Henry VIII: What did he really know and believe. Conclusion.

Tags

Anne Boleyn, Arthur Prince of Wales, Catherine of Aragon, hantavirus, King Henry VIII of England, Pope Julius II

I think my background in psychology is helping me understand Henry VIII during this crucial time in history. I will not bore you with the psychoanalysis but I will mention some of what I think is at play for Henry. Henry VIII certainly was a man for his times. A stated in my initial post on this subject, the way women were seen and treated played a large role in the circumstances. What really surprised me about the role in which women played not only at court but in all society at the time, which was a rigid social hierarchy, was that they too bought into the belief system that they were the inferior sex and that their place in life was divinely ordained. The truth is all saw that their station in life was divinely ordained. So if you were a man or a woman, a Pauper or a Prince, you were obligated to function in that role as a means of carrying out God’s ideal of an ordered and civilized society.

I think this did shape and form much of Henry VIII’s worldview and thinking. In the hierarchy of civil society the King was there on his throne by the Will of God. That is why, centuries later, the killing of King Charles I was such a cultural shock and a demonstration that people’s thinking was changing. With Henry at the top of the proverbial food chain he was not answerable to his subjects but to God only. It does seem that Henry did have strong religious convictions. He also saw his role as being King be the Grace of God and ultimately he was only answerable to him. This is what placed the king in a quandary.

The politics of early to mid 16th century England was that of a country still reeling from the results of the Wars of the Roses, a civil war for the throne of England. Although he had a daughter, the future Queen Mary I, he was still convinced that a woman was not strong enough to rule England. He needed sons to secure the succession and to stabilize the Tudor family on the English throne fearing that without a son the country would quickly relapse into a civil war. Henry also had quite the eye. Breaking his marriage vows and having a mistress was easily justified. Justification and denial are classic defense mechanisms which Henry employed. With women viewed as property they were there just for Henry to use as he pleased. After all, he was the King.

Although I do not blame Anne Boleyn for her execution, she certainly does seem like a victim of Henry’s authority, I do place some responsibility on her for the divorce from Catherine of Aragon. Anne was not content, like her sister, Mary Boleyn, to be Henry’s mistress. Anne did have higher ambitions. However, that does bring me to one of those unanswerable questions of history. Would Henry have divorced Catherine had Anne agreed to be his mistress? In many ways this question is unanswerable, however, my opinion is that the divorce would have happened anyway because the ultimate goal for Henry was to beget sons. Anne just provided the motivation to pursue the divorces

In the end Henry saw that his kingly duty to God and his country was to provide for a stable throne and to secure a peaceful transition of government upon his death. He was a man of his times and acted in accordance to those beliefs that many in society held at the time. This divorce can also been seen as the first step in the downward spiral of Henry VIII. Prior to that he was the embodiment of an early Renascence King. However, as he grew in power that power corrupted him to be come the bloody tyrant known to history.

Legal Succession: The House of Stuart, Part I

Tags

Anne of Denmark, Charles II, English Civil War, English Commonwealth, Henrietta Maria de Bourbon of France, King Frederik II of Denmark and Norway, King Henri IV of France and Navarre, King James II-VII, Marie de' Medici, Oliver Cromwell, Prince Henry Frederick, Sophie of Mecklenburg-Güstrow

We have reached an interesting point in this series. Although, as we shall see, the House of Stuart will have its difficult times on and off the thrones of England and Scotland, we have reached a period of relative stability as far as legal successions are concerned. There will be a few more crises for the throne but we will not see civil wars and usurpations like we have had in the past. In the next section of this topic we will see the rise of Parliament and the battle with the Crown over the power within the government. I will examine how this conflict actually helped stabilize the Crown and the succession to the throne.

James I-VI, King of England and King of Scots (when still only King of Scots) married Princess Anne of Denmark in 1589, the daughter of King Frederik II of Denmark and Norway and his wife, Sophie of Mecklenburg-Güstrow. They would have seven children, three sons and four daughters, and only three of them surviving childhood. The eldest son, Prince Henry Frederick, was created The Duke of Rothesay as heir to the Scottish throne in 1594. Upon his father’s accession of the English throne in 1603 Henry Frederick automatically became Duke of Cornwall. In 1610 his father created him The Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. Although young, Henry Frederick displayed great promise in leadership and his sudden death from Typhoid at the age of 18 dashed the hopes of many.

This left his rather sickly brother, Charles, Duke of Albany, as heir to his fathers kingdoms. In the due corse of time Charles became King of England and King of Scots when his father passed away on March 27, 1605. The same year of his succession King Charles married Henrietta Maria de Bourbon of France, daughter of King Henri IV of France and Navarre and his second wife, Marie de’ Medici. This marriage returned England to the problems between Protestants and Catholics.  Henrietta Maria was a Catholic and for that reason she was distrusted at court. Her Catholicism influenced both her two eldest sons, the future King Charles II and King James II-VII. These conflicts over religion would have implications on the legal succession.

Charles I had a difficult reign. He ruled for 11 years without Parliament and only reluctantly called Parliament because he needed to raise money for war. I will not focus on the English Civil Wars for that is a complex topic for another day. However, the Civil War did lead to Charles I being arrested, tried and convicted of treason and on January 30, 1649 he was beheaded and the monarchy was abolished. England was declared a Commonwealth and power was assumed by a Council of State, which included Lord Fairfax, then Lord General of the Parliamentary Army, and Oliver Cromwell.

As noted other places in when there is a war the victor gets to rewrite the laws and rules. In reality at that moment in time the throne was gone and the Commonwealth was the successor to the Kingdom of England. To his supporters Charles, Prince of Wales, was now the pretender to the extinct throne. He was a man with a high price tag on his head and spent many years on the run. He was crowned King of Scots in 1651 but with Cromwell’s army on his heels his stay in Scotland was brief. The next part will examine how Charles II became the legal King of England and King of Scots. I will also examine how his childless marriage and his brother’s Catholicism created a conflict for the throne.

Henry VIII: What did he really know & believe? Part 2

Tags

Anne Boleyn, Arthur Prince of Wales, Catherine of Aragon, hantavirus, King Henry VIII of England, Pope Julius II

Last week I examined how Henry VIII justified his divorce from Catherine of Aragon from a Scriptural point of view. One of the issues hinging on that Scriptural point of view was whether or not Catherine’s marriage to Arthur, Prince of Wales was consummated or not. For her entire life Catherine maintained that her marriage to Arthur was never consummated. I really do not doubt her much…however there are some questions I want to examine.

Arthur was 15 at the time of his marriage to Catherine in November of 1501. Catherine was one month shy of turning 16. After a 5 day wedding feast the couple were bedded together in which most of the court put the young couple to bed in an elaborate ceremony. The next morning Arthur is alleged to have said that he was “in Spain” that night suggesting that the marriage had indeed been consummated. However the marriage did not last long. Arthur died the next spring on April 2, 1502. The cause of his death is unknown but it has been theorized that he may have had consumption, diabetes, or the mysterious sweating sickness, which some modern theorists tie to a hantavirus a virus that has entirely been linked to human contact with rodent excrement.

Was Arthur too sick at the time to consummate his marriage? If not that first night than any of the nights over the next 5 months they were together? (Arthur’s illness)

Another question, and I apologize if this seems crass, wouldn’t Henry VIII himself know that his wife was a virgin when he married her? That is a difficult question to answer. Only Catherine and Henry truly knew. However, if Henry knew that his was, Catherine, was indeed a virgin, then that really paints a picture of his character. For if he knew, through personal experience, that Catherine was indeed a virgin then his lies and attempts to paint her as a liar are cruel and heartless.

Legal Succession: Elizabeth I of England & James VI of Scotland: Part 4

Tags

James VI-I of Scotland and England, Elizabeth I of England, Lady Arabella Stuart, Sir Robert Cecil, Earl of Mar, Edward Bruce, Commendator of Kinloss

We have looked at all of the people in line to the succession to the throne of England. The fact that James VI, King of Scots was eventually chosen as successor to Elizabeth I demonstrates two ideas. First and foremost is the fact that male prefered primogeniture had become the tradition if not the law by this time. The second point is that the monarch still had power to name their successor. Although by the late 1590s it had become treasonous to talk about the succession to the queen herself there were those that knew the issue had to be raised eventually.

The queen’s chief minister was Sir Robert Cecil who at one point supported the succession of Lady Arabella Stuart to the throne. He eventually shifted his alliance to the King of Scots and in 1601 began secret correspondences with James promising him the throne of England. The action toward supporting James on the English throne was not solely originating in England. James actively pursued his rights to the English throne and in February of 1601 The Earl of Mar and Edward Bruce, Commendator of Kinloss, went to London as ambassadors for the purpose of having james recognized as heir to Queen Elizabeth. Because of the possibility of treason these efforts were done in secret. The Scottish embassadors even went from town to town trying to gain support for James and his claim to the throne.

Despite the secret correspondences there is evidence that Elizabeth I did indeed expect that James would succeed her. Historians remark that her own regular correspondence with James became more friendly at this time. She also increased the irregular subsidy which Elizabeth paid to James, either in cash or jewellery was increased. In March of 1603 as the end of the life of Elizabeth was certain the subject was raised on her death-bed. Historians cannot substantiate if any of this is true. She was unable to speak but was able to gesture. A list of names was read to her containing those in line for the succession and when James VI of Scotland was mentioned she made a circular motion in the air taken to mean she agreed with that choice.

When Elizabeth died in the early morning hours of March 24, 1603 Sir Robert Cecil proclaimed James VI of Scotland as King of England. On April 5 James set forth for London promising to return to Edinburgh (he never did). He arrived in London on May 7 and was crowned at Westminster Abby on July 25. The succession from the Tudor Dynasty to the Stuart Dynasty went smoothly.

James wanted to unite the two crowns into the Kingdom of Great Britain. However there were many issues blocking this from happening. Despite, at times, calling himself the king of Great Britain, England and Scotland would remain separate countries that shared the same monarch as Head of State. It would not be until 1701 that the two crowns were truly united.

Next in this series will be the succession of Charles I.

Henry VIII: What did he really know & believe? Part 1

Tags

Anne Boleyn, Arthur Prince of Wales, Catherine of Aragon, King Henry VIII of England, Pope Julius II

I have been reading a lot about the Tudor period of English history. It is a rich mine for historians to delve into. What has been very interesting to me are the circumstances surrounding his divorce of his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. One of the major points that Henry used in justifying this divorce was that Catherine was never his legal wife because she indeed did have sexual relations with her first husband, Arthur, Prince of Wales, elder brother of Henry VIII. Even though Pope Julius II granted the couple a dispensation in December of 1503 (6 years before the actual marriage) Henry VIII stated that despite the Pope’s dispensation God was punishing him for marrying his brother’s widow, something forbidden in the Book of Leviticus. In Henry’s mind this punishment took the form of no sons resulting from the union and many miscarriages and still-births.

This justification from Henry has always raised several questions for me. Did Henry truly believe that God was punishing him, or was that just the excuse he needed to divorce his wife to marry Anne Boleyn? Catherine maintained all her life that she and Arthur never consummated their marriage. Would Henry have been able to tell if his wife was a virgin when they married? These are a couple of the questions I want to examine. Was it possible that Catherine was lying?

I will look at the first issue today: What were the religious beliefs of King Henry VIII? First of all, today we know that it is the male sperm that determines the sex of the baby. Henry blamed everyone but himself. I guess the ego of a powerful King of England would allow him to see that maybe he was part of the problem? Society was much more religious than it is today. In those days religious superstitions were more rampant as science had yet to supplant these age-old wives tails. Therefore attributing the lack of sons as evidence of divine punishment.

However devout Henry’s religious beliefs were, and I have no doubt he was a sincere Catholic, he does exhibit inconsistencies in his beliefs. Those inconsistencies are pretty easy to explain. Although devout as a Catholic and his faith in God it was easy for him to justify his affairs and his natural children because that was his right as a man and a king. Underwriting much of his beliefs were societies attitude toward woman and the need for social order. At the time Henry lived women were seen as inferior to men and their property with only the rights allowed them by men. Therefore this societal view gave Henry every right to use women for his sexual proclivities. As you go up in the hierarchy of society this behavior was not frowned upon..at least when it remained private.

Another important belief of Henry’s was the belief in social order and social structure. These beliefs also had divine origin. Henry was a supporter of the theory of the divine right of kings in that he was on the throne by the Will of God and that he was answerable only to God himself and not any man. Henry also believed that this belief lead to the stratification of society and that everyone was born to a certain station to fulfill God’s will and maintaining this social order was vitally important to the stabilization of a civil society.

Therefore in light of all of this Henry believed that it was the right of the woman to obey him in all areas including his desire to divorce. He saw his lack of thriving sons as divine punishment and he saw that it was his wife’s duty to step aside to allow him to sire healthy sons to continue the succession. For at the heart of this matter was keeping his realm stable. The Tudors had come to the throne after decades of civil war over who should possess the throne. Despite having a thriving daughter Henry feared that without a son the throne would be vulnerable for reigniting the War of the Roses.

Henry also believed in the sanctity of marriage…despite his affairs divorce was seen as a sin. Therefore he needed to find scriptural justification to divorce his wife. This justification was found in Leviticus 20:21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.” Even though Pope Julius II gave the couple a dispensation to marry, Henry firmly believe that no man could undo God’s laws.  Therefore to Henry he was never his wife’s legal husband and he was free to marry.

There was one other related issue that assured Henry that Catherine of Aragon was not his lawful wife. For in order for the Levitical injunction to apply to Catherine and himself would be the fact that Catherine indeed consummated her union with his brother, Arthur, Prince of Wales. If the union was never consummated, as Catherine claimed, than Henry and Catherine were legally wed. If the marriage had been consummated than Henry did have scriptural grounds for a divorce as he saw it.

This leads us to our next question which I will examine next week: Was the union between Catherine and Prince Arthur consummated?

European History and American Movies

Tags

Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Braveheart, Cate Blanchett, Charlemagne, Elizabeth Woodville, Emperor Franz Joseph, Helen Mirren, Holy Roman Emperor, Iron Man, James Mason, King Baldwin IV, King Edward IV, King Richard I of England, Kings and Queens of England, Queen Victoria, Ray Winstone, Robert Downey Jr, the White Queen, Young Victoria

This post will be a slight change of pace for me. This post will be directed toward my American readers but hopefully my readers from other countries will also appreciate this. Lately I have been watching movies related to the Tudor dynasty, specifically Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. I own and watched the Tudors the Showtime miniseries, the Henry VIII miniseries starring Ray Winstone, the movie Anne of the Thousand Days, and a miniseries on Elizabeth I starring Helen Mirren and the two movies about Elizabeth I starring Cate Blanchett. Also have many more royalty related movies. This did get me thinking about how popular some stories and royal figures are popular here in the US.

Movies such as Braveheart and those based on the character Robin Hood have featured royalty and have done very well. The movie Young Victoria did well here in the United States as did another movie based on Queen Victoria, Her Majesty, Mrs Brown, starring Dame Judi Dench. One of my favorite royalty based movies is Restoration starring Robert Downey Jr (Iron Man) and Sam Neill as Charles II. I recently purchased the 1982 TV movie of Ivanhoe also starring Sam Neill and James Mason and featuring Julian Glover as King Richard I of England. Ridley Scott’s movie Kingdom of Heaven is also one that I enjoy which takes place in the Holy Land during the Crusades and features King Baldwin IV of the European Kingdom of Jerusalem and his battle for the land against the famous Muslim leader, Saladin. Even King Richard I shows up at the end on his way for his historic encounter with Saladin.

I think I have established that movies about European history and European Royalty do play well here in the states. When I look through the movies I own and have seen what strikes me is that there are still many stories that I would love to see that have not been filmed yet.

Here are some of my ideas for movies i would love to see made some day:

1. The life of William the Conqueror. I could see this movie done on an epic scale of Braveheart. To keep it simple I would just focus on the conquest of England itself. But there are many themes to that story to make it interesting. The Battle of Hastings would make for an epic filled battle. Also it would be interesting to film how the Norman army mistook the celebrations during the coronation as some type of rebellion began to set fire to the town!

2. The life of Charlemagne. The King of the Franks who also became the first Holy Roman Emperor and created one of the most powerful empires in Europe. There is a goldmine of stories from his life.

3. The start of World War I. I think you could create a great drama of the tensions between all of the royal heads of states after the assassination of Archduke Franz-Ferdinand.

4. The life of Austrian Emperor Franz-Joseph who saw his wife, son, and great-nephew (the aforementioned Archduke Franz-Ferdinand) all die in his life time amidst tragic circumstances.

5. I would like to see a sequel to Young Victoria and show the circumstances of their relationship and her reaction to the death of her husband, Prince Albert, the Prince Consort.

6. I hope someday they make one more movie with Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth I showing the end of her reign and all the drama that went with it.

Those are just some of the ideas I have floating in my head for feature films…or maybe a miniseries for topics related to royalty. I know that the BBC is producing a miniseries called the White Queen about Elizabeth Woodville the wife of King Edward IV and the tumultuous times of the Wars of the Roses. I am looking forward to seeing that!

Legal Succession: Elizabeth I of England & James VI of Scotland: Part 3

Tags

2nd Duke of Somerset, 6th Earl of Angus, Archibald Douglas, Countess of Shrewsbury, Elizabeth Talbot, King of Poland, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, Lady Arabella Stuart, of King James I-VI of England and Scotland, Ranuccio of Parma, Scotland, Sigismund III Vasa, William Seymour

Before I move on to what made the advisors of Elizabeth I to choose James VI, I want to discuss another possible claimant to the throne, James’s cousin, Lady Arabella Stuart.

Lady’s Arabella’s claim to the English throne stemmed from her descent via Henry VII of England. Henry VII’s daughter, Margaret Tudor married, as her second marriage,  Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus, and this union produced a daughter, Margaret Douglas,  Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox, this union produced two son Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley and Charles Stuart, 5th Earl of Lennox. Henry Stuart, lord Darnley married his cousin Mary, Queen of Scots. As you recall Mary, Queen of Scots was a descendent of Henry VII via Margaret Tudor’s first marriage to James IV, King of Scots. Charles Stuart, 5th Earl of Lennox secretly married Elizabeth Cavendish in 1574 and this greatly angered Queen Elizabeth I because it was done without her permission. Elizabeth Cavendish’s mother, Elizabeth Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury (Bess of Hardwick), and her mother-in-law, Margaret Douglas, were both sent to the tower as punishment.

Lady Arabella was born in 1575 and her father died the next year and her mother died in 1582. The young Lady Arabella was placed under the care of Queen Elizabeth’s chief minister, William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley. From time to time Lady Arabella would appear at court and prior to 1592 she was considered the most likely and acceptable candidate to the English throne after the death of Elizabeth. however, he ward, Lord Burghley and his son,  Secretary of State Sir Robert Cecil felt that James VI was a more likely candidate. However, during her time when she was considered the likely heir to the throne there were many marriage prospects for her. Among them were:  Ranuccio of Parma, eldest son of Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma and Maria of Portugal,  Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford and Sigismund III Vasa, King of Poland. James VI wanted Lady Arabella to marry a cousin,  Ludovic Stuart, 2nd Duke of Lennox, but nothing came of this match.

In 1610 Lady Arabella eventually married, in secret and against the wishes of King James I-VI of England and Scotland, William Seymour, 2nd Duke of Somerset, himself a descendent from the Tudors via Lady Catherine Grey, sister of the ill-fatted Lady Jane Grey, the 9 day queen. The couple was arrested and separated. They escaped their imprisonment and tried to flee to the European Continent. The Duke of Somerset was succesful in escaping from the clutches of King James I but Lady Arabella was not. The ship she was on was captured and Lady Arabella was imprisoned in the Tower where she died after starving herself to death.

Next week will conclude this part of the series where James VI succeeds Elizabeth I.

Living male line Plantagenet descendents

Tags

11th Duke of Beaufort., David Somerset, Edward III of England, Henry II of England, John of Gaunt, Katherine Swynford, Plantagenet, The Duke of Beaufort, The Duke of Sommerset

I have been interested in European Royalty since about 1978. That was 35 years ago. Now what I am about to say hopefully will not come across as arrogance but I do find myself surprised when I learn something new. I am not saying I know everything it is just that when I discover something that I thought I would have known, and didn’t, it does surprise me a bit. Sometimes I am embarrassed to admit I didn’t know something. This is the case with today’s blog.

In my study of British royalty I have neglected the aristocracy to some extent. In my research I have discovered that the House of Plantagenet still exists in the male line. I had been under the impression that the House of Plantagenet had died out in the male line. Now the living male line Plantagenet descendents are from an illegitimate line, or the “wrong side of the sheets” as they say, and they no longer bear the Plantagenet name, so to some that may mean the line has ended. I myself on the other hand, am not so sure.

Who were the last legitimate male-line Plantagenets? Richard III was the last Plantagenet King of England and he was from the House of York. His brother, George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence, 1st Earl of Salisbury, 1st Earl of Warwick, was  ”privately executed” at the Tower on 18 February 1478. He left one son, Edward, Earl of Warwick, who himself was executed in 1499 during the reign of Henry VII. When the Earl of Warwick died he had been the last legitimate male-line member of the House of Plantagenet. The first King of that line had been King Henry II of England who died in 1189.

However, an illegitimate line of the Plantagenet dynasty lives today. The representative of that line is His Grace, David Somerset, 11th Duke of Beaufort. To trace his line back to the Plantagenet dynasty one has to go back to the reign of King Edward III of England. As stated in my Legitimate Succession series (still on going) Edward III and Philippa of Hainault had many children that survived to adulthood. The one we concern ourselves with now is the third surviving son, John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster. To find the line of Plantagenet descendents we must go to the third marriage of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford née (de) Roet.

(This next section is a repeat from my blog dated 25 February 2013)

Initially Katherine was the governess to Gaunt’s daughters, Philippa and Elizabeth. After the death of Gaunt’s first wife, Blanch, John and Katherine entered into a romantic relationship which produced 4 children, all illegitimate being born out-of-wedlock. However, two years after the death of Constance of Castile, John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford legally married at Lincoln cathedral 1393. Subsequent Letters Patent in 1397 by Richard II and a Papal Bull issued by the Pope Eugene IV legitimized the adult children of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford with full rights to the throne. However, an Act of Parliament in the reign of Henry IV confirmed their legitimacy but barred the children from having rights to the throne.

(new information)

The line from John of Gaunt and  Katherine Swynford took the surname Beaufort. Thier eldest son, John Beaufort, became the 1st Earl of Somerset and married Margaret Holland the daughter of Thomas Holland, 2nd Earl of Kent, and Lady Alice FitzAlan. Thomas Holland, 2nd Earl of Kent was the son Thomas Holland, 1st Earl of Kent and Joan “the Fair Maid of Kent” (granddaughter of Edward I of England, wife of Edward the Black Prince and mother of Richard II of England). John Beaufort 1st Earl of Somerset and Margaret Holland had 6 children among them Henry Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset and John Beaufort, who became the first 1st Duke of Somerset and Edmund Beafort who became the 2nd Duke of Somerset. John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset married Margaret Beauchamp of Bletso and had one daughter, Margaret Beaufort who became the mother of King Henry VII of England.

Since the first Duke of Somerset died without male issue the title Duke of Somerset passed to his younger brother, Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset. Edmund married Eleanor Beauchamp and had 10 children. Edmund’s eldest son, Henry Beaufort, became the 3rd Duke of Somerset in 1455 and died in 1464 without a legitimate heir. His brother, Edmund became the 4th Duke of Somerset and died in 14?? also without an heir and with him the main Beaufort line became extinct.

The Beaufort line was a legitimized line from the House of Plantagenet and despite the extinction of the legitimized Beaufort line, this line also continued from an illegitimate offspring. Although Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset, died without a legitimate heir he did leave an illegitimate son from his union with Joan Hill. His son Charles, took the surname Somerset and was created first Lord Herbert and then 1st Earl of Worcester and was Lord Chamberlain of the Household of Henry VIII of England. As Lord Chamberlain, Somerset was largely responsible for the preparations of the Field of Cloth of Gold between Henry VIII and Francis I of France in 1520.

This line continued until Henry Somerset, son of Edward Somerset, 4th Earl of Worcester (1568-1628) was created 1st Marquess of Worcester. His grandson, Henry Somerset, 3rd Marquess of Worcester, was created 1st Duke of Beaufort (an homage to their origins) by King Charles II of England and Scotland in 1682. This line has continued to the present day with His Grace, David Somerset, 11th Duke of Beaufort and is a male-line descendent of the House of Plantagenet, albeit through two illegitimate lines.

There is a new King in town!

Tags

Dutch Inauguration, House of Orange-Nassau, King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands., Maxima Zorreguieta, Prince of Orange, Princess of Orange, Princess Princess Catharina-Amalia, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Queen Maxima, Willem III of the Netherlands

As I write this today, Saturday, 27 April 2013, HRH The Prince of Orange turns 46 years old. As you are reading this HM Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands has abdicated the throne and Willem-Alexander has now become the King of the Netherlands. He is the Netherlands first King since the death of Willem III on 23 November 1890. That is a span of 123 years. The heir to the throne is now the king’s eldest daughter HRH Princess Catharina-Amalia (born 7 December 2003). I believe the title Prince or Princess of Orange is automatic so she will inherit that title as her father becomes king. I believe she will be, at the age of 9, Europe’s youngest heir to the throne.

The new king is the son of HM Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands (now HRH Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands) and Claus van Amsberg (1926-2002). Willem-Alexander has gone through some big changes in his life. The media once depicted him as a playboy type of prince who loved wine women and song. Today as he mounts the throne of the Netherlands he has become a well-respected family man. This change can be linked to his 2002 marriage to Maxima Zorreguieta from Argentina. She has become a well-loved and respected Princess of Orange and has been a stabilizing presence. The prince and Princess of Orange also have three wonderful daughters that have helped the prince settle down into a responsible family man. With my back ground in psychology all of this seems like usual developmental stages. Most men do mature and settle down in their 30s.

One of the differenced in this new kingship will be the Kings involvement in politics. Beatrix has involved herself in politics. At times she excluded politicians that she did not like. It seems Willem-Alexander will not be as involved with government. His reign is reported to have a more low-key profile and to not be as protocol minded as other Dutch monarchs in the past. It will be interesting to follow him in the future to see how is style of rule actually plays out. The king will still be influential in government but it seems those influences will come through personal relationships with politicians.

I have always thought that the Dutch monarch had more political involvement and influence than other European constitutional monarchies. I have mixed feelings about a lesser involvement with politics. A part of me thinks it is absolutely wise to stay above party politics. I am an American and our political system is ripe with cutthroat political fighting among parties. I really do think a monarch should stay out of that messy business. However, I also love history and I do enjoy reading about those times when monarchs actually held power.

I am sad to see Queen Beatrix go. I think she was a wonderful queen and a model of a good constitutional monarch. I wish her well in the future. I also wish her successor, HM King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, a long and fruitful reign with good health and good times and prosperity for the Netherlands.

Here is a list of other royals that attended today’s innaguration:

Prince Philippe and Princess Mathilde of Belgium
Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al Khalifa of Bahrain
Crown Prince Billah and Princess Sarah of Brunei
Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary of Denmark
Crown Prince Naruhito and Crown Princess Masako of Japan
Prince El Hassan bin Talal and Princess Sarvath El Hassan of Jordan
Hereditary Prince Alois and Hereditary Princess Sophie of Liechtenstein
Grand Duke Guillaume and Grand Duchess Stéphanie of Luxembourg
Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco
Prince Albert II of Monaco
Crown Prince Haakon and Crown Princees Mette-Marit of Norway
Haitham bin Tareq al Said (Oman)
Sheikha Moza bint Nasser al-Misned (Qatar)
The Prince and Princess of Asturias (Spain)
Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn (Thailand)
Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn (Thailand)
The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall (United Kingdom)
Sheikh Hamed bin Zayed al Nahyan (United Arab Emirates)
Crown Princess Victoria and Prince Daniel of Sweden

Legal Succession: Elizabeth I of England & James VI of Scotland: Part 2

Tags

Catherine Gray, Elizabeth I of England, Henry VIII, Isabella of Spain, James I of England, Lord Beauchamp, Philipe II of Spain

As I mentioned previously James VI, King of Scots was the heir of Elizabeth I of England via the principle of primogeniture. Even though he did eventually become King James I of England it wasn’t as cut and dried as it seems. Henry VIII had barred the Scottish line in his will and an Act of Succession. There was also a law on the books barring foreigners from inheriting property. Some ministers thought to get around that last rule by claiming that Scotland was a part of England as many Scottish kings had paid homage to English kings which demonstrated that Scotland was a fiefdom of England.

If James VI of Scotland was barred from the succession who else were the possible heirs to Elizabeth’s throne? One was Lady Catherine Gray the younger sister of the ill-fatted 9 day Queen, Jane Gray. She was the senior heir of Henry VIII’s sister Mary. Catherine Gray married Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, a descendant of King Edward III of England. They married and had their first son, Edward, Lord Beauchamp, and this infuriated Queen Elizabeth who often feared that those who saw her rule as illegitimate would replace her on the throne with one of these hires.

For that reason Elizabeth had Catherine and the Earl of Hertford thrown in the Tower of London. Evidently they were not watched too much because they were able to have another child, Thomas, while imprisoned in the tower. Since the only witness that this marriage had actually occurred had died, Elizabeth considered the marriage illegal and had the couple separated and Lord Beauchamp was considered illegitimate. However, after Catherine’s death in 1568 many considered Lord Beauchamp to be Elizabeth’s heir.

Another candidate was Infanta Isabella of Spain, daughter of King Felipe II of Spain and Princess Elizabeth de Valois of France. Infanta Isabella had a stronger claim to the throne than Elizabeth I. As we have seen the Tudor dynasty descends from a third marriage of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, son of King Edward III of England. At first the children of that union were born illegitimate but later legitimized with no succession rights. Isabella, on the other hand, descended from the first two legal marriages of John of Gaunt.

John of Gaunt’s first marriage was to Blanch of Lancaster (a descendent of King Edward I of England) and their daughter, Philippa, married King John I of Portugal. From them descended Isabella of Portugal wife of Holy Roman Emperor Karl V (Carlos I of Spain) the grandparents of Infanta Isabella of Spain. John of Gaunt’s second marriage to Infanta Constance of Castile produced a daughter, Catherine, who married her cousin, King Enrique III of Castile. Catherine of Lancaster’s great-granddaughter Catherine of Aragon, first of the six wives of Henry VIII of England, was named after her. From this line descends the Kings of Spain culminating in the English heir, Isabella of Spain.

By the end of 1602 when it became apparent that Elizabeth I was dying the need for her to name her successor was crucial. The problem was that not many wanted to point out to the queen that she was dying, it had also become treason to discuss the succession issue!

Stay tuned for Part III!