuously from the moment the axes fell till his death. You can't have
it both ways.
As far as I can tell, the position on the British monarchy's website, that
Charles II was king in 1649 (only) and again in 1660, is simply wrong.
Chris
D. Spencer Hines
Brava.
Keep it up and you'll be teaching these pogues some British History ---- which they certainly have a deficit of ---- in spades.
"The proper study of mankind is woman and, by common agreement since the time of Adam, it is the most complex and arduous." -- Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918] -- _Mont-Saint Michel and Chartres_
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Renia" <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message news:3B782E27...@cwcom.net...
Renia
Renia
Renia
The development of the English (or British) constitutional monarchy, and
of
British democracy is a highly complex business, and its nuances cannot
be
uttered between the lines of a few off-topic newsgroup posts. This is a
medieval genealogy newsgroup, not one on constitutional British history.
It was not the monarchy that was impeached, and executed, but Charles I.
Upon
his death, his son, Charles II was at that point, king, though he did
not
rule.
Very shortly, however, the Parliamentary Rump abolished the monarchy,
and so
began the English Civil War, between those who wanted to keep the
monarchy
out, and those who wanted it back. Charles II was now still king, but in
exile, wandering, until 1660, when his reign began.
Charles was king from 1649, but reigned from 1660, if you want it put
more
simply.
The period between those dates was known as the interregnum.
Renia
D. Spencer Hines
This too is excellent and right on the mark. Vide infra.
All members of the poguenoscenti should read, mark and inwardly digest it ---- starting with Bennett, who obviously doesn't know a hawk from a handsaw, when it comes to British History. Indeed, he is being as obtuse here as my pet goose continues to be with respect to matters feudal.
Deus Vult.
Exitus Acta Probat.
Verbum Sapienti:
--------------------
"The development of the English (or British) constitutional monarchy, and of British democracy is a highly complex business, and its nuances cannot be uttered between the lines of a few off-topic newsgroup posts. This is a medieval genealogy newsgroup, not one on constitutional British history.
It was not the monarchy that was impeached, and executed, but Charles I. Upon his death, his son, Charles II was at that point, king, though he did not rule.
Very shortly, however, the Parliamentary Rump abolished the monarchy, and so began the English Civil War, between those who wanted to keep the monarchy out, and those who wanted it back. Charles II was now still king, but in exile, wandering, until 1660, when his reign began.
Charles was king from 1649, but reigned from 1660, if you want it put more simply.
The period between those dates was known as the interregnum.
Renia"
------------------
Well Said.
All Pogues Take Heed.
In addition, we are speaking of different Parliaments, composed of markedly different individuals over the period from 1603, when the constitutional crisis began, under James I, until the Restoration in 1660.
Fortem Posce Animum.
"The proper study of mankind is woman and, by common agreement since the time of Adam, it is the most complex and arduous." -- Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918] -- _Mont-Saint Michel and Chartres_
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Renia" <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message news:3B784914...@cwcom.net...
Kevan L. Barton
What sayest thou? Did King John Balliol of Scotland have a daughter Anne by
Isabella de Warenne? This Anne was said to have married Brian FitzAlan of
Bedale. I looked in the archives, but didn't find anything to calm my
quiver. Perhaps I was calling up the wrong person and hence didn't find
Anne.
King John was known as Toom Tabard and was born c. 1240. He was elected King
of Scotland by Edward I of England on 17th November, 1292 and was crowned on
30th November, 1292 at Scone Abbey, Perthshire. He died 1313/1314. He
married Isabella, d. of John de Warenne, 6th Earl of surrey, by Alice,
daughter of Hugh X de Lusignan.
Any definitives would be appreciated.
Cheers,
Kevan
Renia
privately.
Regards,
Chris Bennett
Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:3B784C9A...@cwcom.net...
> Chris Bennett wrote:
<<snip>
> >
> > Either Parliament had established its supreme authority by virtue of the
> > trial of Charles I, in which case the throne became vacant on his death
> > because Parliament did not proclaim anyone to be his successor, or
> > Parliament had no such authority and the reign of Charles II lasted
> > continuously from the moment the axes fell till his death. You can't
have
> > it both ways.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, the position on the British monarchy's website,
that
> > Charles II was king in 1649 (only) and again in 1660, is simply wrong.
> >
> > Chris
>
<snip> This is a
> medieval genealogy newsgroup, not one on constitutional British history.
True. But the FAQ does allow for grey zones around 1600 and royalty and
(presumably) regnal dates. Considering the origins of this topic (how long
did queen Jane reign?) and the number of rather detailed posts you have made
on the topic recently, I thought we implicitly agreed that this topic was
such a grey zone. However, if you wish to move the discussion to, say, ATR
or SHEM, just name the place and I will meet you there.
<snip>
>
> Charles was king from 1649, but reigned from 1660, if you want it put
> more
> simply.
That is a coherent position which accords well with the royalist view of the
day. But it is not the position of the British monarchy website. According
to them, he became king (in England) in 1649, ceased to be king between 1649
and 1660, and became king again in 1660. This corresponds to the view of no
contemporary party that I am aware of.
>
> The period between those dates was known as the interregnum.
I have heard of it.
Chris
Renia
> Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
> news:3B784C9A...@cwcom.net...
> > Chris Bennett wrote:
> <<snip>
<snip>
> <snip> This is a
> > medieval genealogy newsgroup, not one on constitutional British history.
>
> True. But the FAQ does allow for grey zones around 1600 and royalty and
> (presumably) regnal dates. Considering the origins of this topic (how long
> did queen Jane reign?) and the number of rather detailed posts you have made
> on the topic recently, I thought we implicitly agreed that this topic was
> such a grey zone. However, if you wish to move the discussion to, say, ATR
> or SHEM, just name the place and I will meet you there.
I've no intention of synchronising yet more newsgroups!
> <snip>
> >
> > Charles was king from 1649, but reigned from 1660, if you want it put
> > more
> > simply.
>
> That is a coherent position which accords well with the royalist view of the
> day. But it is not the position of the British monarchy website. According
> to them, he became king (in England) in 1649, ceased to be king between 1649
> and 1660, and became king again in 1660. This corresponds to the view of no
> contemporary party that I am aware of.
The website shows a fairly simplistic view of British regnal history. It cannot
contain every complex detail, nor every contemporary or modern analysis or
opinion.
Charles II was king as soon as his father was killed. His reign, however, began
in 1660. The period in between was known as the interregnum.
The period in between was also known as the Commonwealth, and the nation had,
indeed, become a republic, without a reigning monarch. It developed a new type
of Head of State, known as the Lord Protector, in Oliver Cromwell, who was
offered the crown, but who refused it. Yet the idea of monarchy was so strong in
the minds of even these republicans, that very little thought was given to an
elected head of state, and it was naturally assumed that the heir to Cromwell's
position as Lord Protector, would be Cromwell's son, Richard. Which is what
happened, except that Richard wasn't quite up to the job. With no one else
suitable, the only thing to do, was to invite back the existing king from exile.
Charles II, therefore, reigned from 1660. The period after this is known as The
Restoration (of the monarchy).
But he was king from 1649 during the period that his kingdom was a republic.
Thus, 1660-1685 were his regnal years, not 1649-1660, which was the period
during which he was king.
Not all kings and queens reign. They have to be officially recognised, and after
the Rump of 1649, Charles was not. By 1660, he was.
Renia
D. Spencer Hines
Renia Simmonds
--------------
Indeed ---- which is *one* reason why it is the epitome of silly buggers to cite and quote a website in any serious Historical or Genealogical conversation.
"The Henry Project" may possibly prove to be an exception ---- posssibly.
Deus Vult.
"For by diligent perusing the actes of great men, by considering all the circumstances of them, by composing Counseiles and Meanes with events, a man may seem to have lived in all ages, to have been present at all enterprises, to be more strongly confirmed in Judgement, to have attained a greater experience than the longest life can possibly afford."
John Hayward, __The Lives of the III Norman Kings of England, William the First, William the Second and Henry I__, London, 1612, Preface
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Renia" <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message news:3B787942...@cwcom.net...
Chris Bennett
Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:3B787942...@cwcom.net...
<snip>
> Not all kings and queens reign. They have to be officially recognised, and
after
> the Rump of 1649, Charles was not.
And your proof that Charles II was recognised by the Rump in 1649 is exactly
what?
As far as I am aware this is none, because he wasn't . But if I'm wrong it
should be a simple matter to prove it.
Chris
The...@aol.com
Hello Kevan,
I would say, Nyet.
A. The sisters of John de Baliol [CP Vol. I, Balliol, p. 386 note d -
originally stating sisters of Edward de Baliol, later amended, prob. in Vol.
XIV, as indicated] were :
1. Margaret, who d. unmarried
2. Ada, wife of William de Lindsay [ancestress of the Bourbon heir to
the
Balliol claim]
3. Cecily [Cicely], wife of John de Burgh, knight of Walkern, Herts.
& c.
4. Mary [I show Alianora], wife of John de Comyn, lord of Badenoch and
mother of John 'the Red Comyn'
The note in CP further states, ' Some genealogists add (but in error)
a fifth sister, Anne, wife of Brian Fitz Alan of Bedale; see under "Fitz Alan
(of Bedale). '
Doing as directed, CP Vol V (FitzAlan), p. 394 shows two spouses for
Sir Biran Fitz Alan; lstly, Muriel, who d. before 8 Nov. 1290; then 2ndly
Maud. There is no mention of John or any other Baliol in this article.
B. The descent of the Baliol claimant goes through Ada, sister of John
de Baliol as noted above. Had this not been the case, and if the Baliol-Fitz
Alan theory held any water, such claim would have descended through Sir
Brian's daughter Agnes to the father of Stapleton, of Bedale.
Hope this helps.
John
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
There is a difference 'tween vacancy & abolition. The right to abolish is a
deeply theoretical question; and I think that we (all) have once again
strayed far off of genealogy.
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
> rg/ true and some diddling to ensure their heads remained in place.
> mary was popular. she was henry's first born child, who had been made
> illigetimate by his marriage to the *witch* anne.
A point too-oft forgot.
> rg/the url above questions/doubts elizabeth did name a successor. it
> was high treason to discuss the matter.
But the crown itself is, by definition, incapable of treason. At least one
the monarch is the state.
> Henry VIII & Elizabeth both cited &
> disparaged
> him.
>
> rg/ ah..true students of machavelli then. he is an interesting read,
> especially if you want to understand how even our modern governments
> work.
And corporate management.
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
No. See below.
> At Henry's death,
> however, he was still a Catholic, even though he proclaimed himself head
of the
> Church of England.
No. He proclaimed himself head of the Church IN England. A very important
distinction for two such tiny words.
> The C of E was the English wing of Catholicism, at the time.
My mother still refers to them as RC & AC - which is fairly accurate.
> The only difference was that Henry refused to accept the Pope as head of
the
> Church in England,
Got it right here! :-)
> because the Pope would not sanction his divorce from
> Katherine of Aragon. Henry was not anti-Catholic. He was anti-Pope.
Actually, he was anti-Catharine, because it was clear he would not get an
heir from her. Remember who his parents were - the culmination, (at long
last), of the Wars of the Roses. He felt that without a clear succession
the whole shootin'match would start again. Although, he did do his share of
muddying the waters, if you'll pardon the mixed analogies.
> the Stuarts fumed, and swore never again to open the
> gates of Traquair House until a Stuart was again on the throne. The gates
remain
> shut.
>
But His Emminent Majesty Cardinal King Henry IX (Jacobite titulature) willed
his claims to George III. Whether he had a right so to do or no.
Roz Griston
url repeated
http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/vallieres.htm
> rg/the url above questions/doubts elizabeth did name a successor. it
> was high treason to discuss the matter.
ford said
But the crown itself is, by definition, incapable of treason. At least
one
the monarch is the state.
rg/
read again
http://e3.uci.edu/~papyri/camden/1603e.html
who is saying what..it is a case of "they said/ she said." all it does
is helps to sell the council story.
william cecil wanted james i. many of the lords wanted james, people
were flocking to james..yet, there were others who had claims to the
throne who were bypassed. sounds like a little bit of corporate
politicking to me.
where is the archbiship of canterbury's statement/signature witnessing
that elizabeth named her successor. he was supposed to be almost
constantly by her side. surely her councillors would have thought it
prudent to ensure he heard her declaration. his witnessing it would
have been boldly declared, waved from every flag pole.
elizabeth could not speak..but she could write..why did she not write
her declaration or a will? even a real simple
"fill in the name" shall succeed me.
signed
elizabeth R.
perhaps it was elizabeth's prayers for god to determine who should
succeed her that helped feed the stuart's belief that they ruled by
divine right of kings.
ford said
> Henry VIII & Elizabeth both cited &
> disparaged
> him.
>
> rg/ ah..true students of machavelli then. he is an interesting read,
> especially if you want to understand how even our modern governments
> work.
ford said
And corporate management.
rg/hmm..isn't windsor palace referred to the corporate
headquarters..for "the corporation".
machevalli is truely the beaucrat's bible. i bet william cecil read him
too.
roz
Renia
> > The Church of England was born in the reign of Henry VIII.
>
> No. See below.
Regardless of what it was and is called, the Church of England was born
in the reign of Henry VIII.
> > At Henry's death,
> > however, he was still a Catholic, even though he proclaimed himself head
> of the
> > Church of England.
>
> No. He proclaimed himself head of the Church IN England. A very important
> distinction for two such tiny words.
Indeed. But not every nuance can be gleaned from a newsgroup post. As
soon as Henry failed to recognise the Pope as the head of the Catholic
Church, it ceased being the Church of Rome, and became the Church of
England. That wasn't its name at the time, but its status.
>
> > The C of E was the English wing of Catholicism, at the time.
>
> My mother still refers to them as RC & AC - which is fairly accurate.
>
> > The only difference was that Henry refused to accept the Pope as head of
> the
> > Church in England,
>
> Got it right here! :-)
>
> > because the Pope would not sanction his divorce from
> > Katherine of Aragon. Henry was not anti-Catholic. He was anti-Pope.
>
> Actually, he was anti-Catharine, because it was clear he would not get an
> heir from her. Remember who his parents were - the culmination, (at long
> last), of the Wars of the Roses. He felt that without a clear succession
> the whole shootin'match would start again. Although, he did do his share of
> muddying the waters, if you'll pardon the mixed analogies.
Again, not every nuance can be gleaned from a newsgroup post. History is
a series of explaining one event with its roots in another. Henry was
anti-Pope, as I said, because the Pope would not sanction his divorce
from Katherine. Katherine had given him an heir, in the form of daughter
Mary. But he wanted a son, and Anne Boleyn. And Anne Boleyn wanted
marriage.
> > the Stuarts fumed, and swore never again to open the
> > gates of Traquair House until a Stuart was again on the throne. The gates
> remain
> > shut.
> >
>
> But His Emminent Majesty Cardinal King Henry IX (Jacobite titulature) willed
> his claims to George III. Whether he had a right so to do or no.
Anyone can will what they like. It's up to the courts to decide if you
have a legal right to what you claim.
Renia
Renia
No proof is necessary. When a monarch dies, the next heir is the monarch. No one
might know, at that time, who the next heir is, but that heir is the monarch.
Where there is difficulty in establishing the next heir, then there are
problems. In the case of Charles II, there was no problem. He was the eldest son
of Charles I. He was the next heir. He was the monarch. Until the monarchy was
abolished.
Renia
Chris Phillips
Chris Bennett wrote:
> That is a coherent position which accords well with the royalist view of
the
> day. But it is not the position of the British monarchy website.
According
> to them, he became king (in England) in 1649, ceased to be king between
1649
> and 1660, and became king again in 1660. This corresponds to the view of
no
> contemporary party that I am aware of.
I think the view must be that Parliament failed to abolish the monarchy
before executing Charles I, that Charles II legally succeeded to the throne
as his heir (but wasn't proclaimed king), and that Parliament legally
abolished the monarchy soon afterwards.
Perhaps in a sense this could be a more balanced legalistic view than
either of the warring factions took at the time.
If anything the _British_ monarchy web site seems to be guilty of _English_
chauvinism in ignoring what happened in Scotland, though.
Chris Phillips
A Channing
> No proof is necessary. When a monarch dies, the next heir is the monarch.
No one
> might know, at that time, who the next heir is, but that heir is the
monarch.
> Where there is difficulty in establishing the next heir, then there are
> problems. In the case of Charles II, there was no problem. He was the
eldest son
> of Charles I. He was the next heir. He was the monarch. Until the
monarchy was
> abolished.
>
> Renia
>
>
Does anybody have views of the following:
If it could be established (by some long lost document or an incredible new
scientific test) that Edward V was murdered before his brother Richard in
1483, would then Richard be elevated to the monarchy, as Richard IIa
perhaps?
There is now a law which I just about remember when I had to study such
things and maybe of relevance. It goes a bit like this - Where death
occurs simultaneously, or it can not be determined who dies first (eg plane
crash etc), then for the purposes of inheritance, the deaths are deemed to
occur in the order of age, eldest first - but did this apply in the 15c?
ŠAdrian (Surrey, UK) <ACha...@CompuServe.Com>
NB There should _not_ be an(y) attachment(s) to this plain text message
John Steele Gordon
> before executing Charles I, that Charles II legally succeeded to the
throne
> as his heir (but wasn't proclaimed king), and that Parliament legally
> abolished the monarchy soon afterwards.
How could Parliament "legally" abolish the monarchy without the royal
assent? Statutes are enacted by the "King in Parliament," not by Parliament
alone.
The Royal Assent was not automatic in the mid-17th century. I believe Queen
Anne was the last sovereign to refuse it. But even today, were an
out-of-control Parliament, stripped of inconvenient members, to make so
fundamental a constitutional change as abolishing the monarchy absent a
clear electoral mandate to do so, the Queen would have every right, indeed a
profound constitutional duty, to refuse her assent.
Of course, revolutions are not famous for their adherence to constitutional
niceties. So the rump Parliament was acting not with constitutional sanction
but rather under the doctrine of force majeure.
JSG
Roz Griston
Does anybody have views of the following:
If it could be established (by some long lost document or an incredible
new
scientific test) that Edward V was murdered before his brother Richard
in
1483, would then Richard be elevated to the monarchy, as Richard IIa
perhaps?
There is now a law which I just about remember when I had to study such
things and maybe of relevance. It goes a bit like this - Where death
occurs simultaneously, or it can not be determined who dies first (eg
plane
crash etc), then for the purposes of inheritance, the deaths are deemed
to
occur in the order of age, eldest first - but did this apply in the
15c?
?Adrian (Surrey, UK) <ACha...@CompuServe.Com>
i think the only way edward v's younger brother, richard would/could
have become king richard (#) was if edward v died prior to the
cornation of richard iii. the boys were declared illigetimate, and
considered out of the running, which is how richard iii gained the
throne.
moreover, the boys were last publically seen in october 1483. if the
boys survived until after the battle of bosworth, and before henry vii
was formerly crowned..there is a slight possibility that wee richard
could be declared a king, but you still have to get past the fact the
boys had been declared illigetimate.
here's a pretty good write-up regarding their possible end.
http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/princes.html
roz
Todd A. Farmerie
taf
Chris Bennett
Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:3B78E229...@cwcom.net...
> Chris Bennett wrote:
>
> > Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
> > <snip>
> > > Not all kings and queens reign. They have to be officially recognised,
and
> > after
> > > the Rump of 1649, Charles was not.
> >
> > And your proof that Charles II was recognised by the Rump in 1649 is
exactly
> > what?
<snip> >
> > Chris
>
> No proof is necessary. When a monarch dies, the next heir is the monarch.
No one
> might know, at that time, who the next heir is, but that heir is the
monarch.
> Where there is difficulty in establishing the next heir, then there are
> problems. In the case of Charles II, there was no problem. He was the
eldest son
> of Charles I. He was the next heir. He was the monarch. Until the monarchy
was
> abolished.
>
With great respect, my question is not about the theory of succession,
either in 1649 or on any other date. The status of the monarchy was in
question at this time, which creates the background for the question. But
the question itself is about a matter of historical fact: whether or not
Charles II was recognised as king by the Rump Parliament.
You have stated several times that such nuances cannot be covered in
newsgroup postings. I respectfully disagree. All it takes is an
exposition of the background and a well-framed question. We have certainly
covered the former ad nauseam. I believe the question is sufficiently
clear: is there any proof that Charles II was recognised as king by the
Rump Parliament?
Unfortunately, the couple of books I have on the period do not specifically
cover the point. For what its worth, Ivan Root "The Great Rebellion
1642-1660" does make a point of calling him "the Prince of Wales" during
this period, not "Charles II". Nevertheless, the question ought to be
answerable, even if not by anyone here. After all, the Rump can hardly have
avoided discussing him and there are surviving reports of the debates, if
incomplete. Do you know, for example, whether he was referred to as "the
king" or as "the Prince of Wales" or similar?
Chris
Chris Bennett
Chris Phillips <cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk> wrote in message
news:E15WaHr-0002vl-00@protactinium...
<snip>
> I think the view must be that Parliament failed to abolish the monarchy
> before executing Charles I, that Charles II legally succeeded to the
throne
> as his heir (but wasn't proclaimed king), and that Parliament legally
> abolished the monarchy soon afterwards.
>
> Perhaps in a sense this could be a more balanced legalistic view than
> either of the warring factions took at the time.
Which is the problem with it -- if true. The numbering of Charles' regnal
years is good evidence that he never recognised the validity of the
abolition of the monarchy. But perhaps Parliament did take the view in 1649
that Charles had legally succeeded as king, though I don't think so.
>
> If anything the _British_ monarchy web site seems to be guilty of
_English_
> chauvinism in ignoring what happened in Scotland, though.
Totally agree!
>
> Chris Phillips
>
Phil Moody
Henry was not anti-Catholic. He was anti-Pope.
PLM: Tell that to all the Roman Catholics who Henry had killed or removed
from their lands. As Antonia Fraser says: "Cromwell had enriched Henry
beyond his wildest imaginings through dissolving first the smaller religeous
houses and then the greater monasteries, provoking the one serious threat of
the entire reign, the Pilgrimage of Grace. The insurgents were suppressed as
RUTHLESSLY as the abbots who refused to surrender their houses."
The youngest, Edward, was staunchly protestant. He resolved to turn the
country away from Catholicism in an era when protestant dissention was
growing.
PLM: AF says: "Edward became a puppet of a faction for under Somerset's rule
England became established unequivocally as a Protestant state."
The Act of Uniformity for public worship gave the Protestants a monopoly on
religeon.
He embraced the new order, much as today's teenagers embrace the internet,
body-piercing, or environmentalism.
PLM: Edward was brainwashed; so I don't think you can say it was his choice.
AF says furthermore: "The King became fanatically Protestant, as his mentors
had intended."
The eldest, Mary, was a staunch Catholic, because that was how she was
brought
up,
PLM: You mean, just as Henry VIII was raised Catholic?
Mary was not anti-Catholic. She was anti-protestant.
PLM: Not exactly true; Mary was anti-every religeon that was not Roman
Catholic.
Elizabeth was more pragmatic and was generally tolerant of Catholicism and
protestantism, hence the development of the sects during her period.
PLM: No, the "sects" were present at an earlier time. Many had escaped
during Mary's purge and were now returning from exile, under Elizabeth's
reign.
However, towards the end of her reign, came the fear of invasion by the
Spanish, a Catholic nation with marital links to her sister, Mary.
PLM: Are you saying that the Papal Bull deposing Elizabeth as monarch of
England had nothing to do with the war with Spain, or her rejection of
Philip II as a suitor?
Elizabeth's spies convinced her that the Catholic priests training at
Valladolid and other places in Spain, were really spies, and her government
set about trapping, imprisoning, and executing these priests (and other
supposed Catholic spies) in order to avert war.
PLM: War was not averted and continued long after she was dead. What ever
reason Elizabeth used to justify her persecution Roman Catholics is
pointless because the fact remains that they were persecuted, nonetheless.
Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth all persecuted Roman Catholics in
various ways and severity and the brief reign of Mary I only intensified the
ignorant inbred hatred of Roman Catholics, in the mind of the people. This
is the legacy that the Stuart's inherited from the Tudors.
Elizabeth was neither anti-protestant, nor anti-Catholic, but she was
anti-Spanish invasion, and Spain was Catholic.
PLM: Well, she was very forgiving of the Pope then, after he deposed her
from the throne of England, in the eye's of the Roman Catholics:-)
His firm belief in the Divine Right of Kings did not sit well with the
English nation, nor did his Catholic tendencies, which he intended to impose
on his new kingdom of England.
PLM: No, AF states: "Although James grew up in an atmosphere of strife he
had a sound Presbyterian and classical education."
He had no intention of "imposing" Roman Catholocism on England. The
Puritans in England wanted the Episcopacy abolished altogether from the
Church of England and James would not comply. James had initially waived the
penalties on Roman Catholics for not attending English Church services but
reimposed them after the Gunpowder Plot was discovered.
Well, that should be enough to show that the Stuart's did not bring about
the hatred of Catholics, which prevailed in England. As I said before, that
attitude began with the Tudors.
[N.B. Sorry, Todd, I wanted to make a reply to Renia's finely crafted
e-mail because it certainly deserved one.]
Best Wishes,
Phil
D. Spencer Hines
"The website shows a fairly simplistic view of British regnal history. It cannot contain every complex detail, nor every contemporary or modern analysis or opinion."
Renia Simmonds
--------------
Indeed ---- which is *one* reason why it is the epitome of silly buggers to cite and quote a website in any serious Historical or Genealogical conversation.
"The Henry Project" may possibly prove to be an exception ---- possibly.
Ernst Hoffmann
Hold it, watch it, wait a minute we must get that straight!
It all started, when the John Steele Gordon said: "She is certainly included
on no list of English monarchs and being proclaimed Queen and being Queen
are not quite the same thing."
At that time I answered that she is even contained in the "official"
Web-site of Buckingham Palace (and I don´t hesitate to add that she is also
listed as Queen in a reputable printed source of UK- origin namely
Whitaker´s Almanac 1998 rd p.132 <where she is attributed as "reigned 14
days" >
THAT, in my view, was a valid contribution and a legitimate citation
pertaining to the one question posed. And I refute the simplistic statement
as made by Mr Hines! There are good reasons to cite (and eventually discuss)
public sources of any brand in an attempt to better the knowledge and to
spread the truth. Even printed sources are not safe of errors <take CP as an
example> and (bona fide or trivial) omissions of facts. If it comes to
validation and "discussion" of facts, there are well established rules to
handle those scientifically. Nevertheless it is a legitimate to use a
lexical approach to facts which need to be considered, and many a web-site
serves no other purpose, then doing just that, tabling facts for further
consideration or refute. No scientist of any reputation, can however lean on
any authority if it comes to "discussions" and puzzling as many facts as
possible into ONE picture.
I enjoyed the discussion of "Queen Jane", since it gave me many a valid
insight for my own consideration and some of the (invalid) arguments which
simply have to be refuted. I am more than ever convinced that she was rather
a tragic figure and it was surely no consolidation for her on her way to
Tower-Hill to realise that she wasn´t a "queen in her own right" but rather
the queen on a chess-board , were others were the sole players.
Ernst
<vigorously rejecting the style "silly" for himself and his legitimate
heirs> <sm>
on 14.08.2001 22:45 Uhr, D. Spencer Hines at
Chris Dickinson
<snip>
>not quite so chris. edward vi left a will naming jane as the next
>in succession. both mary and elizabeth had been declared
>illigetimate during their father, king henry's life time. but,
>henry still named them in his will as his heirs.
<snip>
Ah, one of the problems of editing in threads.
My argument had nothing to do with the legitimacy of LJG's claim
to the throne.
It was solely a response to JSG's comment:
>Well, the King is dead, long live the king (or queen in this
>case), so somebody succeeded Edward VI on July 6th,
>but who? On July 10th the Privy Council said that Lady
>Jane Grey did. On July 19th--Oops! Sorry. Cancel that
>last announcement--the very same Privy Council (at
>least those members who hadn't headed for the hills)
>said that Mary Tudor did.
The argument was about the legitimacy of the 'Privy Council' to
act.
IF the Council weren't legitimate in the first place, then the
declaration had no legal weight.
>using a good search engine you can turn up a massive amount of
information on lady jane grey, edward vi, bloody mary and
elizabeth
:-)
D. Spencer Hines
1. Just because websites are not ALWAYS wrong on EVERYTHING they contain is no good reason for using them in lieu of serious Genealogical and Historical sources.
2. Use websites ONLY as finding aids.
3. Follow up with validated print sources.
4. Consult several print sources ---- all of high quality ---- tracking back to different primary sources, if possible.
5. Triangulate.
John 5:14
Deus Vult.
Exitus Acta Probat.
Deutschland Unter Alles.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
"For by diligent perusing the actes of great men, by considering all the circumstances of them, by composing Counseiles and Meanes with events, a man may seem to have lived in all ages, to have been present at all enterprises, to be more strongly confirmed in Judgement, to have attained a greater experience than the longest life can possibly afford."
John Hayward, __The Lives of the III Norman Kings of England, William the First, William the Second and Henry I__, London, 1612, Preface
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Ernst Hoffmann" <ErnstHo...@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:B79F74DB.10403%ErnstHo...@compuserve.com...
Ernst Hoffmann
"Follow up with validated print sources:"
Here they come
Debrett's Kings and Queens of Britain, Page 127. Her dates given are 10-19
July 1553
and
Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, page 206. With the same dates.
"Triangulate"
The first CinC of the German Navy (after 1870) was a certain Generaladmiral
(more stripes than a zebra) v. Koester: One day he had an artillery exercise
scheduled and as it was standard procedure, THIS was followed by a critic:
Everybody expressed gratitude to the gunners for thoroughly following the
procedure and therefore should get highest praise.
Finally Admiral v. Koester stepped up and said a mere sentence: "Gentleman,
I would have preferred you not to fire IAW the procedure but to fire at the
target"
(For those not familiar with the German language (preferred by the Admiral:
"fire IAW" and "fire at" both translate to "nach dem") Well, this is hearsay
as printed and hawked by several sources!!!
Moral: you simply can´t win .........as a gunner
Ernst
on 15.08.2001 0:54 Uhr, D. Spencer Hines at D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu
D. Spencer Hines
Here it is again:
"From: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Temporal
Lady Jane Grey is indeed listed as Queen Jane in Cheney.
She is assigned dates of 6 July to 19 July 1553, in that source.
Edward VI died on 6 July.
The Council of State proclaimed Lady Jane to be Queen of England on 10 July 1553.
Opinions obviously differ."
John 5:14
"For by diligent perusing the actes of great men, by considering all the circumstances of them, by composing Counseiles and Meanes with events, a man may seem to have lived in all ages, to have been present at all enterprises, to be more strongly confirmed in Judgement, to have attained a greater experience than the longest life can possibly afford."
John Hayward, __The Lives of the III Norman Kings of England, William the First, William the Second and Henry I__, London, 1612, Preface
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Ernst Hoffmann" <ErnstHo...@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:B79FBD35.1041F%ErnstHo...@compuserve.com...
Ernst Hoffmann
wrote:
> John 5:14
"Postea invenit eum Iesus in templo et dixit illi: "Ecce sanus factus es,
iam noli peccare, ne deterius aliquid contingat"
PLUS:
Mathew 5:37:
"Sit autem sermo vester: "Est est", "Non non"; quod autem his abundatius
est, a Mal est.
Cited from
Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum editio. Sacros. oecum. concilii Vaticani II
ratione habita iussu Pauli PP. VI recognita auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP.
promulgata, Libreria Editirice Vaticana, pp 1913 sq et 1785
For the Greek version see also Nestle, Aland: (26 ed) Novum Testamentum
graece OR Greek New Testament (3rd ed) (a direct Citation escapes the
capabilities of THIS computer)
The source is also available in the WWW.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/
But in all honesty, Mr Hines, you killing your own argument to ONLY use
PRINTED SOURCES. The originals of this source aren´t printed, but are
HANDWRITTEN. Contrary to many "printed sources" it however has the fame as
being TRUE <sm> <LOL>, <ROFL> (;-).
Ernst
PS
> You seem to think Hines has said Lady Jane Grey was never queen or some other
bollixed version of what he *actually* said.
My ultimate answer : "No" (i.e. I didn´t think that, because I have read the
original message on the Web). (My "reservation" was clearly indicating the
sole and single sentence from Your Excellencies font of wisdom, which raised
my left eyebrow for less than a hundredth of an inch: And since I do not
want to overburden your Serene Hi(gh)nes(s) valuable time by searching for
it, I take the humble liberty to repeat the citation:
| > | on 14.08.2001 22:45 Uhr, D. Spencer Hines at
| > | D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu wrote:
| > |
| > | > Indeed ---- which is *one* reason why it is the epitome of silly
buggers
| > to
| > | > cite and quote a website in any serious Historical or Genealogical
| > | > conversation. )
PS II
Given under our own signature and seal as a token of deep and continued
sympathy, mutual interest and sincere friendship !
PS III: "Roma locuta, causa finita"
Jill Collier
>>in succession. both mary and elizabeth had been declared
>>illigetimate during their father, king henry's life time. but,
>>henry still named them in his will as his heirs.
My query about the forging of Henry V111's Will by Henry Bradshaw and whether
there is a source or back-up to the story - interestingly I also understand
that Bradshaw witnessed the Will of Ed. V1 which named LJG as his
successor.....
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
> > especially if you want to understand how even our modern governments
> > work.
>
> ford said
> And corporate management.
>
> rg/hmm..isn't windsor palace referred to the corporate
> headquarters..for "the corporation".
I did not say that governments were not corporate entities. I did say that
Macchiavelli would explain the machinations of many non-governmental
corporations as well as governments.
>
> machevalli is truely the beaucrat's bible. i bet william cecil read him
> too.
And Sir Francis Walshingham.
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
No one
> might know, at that time, who the next heir is, but that heir is the
monarch.
> Where there is difficulty in establishing the next heir, then there are
> problems. In the case of Charles II, there was no problem. He was the
eldest son
> of Charles I. He was the next heir. He was the monarch. Until the monarchy
was
> abolished.
>
This is why positions/offices such as 'Prince of Wales', (before that 'Duke
of Cornwall'), 'Prince of Asturias', 'Le Dauphin', 'Crown Prince',
'Hereditary Prince', 'Tanist', 'Heir Presumptive', etc., were created.
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
> > his claims to George III. Whether he had a right so to do or no.
>
> Anyone can will what they like. It's up to the courts to decide if you
> have a legal right to what you claim.
>
Right. And the appropriate court here would be The House of Lords.
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
> considered out of the running, which is how richard iii gained the
> throne.
>
> boys had been declared illigetimate.
>
> here's a pretty good write-up regarding their possible end.
> http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/princes.html
>
Say, rather, that they were found, determined or discovered to be
illegitimate. This finding, determination or discovery was then declared.
To say that the boys were declared to be illegitimate implies that some
entity had the right, power or authority so to decree or to decide. Tituli
Regis was a finding or conclusion. The point made, however, is correct. It
also applies to the boys' sisters. Henry VII ruled by right of conquest,
not _de jure uxoris_.
U...@aol.com
kevan...@earthlink.net writes:
> Folks,
>
> What sayest thou? Did King John Balliol of Scotland have a daughter Anne by
> Isabella de Warenne? This Anne was said to have married Brian FitzAlan of
> Bedale. I looked in the archives, but didn't find anything to calm my
> quiver. Perhaps I was calling up the wrong person and hence didn't find
> Anne
I have [1] Brian FitzAlan [d. aft. 17 July 1242] of Bedale m. Alice Hansard;
[2] Brian FitzAlan [d. 1 June 1306] of Bedale m. 1st Muriel, 2nd Maud. The
only child I show for John & Isabelle is Edward. My notes on John:
JOHN BALLIOL, 3rd, but 1st surviving son of John Baliol (sometime Regent of
Scotland), by Devorgild, 3rd daughter and coheir of Alan, Lord of Galloway,
was born about 1240, being aged 40, 29 November 1280, and was summoned to
attend the King at Shrewsbury, 28 June 1283, by writ directed Johani de
Balliolo. He possessed the Barony of Bywell, Northumberland, and Barnard's
Castle, Co. Durham. In right of his descent, through his mother Devorgild,
from David I, he was crowned KING OF SCOTLAND at Scone, 30 November 1292,
having been awarded the Crown by Edwtrd I. In 1295 he lost his English
Barony of Bywell, which was given to John of Brittany, Earl of Richmond,
nephew of Edward I. He abdicated in July 1296. After being detained for some
three years as a prisoner in England, he went to France. He married, before
February 1280/1, Isabel, daughter of John (WARENNE) EARL OF SURREY. He died
between 4 March 1313/4 and 4 January 1314/5 in France. [CP 1:385]
Always optimistic--Dave
Renia
No.
The House of Lords is not a court of law, and never has been. Neither
does it have the power to make laws.
The triumverate of Parliament, the Monarch and the Judiciary, together,
make the laws of this land. No single one of them can act alone to make
laws.
Bills go through three readings (or debates) in the House of Commons,
before they are voted on in that lower house. If the bill fails, it is
forgotten, until and if someone tries again, perhaps with an amendment.
If the bills is passed, it goes to the House of Lords for debate, and
to be voted upon. Then the Queen gives her assent, and the bill becomes
law; it becomes an Act of Parliament.
This has not changed so very much over the last thousand years, which is
why the actions of both Charles I and the Parliamentary Rump were
technically illegal, even treasonable.
Renia
Renia
>Renia wrote:
>Henry was not anti-Catholic. He was anti-Pope.
>
>PLM: Tell that to all the Roman Catholics who Henry had killed or removed
>from their lands. As Antonia Fraser says: "Cromwell had enriched Henry
>beyond his wildest imaginings through dissolving first the smaller religeous
>houses and then the greater monasteries, provoking the one serious threat of
>the entire reign, the Pilgrimage of Grace. The insurgents were suppressed as
>RUTHLESSLY as the abbots who refused to surrender their houses."
>
Oh, dear. You are confusing one historical sequence with another and
putting a 21st century perspective on to 16th century actions. We are
not discussing Henry VIII and Catholicism, per se, but Catholicism as it
relates to the Stuarts and the abolition of the monarchy, and we are not
even supposed to be discussing that, as Todd has reminded us. Rulers,
since the beginning of time, and in all continents have acted viciously
and greedily. It is not for us to judge their actions but to analyse
them. In this case, the dissolution of the monasteries was not the
dissolution of Catholicism. The monasteries were greedy, rich and
corrupt. But that's another story.
>
>The youngest, Edward, was staunchly protestant. He resolved to turn the
>country away from Catholicism in an era when protestant dissention was
>growing.
>
>PLM: AF says: "Edward became a puppet of a faction for under Somerset's rule
>England became established unequivocally as a Protestant state."
> The Act of Uniformity for public worship gave the Protestants a monopoly on
>religeon.
>
As a child, long under the wing of his ambitious uncle, Edward VI could
be nothing other than that uncle's puppet. But that does not change the
strong Protestant faith that Edward held. and how strongly he, himself
communicated with his sisters that they would be wise to embrace it.
>
>He embraced the new order, much as today's teenagers embrace the internet,
>body-piercing, or environmentalism.
>
>PLM: Edward was brainwashed; so I don't think you can say it was his choice.
>AF says furthermore: "The King became fanatically Protestant, as his mentors
>had intended."
>
It doesn't matter whether it was his choice. Nonetheless, he imposed his
will with it and it had a strong effect on the country's development as
a protestant state.
>
>The eldest, Mary, was a staunch Catholic, because that was how she was
>brought
>up,
>
>PLM: You mean, just as Henry VIII was raised Catholic?
>
Indeed.
>
>Mary was not anti-Catholic. She was anti-protestant.
>
>PLM: Not exactly true; Mary was anti-every religeon that was not Roman
>Catholic.
>
Well, every religion that was not Roman Catholic was protestant. Note
the lower-case 'c' in my post. At that time, protestantism was a status,
not a name; a means of identifying faiths that protested against the
Catholic religlion. It was called the Protestant faith later. Thus, Mary
was anti-protestant.
>
>Elizabeth was more pragmatic and was generally tolerant of Catholicism and
>protestantism, hence the development of the sects during her period.
>
>PLM: No, the "sects" were present at an earlier time. Many had escaped
>during Mary's purge and were now returning from exile, under Elizabeth's
>reign.
>
Of course the 'sects', known as protestants (lower-case 'c') were
present at an earlier time. I said this in a previous post, if you read
it. By the time of Elizabeth, however, the protestants were able to
develop during her long reign. Six years of Edward VI does not give very
long for new ideas to develop, and Mary's reign had paused the
development of protestantism born in the reign of Henry VIII.
>
>However, towards the end of her reign, came the fear of invasion by the
>Spanish, a Catholic nation with marital links to her sister, Mary.
>
>PLM: Are you saying that the Papal Bull deposing Elizabeth as monarch of
>England had nothing to do with the war with Spain, or her rejection of
>Philip II as a suitor?
>
I wasn't discussing this, and I won't discuss it now. As Todd says, it
is not genealogy. I was responding with a short Catholic history of
England during the Tudors and Stuarts to a comment someone else made.
Foreign policy was not part of the discussion.
>Elizabeth's spies convinced her that the Catholic priests training at
>Valladolid and other places in Spain, were really spies, and her government
>set about trapping, imprisoning, and executing these priests (and other
>supposed Catholic spies) in order to avert war.
>
>PLM: War was not averted and continued long after she was dead.
>
The invasion of England that Elizabeth was trying to prevent, never took
place, so she succeeded. As to the various European Wars which took
place until even living memory, that is another matter, and not for
discussion here.
> What ever
>reason Elizabeth used to justify her persecution Roman Catholics is
>pointless because the fact remains that they were persecuted, nonetheless.
>
I doubt that Elizabeth ever wasted a moment thinking, "I think I'll
persecute a few Catholics today". Thus, she did not have to justify any
persecution of Catholics, because she did not see it that way. As I said
at the beginning of this post, we cannot put 21st-century thinking on to
16th century actions.
>
> Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth all persecuted Roman Catholics in
>various ways and severity and the brief reign of Mary I only intensified the
>ignorant inbred hatred of Roman Catholics, in the mind of the people. This
>is the legacy that the Stuart's inherited from the Tudors.
>
It was the idolatrous aspect of Catholicism which English Protestants
distrusted. As more easy-going faiths developed, England and Scotland
took a shine to them. It suited the easy-going English temparament. But
remember, it was all new and unknown at the time. We have the benefit of
hindsight, so we are able to make value judgements about why this or
that happened, which may or may not have entered the minds of those we
are discussing, which is why we have to abandon the value judgements,
and learn to understand the political will of the times. But, yes, you
are right. The Tudor legacy was handed to the Stuarts, but while the
Tudors wavered between the old religion and the new, the Stuarts
embraced only the old religion. Having disposed of it, neither England
nor Scotland wanted it back again.
>
>Elizabeth was neither anti-protestant, nor anti-Catholic, but she was
>anti-Spanish invasion, and Spain was Catholic.
>
>PLM: Well, she was very forgiving of the Pope then, after he deposed her
>from the throne of England, in the eye's of the Roman Catholics:-)
>
As I said, she was a pragmatist. And as he was not head of her Church,
the Pope's actions probably held less sway with her than it did with
previous rulers.
>
> His firm belief in the Divine Right of Kings did not sit well with the
>English nation, nor did his Catholic tendencies, which he intended to impose
>on his new kingdom of England.
>
>PLM: No, AF states: "Although James grew up in an atmosphere of strife he
>had a sound Presbyterian and classical education."
> He had no intention of "imposing" Roman Catholocism on England. The
>Puritans in England wanted the Episcopacy abolished altogether from the
>Church of England and James would not comply.
>
Church and state were still interwoven at this time, and that is hard
for us to imagine. The bishops were becoming increasingly powerful
within the state, and some wanted that link broken. James wanted to keep
it. Indeed, he wanted to develop it.
> James had initially waived the
>penalties on Roman Catholics for not attending English Church services but
>reimposed them after the Gunpowder Plot was discovered.
> Well, that should be enough to show that the Stuart's did not bring about
>the hatred of Catholics, which prevailed in England. As I said before, that
>attitude began with the Tudors.
>
I was not arguing that the Stuarts brought about a hatred of Catholics.
It was the power of the Catholic Church that the people distrusted, and
thus, anyone who embodied that power, particularly bishops and kings.
The Stuart kings looked set to re-establish the power of the Catholic
Church, and so they increasingly alienated the people. At the same time,
James had established Stuart thinking on the Divine Right of Kings,
which his son, Charles I took to the nth degree, even having it declared
in church in 1626, that it was sinful to refuse financial support to the
king, that is, himself. As I say in another post, laws are and were
passed by voting in the two Houses of Parliament, and by the assent of
the monarch. Charles wanted to and did bypass Parliament altogether.
Eventually, Parliament chose to bypass him and his son.
>
> [N.B. Sorry, Todd, I wanted to make a reply to Renia's finely crafted
>e-mail because it certainly deserved one.]
>
Sorry, too, Todd, but I felt this deserved an answer.
>Best Wishes,
>Phil
>
Renia
Renia
<snip>
>
>With great respect, my question is not about the theory of succession,
>either in 1649 or on any other date. The status of the monarchy was in
>question at this time,
>
No, it wasn't. Charles II was impeached, not the monarchy. The monarchy
was abolished later, by a Parliament which found it
had the power to do so.
> which creates the background for the question. But
>the question itself is about a matter of historical fact: whether or not
>Charles II was recognised as king by the Rump Parliament.
>
That Charles II was recognised as king by the Rump (in the period before
they abolished the monarchy) was automatic.
>You have stated several times that such nuances cannot be covered in
>newsgroup postings. I respectfully disagree. All it takes is an
>exposition of the background and a well-framed question. We have certainly
>covered the former ad nauseam. I believe the question is sufficiently
>clear: is there any proof that Charles II was recognised as king by the
>Rump Parliament?
>
It was automatic. The Rump had to recognise the monarchy, in order to be
able to abolish it. If they recognised the monarchy,
then they recognised the king they sought to abolish.
However, these were revolutionary times. On the day of Charles I's
execution, an act was passed against the proclamation of
any successor to him. A week later, the Rump decided that the house of
peers was useless. The two acts for abolishing the
kingly office and the house of lords respectively, were passed on 17 and
19 March 1649. Debates as to the legality of these
acts, or of their timing, is for another newsgroup.
>
>Unfortunately, the couple of books I have on the period do not specifically
>cover the point. For what its worth, Ivan Root "The Great Rebellion
>1642-1660" does make a point of calling him "the Prince of Wales" during
>this period, not "Charles II". Nevertheless, the question ought to be
>answerable, even if not by anyone here. After all, the Rump can hardly have
>avoided discussing him and there are surviving reports of the debates, if
>incomplete. Do you know, for example, whether he was referred to as "the
>king" or as "the Prince of Wales" or similar?
>
I think they referred to him and his father as Charles Stuart.
>Chris
>
P.S. Sorry, Todd.
Amanda Jones
wrote:
> >Right. And the appropriate court here would be The House of Lords.
> >
> No.
>
> The House of Lords is not a court of law, and never has been. Neither
> does it have the power to make laws.
What on earth are you talking about??? The House of Lords is (and has
been) the highest court in the land, with appropriate and disputed nods to
the European courts.
Amanda
Chris Bennett
Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:3B7AF13E...@cwcom.net...
<snip>
On the day of Charles I's
> execution, an act was passed against the proclamation of
> any successor to him.
<snip>
>
> I think they referred to him and his father as Charles Stuart.
>
That's what I was looking for. Its clear from this that the Rump never, in
point of fact, recognised Charles II as king, whatever monarchist
constitutional theory may say they ought to have thought they were doing.
As you say, those were revolutionary times. The only way that the compiler
of the official UK monarchy website can assign him two reigns in England is
to impose a constitutional theory which may be correct in some ethereal
sense but has no contemporary historical basis.
Thank you Renia; I recognise you don't accept this view. Apologies to all
that it took so long to get here -- I had thought this would be a very
simple matter.
Finally, with all due respect to Todd, Ford, Renia and no doubt quite a few
others, I don't feel too guilty about discussing this here, even though no
actual question of descent was involved. (Besides, I DID offer to take it
elsewhere!) These matters of establishing correct dates and offices are
very relevant to genealogical method. Certainly, in this particular case,
there is no actual doubt about who's who. But in early medieval times, and
in ancient times, prosopographical arguments based on this type of data are
often the only basis we have for proceeding. (In fact much of Settipani's
work is based on this principle, to cite only the example most often
discussed here.) If such analyses are to be correct, its vital that we
always seek to get away from modern blinders, and the blinders imposed by
reversal of fortune, and to get as close as we can to the meaning that the
people at the time attached to those offices.
This is a methodological point we can discuss in another thread if anyone is
interested. As to the two reigns of Charles II in England: Finis.
Chris
Amanda Jones
avj...@cix.compulink.co.uk (Amanda Jones) wrote:
Further to this, from URL
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldinfo/ld08j
udg/ld08judg.htm
the following:
"The House of Lords hears appeals from the Court of Appeal in England and
Wales and Northern Ireland in both civil and criminal matters and from the
Court of Session in Scotland in civil matters. In addition, the House
hears criminal appeals from a Divisional Court of the Queens's Bench
Division of the High Court in England and Wales and from the High Court in
Northern Ireland. Certain kinds of civil cases may also be brought direct
from the High Court in England and Wales and Northern Ireland under what
is colloquially known as the 'leapfrog' procedure. The House may also hear
appeals from the Courts-Martial Appeal Court."
and
"History of the Jurisdiction
The origin of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords is to be
found in the royal jurisdiction of the mediaeval monarchy. In the early
Middle Ages the King, sometimes with his Council, or curia regis, was the
supreme law giver and judge. Petitions of many kinds including those
asking for the Kings' justice (some of which we can still recognise as
public petitions or Private Bills) were addressed to the King, or to the
King in Council. This high judicial function over the years evolved into
the appellate jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters exercised, with
the assent of the King, by the medieval concilium regis ordinarium. This
body included the great officers of state and the judges and from the
later thirteenth century it invariably sat with the Lords temporal and
spiritual to form the magnum concilium in parliamento or the curia
parliamenti. In the course of the fourteenth century the Lords took the
jurisdiction into their own hands, using members of the concilium
ordinarium only as assistants. Early appeals were brought from the Court
of King's Bench by way of a petition to the King or, more commonly in
later years, by a writ issued by the Crown where error had occurred in the
Court of King's Bench.
The jurisdiction was exercised by the House of Lords alone. An exchange
between the Commons and the Crown in the first Parliament of Henry IV in
1399 epitomizes the differing roles of the two Houses of Parliament. The
Commons, wishing to absolve themselves from responsibility for the
deposition of Richard II, declared 'That the judgments of Parliament
appertain exclusively to the king and the Lords, and not to the Commons.'
And the reply by the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Crown was,
'That the king and Lords have ever had, and of right shall enjoy, the
privilege of judgment in Parliament as the Commons have confessed; save
that in the making of statutes, in grants of subsidies, and in matters
concerning the common profit of the realm, the king desires especially
their advice and consent; and that such order and proceeding be maintained
and adhered to in all time to come.' (Rot. Parl. I Hen. IV, no. 79 -
printed vol. iii, p. 427)
During the sixteenth century the judicial function fell into abeyance, but
when the House sought to revive its jurisdiction in the seventeenth
century it was able to resort successfully to earlier precedent to justify
the resumption of an active judicial role not only upon reference from the
Crown but also, from the reign of Charles I, over causes in equity on
petition direct to themselves. But, of course, this jurisdiction then
extended only to England and Wales and Ireland. Appeals from Scotland were
not entertained until after the Act of Union of 1707. In 1783 an appellate
jurisdiction was conceded to the Irish House of Lords over the Irish
Courts but this was withdrawn following the Treaty of Union in 1801.
In 1873 the House's jurisdiction in respect of English appeals (though not
Irish or Scottish appeals) was to be abolished by the Supreme Court of
Judicature Act. But Mr Gladstone's Liberal government fell in February
1874, before the Act came into effect. Lord Cairns, Disraeli's Lord
Chancellor, introduced a bill to transfer Irish and Scottish appeals as
well, but he lost the support of the Cabinet and the bill was dropped
after Committee Stage in the Commons. The Supreme Court of Judicature Act
(1873) Suspension Act 1874 postponed the coming into effect of the 1873
Act. Lord Cairns reintroduced his bill in the following Session, but was
forced to drop it again, this time during Committee Stage in the Lords.
The Supreme Court of Judicature Act (1873) Amendment Act 1875 again
postponed the coming into effect of the 1873 Act, and public, professional
and parliamentary opinion swung back in favour of the Lords' ancient
jurisdiction. Finally, the Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1876 repealed the
provisions of the Judicature Act which affected the House of Lords before
they had come into operation and the ancient jurisdiction of the House was
confirmed and defined."
Amanda
D. Spencer Hines
Ernst"
------------------
Nein, Kamerad.
I said nothing of the sort.
This is what I said:
-------------------------
"Twaddle und Codswallop.
1. Just because websites are not ALWAYS wrong on EVERYTHING they contain is no good reason for using them in lieu of serious Genealogical and Historical sources.
2. Use websites ONLY as finding aids. ***[N. B. And only do THAT with the utmost care and due diligence. ---- DSH] (Added)***
3. Follow up with validated print sources.
4. Consult several print sources ---- all of high quality ---- tracking back to different
primary sources, if possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5. Triangulate.
John 5:14
Deus Vult.
Exitus Acta Probat.
Deutschland Unter Alles.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum."
-------------------------------------
The PRIMARY sources will indeed be handwritten ---- in many cases.
Read, Mark, Learn and Inwardly Digest.
Eschew Pratfall.
Endeavour To Persevere.
Renia
Amanda Jones wrote:
Yes. Caught out. My post was badly worded.
The House of Lords is the final Court of Appeal from both English and
Scots Courts, but the House of Lords, when sitting to hear appeals from
the English or Scots Courts, is a very different body from the ordinary
House of Lords. Although the Court is held in the same chamber where the
House of Peers sits at Westminster, the only persons allowed to sit as
members of the Court are the Lord Chancellor, and the Lords of Appeal.
Renia
Phil Moody
Thank you for the reply! It is clear to me that we will never reach a
consensus in matters of Religion and Politics and any further comments will
be an effort in futility:-)
Concerning the subject which you and Chris were discussing; I thought I
would mention a salient fact that never came up. This is the fact that
Charles Stuart the Younger was in Holland when he heard that his poor old da
was murdered, King Charles (I).
Cheers,
Phil
D. Spencer Hines
Renia Simmonds obviously knows her British History and Genealogy in this period and Moody does not. Indeed, he has not a clue. ---- So, any attempt at a "consensus" between them is a waste of time and would produce only errant gibberish.
Further, Moody shows no signs of being willing to learn from Renia ---- but simply insists on parading his ignorance ---- to the max.
There can be no genuine "debate" on *any* serious subject between the Knowledgeable and the Ignorant-Arrogant.
This was one of Renia's best points. Tolle, Lege:
| Oh, dear. You are confusing one historical sequence with another and
| putting a 21st century perspective on to 16th century actions.
Read, Mark, Learn and Inwardly Digest.
Deus Vult.
Fortem Posce Animum.
"For by diligent perusing the actes of great men, by considering all the circumstances of them, by composing Counseiles and Meanes with events, a man may seem to have lived in all ages, to have been present at all enterprises, to be more strongly confirmed in Judgement, to have attained a greater experience than the longest life can possibly afford."
John Hayward, __The Lives of the III Norman Kings of England, William the First, William the Second and Henry I__, London, 1612, Preface
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Phil Moody" <moody...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:MABBKIIDLFFPHHHMGNN...@prodigy.net...
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
> >
> Church and state were still interwoven at this time, and that is hard
> for us to imagine.
Not for Americans. Not at all!
Phil Moody
Yes. Caught out. My post was badly worded.
PLM: Renia, "badly worded" is a gross understatement! Ford had already
informed us that he studied Parliamentary law and if you are going to
challenge him on his knowledge of it; please give your rebuttal a little
more thought next time. Your hasty reply left you with your knickers down on
this point:-)
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Renia
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 5:15 AM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Temporal
Phil Moody
Not for Americans. Not at all!
PLM: Exactly, Ford. In order to understand "separation of Church and State";
then one must first understand the "Need" for it and why it is such an
important component of our Constitution (Article VI) and Bill of Rights (1st
Amendment).
The lunacy we left behind in England is still an integral part of the
curriculum in American History.
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne [mailto:smo...@peoplepc.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:49 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Temporal
> >
Robert S Baxter
This is OT. But "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of
religion" has been stood on its head. As originally intended it was meant
to keep Congress from disestablishing the state churches in the original
thirteen not to keep the state out of any connection with a religious
establishment.
Bob
Phil Moody
Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity in my e-mail! For clarification,
here is a portion of Article VI of the Constitution; which I specifically
had in mind:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
Office or public Trust under the United States."
I think the bit about "no religious test" makes it clear that they did not
want "Religion" to be a prerequisite to holding any office, unlike England.