Talk:History of the English and British line of succession

Multiple Issues
First there are no WP:RS

Second, there is no evidence that any female before Mary I could ever have inherited the throne

Third, Henry VII became King solely by right of conquest. Lancastrian Law made it clear that no one could claim the throne through John of Gaunt's adultery.

Fourth, there is clear evidence that Richard III recognised John De La Pole as his heir

Fifth, there is clear evidence that Henry VI recognised George, Duke of Clarence as his heir

Sixth, it was never clear who Elizabeth I recognised as her heir

Seventh, prior to Henry II, there was no "Line of Succession". The King(as all English Monarchs were male) had to be succeeded by a male blood relative, but it was most certainly not the case that the eldest son would automatically succeed. 41.133.47.225 (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * First, before “Bloody” Mary, they did not recognize female monarchs (only male heirs could take the throne). Mary Tudor’s father, King Henry VIII, broke away from the Catholic Church of Rome; which helped make her be recognized as a legitimate heir of parent, despite being female.
 * Second, it was RUMORED that John of Gaunt was a bastard, therefore making him an illegitimate king. This rumor was never proven.
 * Third, John of Gaunt was never recognized as the rightful king of England bc his nephew was the RIGHTFUL king. Due to John of Gaunt’s political actions his children, whom most were bastards and illegitimate, lost everything.
 * Fourth, John del a Pole WAS NOT named heir by his uncle, King Richard III. It was believed he could possibly be heir due to the emotional retardation of Edward, son of George the Duke of Clarence.
 * Fifth, there IS historical evidence of correspondence between Elizabeth I and her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, that Mary’s son would be heir to the throne upon Elizabeth’s death.
 * Lastly, the House of York and the House of Lancaster BOTH have a royal and equal claim to the English throne, but like most families, the crown bounced back and forth between houses due to their hostile relationships between each other. (Nobody’s family is perfect right.?) 67.140.126.38 (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This article makes ruthless use of cognatic primogeniture. However, one must also consider the influence of Norman, and later Angevin laws of inheritance. If one could give a source on the actual law by which the English succession could be based, that would help this article a lot. Reigen (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What exactly does "makes ruthless use of cognatic primogeniture" mean? The fact remains that there was no clear "Rule of succession". There is no source on the actual law by which the English succession could be based, as there was no such actual law. The most common interpretation was that the male(of legitimate descent of course) most closely related to the King(as only males could be sovereign) would inherit the throne. Yet, while this is the most common, there are numerous examples of this not actually happening. In many ways it wasn't until James I and VI actually passed an Act stating why he should be King rather than any of the various other claimants, that some Law could be said to have been passed, retroactively. But before the 17th century was out, that had been violated. In fact, in the year 1484, Guillaume de Rochefort famously wrote that, since the foundation of the English Monarchy, there had been twenty-six changes of dynasty. This was of course BEFORE Bosworth, and all the Tudor-Grey-Stuart-Third Act of Succession nonsense. And more than two hundred years BEFORE the "Glorious Revolution" and the Act of Succesion.

To sump up:to apply modern English succession laws to the English monarchy pre-1603 is anachronistic at best, and a waste of time at worst. 41.133.47.225 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The ruthless use of cognatic primogeniture is simply applying it without examining whether the people of the time actually applied it. The succession has to be governed by some sort of law — whether it be by feudal law or simple custom. Reigen (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "inappropriate" would be a better word than "ruthless". Again, the point is that the succession had no law before Henry II. And then even afterwards, the Wars of the Roses showed that whatever law(s) existed(or didn't) were disputed. That Elizabeth I(who was illegitimate btw) could succeed because of a Treaty also showed your "law" to be a modern invention. And again, there WAS at least one law that was known. Namely, that John of Gaunt's illegitimate line could not succeed. 41.133.47.225 (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, there is some mechanism by which a member of the family could claim the crown. What is most supported would be the featured line of succession. However, sometimes there would arise individuals who could defy such mechanisms (=usurp) in order to make themselves king/queen. Law need not be written; it could be based on past events (=precedent). Reigen (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there was no clear precedent. William I left the throne to his second son. He left it to his younger brother, despite, senior relatives being alive. The throne then passed to Henry I's nephew despite his daughter being alive. And in fact Stephen was the fourth son of Henry's sister. Stephen in turn named his third son as his heir, but when he died young, he recognised Matilda's son, despite Stephen having other sons. The throne passing from Henry to Richard I was the first succession post-1066 to meet your "Law", but after Richard the throne passed to John, despite there being a senior line (Arthur of Brittany). From 1216-1377 there was a generally clear Law(although there is some confusion over whether Edmund Crouchback should actually have succeeded). Henry Iv never thought that he usurped anything, as from 1154 onwards it could be said that England had used Salic Law. Or it could be said that England has used cognatic primogeniture. An argument could be made for both.Except of course for the whole Arthur of Brittany thing. And the fact Henry II (as well as both Stephen and William I) had claimed the throne through female lines. Richard II recognised the Mortimers as his heirs. And so the Wars of the Roses, with both sides(and their followers) believing themselves to be the rightful inheritors of the throne according to English Law(never written down). But of course there was no Law, and it was impossible for both "Laws" to exist simultaneously. Richard III never felt that he usurped anything either. Under English law he was the rightful successor to Edward IV. And, despite all the Laws explicitly stating that the Beauforts could not inherit the throne(as well as his mother still being alive), Henry VII never felt that he usurped anything either. We then get into the whole Tudor mess, whereby Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I, the Grey family, the Stanley family, the Seymour family, the Hastings family, the Pole family, the Courtenay family, the De La Pole family, the Manners family, Henry VIII's bastard son ,and different branches of the Stuarts/Stewarts ALL had legitimate claims under English "Law". There were even serious ideas about putting a member of the Spanish Royal Family on the English throne. It was only when James VI of Scotland took(many would say usurped) the throne, despite the explicit wording of the Third Succession Act, and the Last Will of Henry VIII, that for the first time cognatic primogeniture was laid down as Law. And then, in 1688, that was violated. 41.133.47.225 (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * William II left the throne not to Henry I, but to Robert, Duke of Normandy. Robert was away on crusade, so Henry was able to usurp the throne without much trouble. At her father's death, Matilda was essentially in rebellion against her father; she had requested from him control over Normandy, but Henry refused; hearing of his uncle's death, Stephen got to England first. And he got crowned. After losing his elder son, Stephen thought that his younger son will not be able to maintain the throne, so he settled his succession by a treaty with his enemy. Arthur had supported Philip II of France, Richard's enemy, so that could be considered treason. And Arthur's sister Eleanor was a woman, so she couldn't succeed herself (after the precedent set by Matilda), so John and his son Henry III held her captive and forbade her to marry. If a king would admit that he usurped his crown, that would be a magnet for rebellion; they should never admit it, even if true. Henry VII - right of conquest. Third succession act - authorized by Parliament. Will of Edward VI - not authorized by Parliament. Elizabeth - illegitimate in the Catholic Church (but England is already Protestant). Succession of James VI - made possible by ministers working behind the scenes, ignoring the third succession act. The line of succession need not be inviolable — i.e., the first in line is not guaranteed to be the next monarch (English history has numerous examples of monarchs succeeding despite not being the first in line) — it just has to reflect who the monarch should have been if the actual law had been followed. Example - line of succession to Richard III. Should the first in line be Henry VII, the next actual king, or his heir by the rules? Reigen (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, Elizabeth I was illegitimate both under Catholic and under Anglican Law. In fact, Mary I, while legitimate under Catholic Law, was ALSO illegitimate under Anglican Law. Henry's earlier Acts of Succession had removed his daughters(BOTH illegitimate under Anglican Law) from the Line of Succession, but his THIRD Succession Act reinstated them. However the Act itself states that only Edward was legitimate. Likewise, Henry VIII had previously placed his undeniably illegitimate son henry Fitzroy in the Line of Succession, but Henry Fitzroy died young, without issue.

Going back to the Normans, you ignore the fact that when William I died, William II, NOT Robert succeeded as King of England. Both Robert and his son William DID attempt to usurp the throne, first from William II, and then from Henry I. This was based NOT on any "Law of Succession" but simply because they felt they were entitled as William's senior line. This is a significant difference. Henry I had his Parliament swear an oath recognising his daughter as his heir, but when the time came they recognised Stephen. And again, Stephen had elder brothers who were alive and well(and had never committed treason) at the time he became King of England. And when Richard I died, Parliament CHOSE to recognise John, despite the existence of Arthur. Again, in 1483, whether Edward IV's sons were illegitimate or not, Parliament CHOSE to recognise Richard III. In both cases boys were passed over for adult males. And again, even in the event of Richard III's death the succession was not clear. Had Richard died of natural causes in 1485(and there was no Henry Tudor), he would most likely have been succeeded by John De La Pole. However, had Richard III died childless as King in say 1500, and Tudor had never appeared, then he would have been succeeded by Edward, Earl of Warwick(had Warwick still been alive in this hypothetical scene). And at one stage, even though the future Mary I was alive and well, either the Buckinghams or the Courtenays could have succeeded Henry VIII. In fact, at various points in Henry VIII's reign, had he died, something like a dozen different people would each have been able to succeeded at a particular point. Elizabeth I's successor was never clear either. On her deathbed, her Lords read out various names to her, and she didn't recognise any of them. These included names mentioned previously, as well as the Kings of France and Spain.

The one thing that is certain about the English "Line of Succession" is that nothing is certain. Anyone who attempts to apply something along the lines of the rigid continental Lines of Succession will be dumbfounded at every succession. Sadly, English anarchy seems to have rubbed off on other thrones(eg. The Orleanist claims to France). 41.133.47.225 (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever the status of their legitimacy, the succession of Mary and Elizabeth were in accordance to the Third Succession Act. William I may have understood the problem of the personal union of England and Normandy - i.e., the vassalage of the English king (as Duke of Normandy) to the French king. If William I wished to severe the ties between the two realms, it is Normandy which would have to follow primogeniture. William could freely dispose of England as he sees fit, since he had that crown not by hereditary right but by conquest. The lines of succession does not normally cover usurpations, mentioning only those that are successful (=relevant) considering the next monarch. The succession of Stephen is due to the fact that he was in England first. Order dissolves in the absence of a king, so it is important that a king is recognized as soon as possible. But if, say, Stephen and Matilda got there simultaneously, then the matter could have been decided in favor of Matilda. Since Elizabeth I did not designate a successor, the prevailing law of succession should have been the Third Succession Act. The History of the English line of succession shows that very point - the English succession has several times been chaotic. Reigen (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the Parlement of Paris is often misunderstood in the context of the English Parliament. While the English Parliament (a legislative and executive body) had been able, over time, to take for itself the power to change or dictate the law of succession, the Parlement of Paris had no such power. Its powers are more akin to that of a court - its function is to record, not to create law. Reigen (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

But the point is that you have applied cognatic primogeniture to all "Lines of Succession". And even more bizarrely, to the Lancastrian Kings! The whole reason Henry IV took the throne(after the death of his father John of Gaunt), was that from a Lancastrian point of view, England had used Salic Law since the death of Henry II. Thus, under Lancastrian law, females, and males descended from females could not succeed. During Henry VI's brief second reign, it was recognised by the English Parliament that, in the event of both Henry and his son Prince Edward dying with no legitimate male issue, the crown would pass to George, Duke of Clarence and his legitimate male-line descendants. Edward IV and his issue were removed as a)it was widely accepted in Lancastrian circles that Edward IV was not the son of Richard Duke of York and b) Edward IV had committed high treason. Exactly where you come with the idea that anyone else was in the Line of Succession....WP:OR? WP:POV? And as far as the English versus French parliaments, that was actually MY point. English Law has changed so many times that it is something of a joke. The French Law of Succession was absolute. The English clearly not. (If you want something even moreso, why not try making a History of the Scottish Line of Succession article?) This is what the English absolutely fail to grasp. Because the English Law has been altered, and the ruling Dynasty replaced, so very many times, the English are quite incapable of understanding how absolute the French Succession Law is. In the eyes of the Englishman, when Felipe V signed a bit of paper, it removed him from the Line of Succession. Because in England(and Scotland), the Senior Line has been deprived of its rights more times than anyone can begin to count. The first time there was the idea of the absolute rights of the Senior Line was when James VI of Scotland became James I of England. And MANY people would say he usurped the throne, violating English Law. This was then "legalised" by Acts of Parliament, both before and after Cromwell. Despite this, we then ahd the "Glorious" Revolution, and the Act of Succession. It's a fool's game attempting to apply rigid, absolute Laws of Succession to Britain before James VI and I. 41.133.47.225 (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

To James' credit, I don't think he usurped the crown. He was chosen because the English must have realized he could unite the English and Scottish thrones together in peace. I'd start editing the article to reflect your issues. Reigen (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Terms of reference
The topic here is nominally a history of the English line of succession. Coming fairly fresh to the topic, I find it quite interesting that the succession was done in such a rough and ready way. The fact that primogeniture was not followed seems noteworthy and it then seems good to lay out what actually did happen. It seems likely that the way this has worked out over the centuries will have been the subject of much scholarship and I have started assembling sources to assist us. For example, see Conquered England: Kingship, Succession, and Tenure 1066-1166 which seems quite relevant. Warden (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Agnatic Primogeniture from Yorkists
Why do the Yorkist Kings have lines of succession based on aganatic primogeniture? The Yorkists based their claim on a female-line descent from Edward III's third son (whereas the Lancasters were male-line descendants from the fourth son), and there were some who regarded Elizabeth of York as the rightful heir when her brothers died (hence why Henry VII married her). Emperor001 (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"Selectively removing" portions without fairness to the rest of the article
Please do not bulk-remove for example, my slice in the article. There are no reliable sources elsewhere so that's not a reason to remove my "pre-Normandic" portion. If you want to nominate the article for deletion, that would be the fair way of dealing with it, not informally "blocking" further editing with reverts. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you make up a lot of inane garbage that can never be sourced because it's blatantly incorrect, you can hardly be surprised when someone comes along and removes it. DrKay (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a portion from the draft on the British equivalent page that I thought was removed unduly based on sources, then I thought perhaps to instead place in the English section so I'm sorry about that, it was the work of other Wikipedia editors over time and not me.
 * I have read through the non-draft page's "general" bibliography and found the (I should say "unreferenced" sources) indeed probably don't go beyond c. 1000 AD.
 * Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)