Was Henry Tudor a Usurper?

[Richard]

This has all been played out in various ng's bf, but I'd like some
clarification on some issues.

1) Henry IV legitimised the line leading to Henry Tudor on the
condition that the descendents were barred from the throne? Yes? If so
no Beaufort could possibly take the throne - thus Henry Tudor was an
illegal occupant of the throne. Did Henry IV pass this through
parliament?

2) To what extent did a King's will need to be passed through
parliament to be considered unbreakable upon his death? Take the
example of Edward VI - his will was completely ignored and Mary became
Queen. In another example - Henry VIII took the descendents of his
older sister Margaret out of the succession - yet a descendent DID
become King (James I) and I believe HVIII did pass this through
Parliament.

3) What happened to Margaret of Anjou(?) HVI Queen

Cheers
Richard

[mike stone]

Post by Richard
This has all been played out in various ng's bf, but I'd like some
clarification on some issues.
1) Henry IV legitimised the line leading to Henry Tudor on the
condition that the descendents were barred from the throne? Yes?

Actually Richard II legitimised them. Subsequently, Henry IV inserted itnto the
Act (without returning it to Parliament) the words "excepti dominium regali" or
close, to indicate that the legitimation did not admit them to the Royal
succession

Post by Richard
If so
no Beaufort could possibly take the throne - thus Henry Tudor was an
illegal occupant of the throne. Did Henry IV pass this through
parliament?

Depends on who you talk to. It was far from clear either that Parliament had
the power to regulate the succession, or even if it had, whether a King could
unilaterally alter an Act of Parliament the way Henry IV did. In general,
Lancastrians (and later Tudors) were willing to allow a certain amount of
Parliametary power in this area, while Yorkists (and later Stuarts) adhered to
a doctrine of "indefeasible hereditary right" superior to man made law "Only
God can make an heir" and all that

Post by Richard
2) To what extent did a King's will need to be passed through
parliament to be considered unbreakable upon his death? Take the
example of Edward VI - his will was completely ignored and Mary became
Queen.
In another example - Henry VIII took the descendents of his
older sister Margaret out of the succession - yet a descendent DID
become King (James I) and I believe HVIII did pass this through
Parliament.

See above.

Basically if a heir was made by God, then neither King nor Parliament could
disinherit him. If it was a matter of Civil Law, then the Crown in Parliament
could amend the sucession, or Parliament could empower the King to do so by
Proclamation or Testament - as Henry VIII was authorised by the Act of 1544

Edward VI's device was definitely invalid (unless it worked) since it broke
either God's law or man's, according to which philosophy you subscribed to

Elizabeth I named James VI as her heir, without bothering to repeal the Act
which excluded him from the Succession. By implication, she was accepting the
"indefeasible" position and regarded James' hereditary right as taking
precedence over mere Civil Law - a somewhat paradoxical attitude given the
shakiness of her own hereditary claims

Post by Richard
3) What happened to Margaret of Anjou(?) HVI Queen

After the deaths of her son and husband , the Yorkists packed her off back to
France. There, Louis XI granted her a miserly pension in return for signing
over to him all rights to the various possessions and claims of the House of
Anjou

[Don Aitken]

Post by mike stone

Post by Richard
This has all been played out in various ng's bf, but I'd like some
clarification on some issues.
1) Henry IV legitimised the line leading to Henry Tudor on the
condition that the descendents were barred from the throne? Yes?

Actually Richard II legitimised them. Subsequently, Henry IV inserted itnto the
Act (without returning it to Parliament) the words "excepti dominium regali" or
close, to indicate that the legitimation did not admit them to the Royal
succession

Post by Richard
If so
no Beaufort could possibly take the throne - thus Henry Tudor was an
illegal occupant of the throne. Did Henry IV pass this through
parliament?

Depends on who you talk to. It was far from clear either that Parliament had
the power to regulate the succession, or even if it had, whether a King could
unilaterally alter an Act of Parliament the way Henry IV did. In general,
Lancastrians (and later Tudors) were willing to allow a certain amount of
Parliametary power in this area, while Yorkists (and later Stuarts) adhered to
a doctrine of "indefeasible hereditary right" superior to man made law "Only
God can make an heir" and all that

The legislation relating to the transfer of power on the following
occasions is on my website:

Edward II to Edward III:
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/e3a.html#55 - a simple "it has
been decided", with no indication by what authority

Richard II to Henry IV:
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/r2.html#102 and
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/r2.html#103 - an elaborate
baelt-and-braces procedure, involving abdication, deposition, and the
withdrawal of allegience, followed by the election of Henry by "the
lords spiritual and temporal and all the estates there present".

Henry VI to Edward IV:
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/h6.html#128 deals with the
recognition of the Duke of York as heir. This is essentially a
parliamentary title: "agreed it is, appointed and accorded as
followeth, betwixt the most high and most mighty prince King Henry the
Sixth, king of England and of France, and lord of Ireland, on the one
part, and the right high and mighty prince Richard Plantagenet duke of
York, on the other part, upon certain matters of variance moved
betwixt them, and in especial upon the claim and title unto the crowns
of England and of France, and royal power, estate, and dignity
appertaining to the same, and lordship of Ireland, opened, showed and
declared by the said duke, before all the lords spiritual and temporal
being in this present parliament: the said agreement, appointment and
accord, to be authorized by the same parliament.". On Edward IV's
accession the title of the Lancastrian kings was simply denied - they
were "kings in deed and not of right" - see
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/h6.html#129

Edward V to Richard III:
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/r3.html#131 lays most emphasis
on the hereditary claim, fortified by parliamentary approval. The
interesting point is that Richard's predecessor is not mentioned - his
existence is simply ignored.

Richard III to Henry VII:
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/r3.html#134 is the simplest
since 1327. "It is ordained, established and enacted by authority of
this present parliament", with no suggestion that anything further is
required.

There are Acts of Recognition for both Elizabeth I
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/eliza.html#169 and James I
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/j1.html#181

[Gidzmo]

Edward VI's device was definitely invalid (unless it worked), since it broke

either God's law or man's, according to which philosophy you subscribed to

Ah, but Edward VI was quite ill at the time that device was written. Not only
that, he was probably under considerable pressure from the Council (notably the
Duke of Northumberland) to bypass his sisters (Mary and Elizabeth) in favor of
his cousin
(Jane).

Elizabeth I named James VI as her heir, without bothering to repeal the Act

which excluded him from the Succession. By implication, she was accepting the
"indefeasible" position and regarded James' hereditary right as taking
precedence over mere Civil Law--a somewhat paradoxical attitude given the
shakiness of her own hereditary claims.

Did Henry VIII pass anything through Parliament *specifically stating* that:
a) Mary and Elizabeth were restored to the succession?

b) Margaret and her issue were not to inherit the English Crown?

One daughter or the other would have been on shaky ground, depending on the
point of view. The Catholics held that Mary was the rightful heiress after
Edward VI.

a) Mary--her mother (Catherine of Aragon) had previously been married to Prince
Arthur (Henry's elder brother). Henry had a dispensation to marry Catherine in
the Roman Church, but the marriage was later annulled (Mary declared
illegitimate) when Henry made himself head of the English Church.

b) Elizabeth--her mother (Anne Boelyn) had previously been a maid-of-honour to
Catherine. When Anne was executed, Elizabeth was also declared illegitimate.

[mike stone]

Post by Gidzmo
a) Mary and Elizabeth were restored to the succession?

No. The Act simply authorised him to determine the succession by Testament ie
nominate his successor. He then proceeded to make a will placing Mary and
Elizabeth immediately after Edward, even though _both_ were still legally
defined as bastards, and excluding the Scottish line even though _it_ was
perfectly legitimate

[Don Aitken]

Post by mike stone

Post by Gidzmo
a) Mary and Elizabeth were restored to the succession?

No. The Act simply authorised him to determine the succession by Testament ie
nominate his successor. He then proceeded to make a will placing Mary and
Elizabeth immediately after Edward, even though _both_ were still legally
defined as bastards, and excluding the Scottish line even though _it_ was
perfectly legitimate

The Act (which is at
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/h8b.html#157 ) is much more
complicated than that. The line of succession which it laid down is as
follows:

1. The Prince Edward and the heirs of his body
2. The heirs of the body of Henry VIII by his present wife (Katherine
Parr) or any future wife
3. The Lady Mary and the heirs of her body
4. The lady Elizabeth and the heirs of her body
5. Such persons as shall be designated by King Henry by Letters Patent
in his lifetime, or by Will

In relation to persons falling within 3 and 4, Henry is also
authorised to impose "conditions" in the same way, and provide for
what is to happen if those conditions are not observed.

Henry's will confirmed recited the statutory position and provided for
the Suffolk line to come in position 5. Nothing was said about
"conditions".

The Act of 1544 partly confirms and partly amends the first Act of
Succession, of 1534 http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/h8a.html#147

[Graham Truesdale]

Post by Richard
This has all been played out in various ng's bf, but I'd like some
clarification on some issues.
1) Henry IV legitimised the line leading to Henry Tudor on the
condition that the descendents were barred from the throne? Yes? If so
no Beaufort could possibly take the throne - thus Henry Tudor was an
illegal occupant of the throne. Did Henry IV pass this through
parliament?

See my 'legitimist succession list' post from 2001 (doesn't seem
like three years ago!)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kMwU6.25205%24YB3.4261573%40news2-win.s
erver.ntlworld.com&output=gplain
for the rightful succession through Elizabeth of York and her son Henry.

Post by Richard
2) To what extent did a King's will need to be passed through
parliament to be considered unbreakable upon his death? Take the
example of Edward VI - his will was completely ignored and Mary became
Queen. In another example - Henry VIII took the descendents of his
older sister Margaret out of the succession - yet a descendent DID
become King (James I) and I believe HVIII did pass this through
Parliament.

The Grey line did have a stronger legal claim in 1603 than 1553, IMHO.

Post by Richard
3) What happened to Margaret of Anjou(?) HVI Queen

http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal01218
Shakespeare uses a bit of dramatic licence by making her appear
in *Richard III*

[Lisa Davidson]

The google reference comes up zilch. Could you share your information in some
other way?

Post by Graham Truesdale

Post by Richard
This has all been played out in various ng's bf, but I'd like some
clarification on some issues.
1) Henry IV legitimised the line leading to Henry Tudor on the
condition that the descendents were barred from the throne? Yes? If so
no Beaufort could possibly take the throne - thus Henry Tudor was an
illegal occupant of the throne. Did Henry IV pass this through
parliament?

See my 'legitimist succession list' post from 2001 (doesn't seem
like three years ago!)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kMwU6.25205%24YB3.4261573%40news2-win.s
erver.ntlworld.com&output=gplain
for the rightful succession through Elizabeth of York and her son Henry.

Post by Richard
2) To what extent did a King's will need to be passed through
parliament to be considered unbreakable upon his death? Take the
example of Edward VI - his will was completely ignored and Mary became
Queen. In another example - Henry VIII took the descendents of his
older sister Margaret out of the succession - yet a descendent DID
become King (James I) and I believe HVIII did pass this through
Parliament.

The Grey line did have a stronger legal claim in 1603 than 1553, IMHO.

Post by Richard
3) What happened to Margaret of Anjou(?) HVI Queen

http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal01218
Shakespeare uses a bit of dramatic licence by making her appear
in *Richard III*

[Frank Johansen]

Post by Lisa Davidson

Post by Graham Truesdale

Post by Richard
This has all been played out in various ng's bf, but I'd like some
clarification on some issues.
1) Henry IV legitimised the line leading to Henry Tudor on the
condition that the descendents were barred from the throne? Yes? If so
no Beaufort could possibly take the throne - thus Henry Tudor was an
illegal occupant of the throne. Did Henry IV pass this through
parliament?

See my 'legitimist succession list' post from 2001 (doesn't seem
like three years ago!)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kMwU6.25205%24YB3.4261573%40news2-win.s
erver.ntlworld.com&output=gplain
for the rightful succession through Elizabeth of York and her son Henry.

The google reference comes up zilch. Could you share your information in some
other way?

If you enter the entire adress, you should see Graham's post. At least
in my newsreader, the line is broken between "-win.s" and
"erver.ntworld...." - probably in yours too.

Regards
Frank H. Johansen

[Lisa Davidson]

I did enter in the entire address and it still comes up "not found".

Post by Lisa Davidson

Post by Lisa Davidson

Post by Graham Truesdale

Post by Richard
This has all been played out in various ng's bf, but I'd like some
clarification on some issues.
1) Henry IV legitimised the line leading to Henry Tudor on the
condition that the descendents were barred from the throne? Yes? If so
no Beaufort could possibly take the throne - thus Henry Tudor was an
illegal occupant of the throne. Did Henry IV pass this through
parliament?

See my 'legitimist succession list' post from 2001 (doesn't seem
like three years ago!)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kMwU6.25205%24YB3.4261573%40news2-win.s
erver.ntlworld.com&output=gplain
for the rightful succession through Elizabeth of York and her son Henry.

The google reference comes up zilch. Could you share your information

in some

Post by Lisa Davidson
other way?

If you enter the entire adress, you should see Graham's post. At least
in my newsreader, the line is broken between "-win.s" and
"erver.ntworld...." - probably in yours too.
Regards
Frank H. Johansen

[mike stone]

Post by Lisa Davidson
I did enter in the entire address and it still comes up "not found".

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kMwU6.25205%24YB3.4261573%40news2-win
.server.ntlworld.com&output=gplain

I copied/pasted the above and got through ok

[Donald Renouf]

Post by Graham Truesdale
See my 'legitimist succession list' post from 2001 (doesn't seem
like three years ago!)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kMwU6.25205%24YB3.4261573%40news2-win.s
erver.ntlworld.com&output=gplain
for the rightful succession through Elizabeth of York and her son Henry.

And here's a "Lancastrian succession list", showing the rightful
descent of Henry IV's claim.

HENRY IV, born 3 Apr 1367. Created Duke of Hereford, 1397. Succeeded
father as 2nd Duke of Lancaster, 3 Feb 1399. King of England and Lord
of Ireland, 30 Sep 1399. Died, 20 Mar 1413.

HENRY V, born 16 Sep 1387. 2nd Duke of Cornwall, 1399. Succeeded
father as King of England and Lord of Ireland, 20 Mar 1413. Heir of
France, 1420. Died 31 Aug 1422.

HENRY VI, born 6 Dec 1421, 3rd Duke of Cornwall from birth. Succeeded
father as King of England and Lord of Ireland, 31 Aug 1422. Succeeded
grandfather as King of France, 21 Oct 1422. Died 21 May 1471.

(Edward, born 13 Oct 1453, 4th Duke of Cornwall from birth. Prince of
Wales, 1453. D.v.p. 4 May 1471)

AFFONSO I, born 15 Jan 1432. Succeeded his father as King of Portugal
(as Affonso V) 9 Sep 1438. Succeeded his second cousin as King of
England and France and Lord of Ireland, 21 May 1471. Died 28 Aug 1481.

JOAO II, born 3 May 1455. 5th Duke of Cornwall, 1471. Succeeded his
father as King of England, France and Portugal and Lord of Ireland, 28
Aug 1481. Died 25 Oct 1495.

(Affonso, born 18 May 1475. 6th Duke of Cornwall, 1481. D.v.p. 12 Jul
1491.)

MANOEL I, born 1 Jun 1469. Succeeded his brother as 4th Duque de Beja
and 5th Duque de Viseu, 23 Aug 1484. Succeeded his first cousin as
King of England, France and Portugal and Lord of Ireland, 25 Oct 1495.
Died 13 Dec 1521.

(Miguel, born 23 Aug 1498, 7th Duke of Cornwall from birth. Prince of
the Asturias, 28 Aug 1498. D.v.p. 19 Jul 1500.)

JOAO III, born 6 Jun 1502, 8th Duke of Cornwall from birth. Succeeded
his father as King of England, France and Portugal and Lord of
Ireland, 13 Dec 1521. Died 11 Jun 1557.

(Affonso, born 24 Feb 1526, 9th Duke of Cornwall from birth. D.v.p.
that year.)

(Manoel, born 1 Nov 1531, 10th Duke of Cornwall from birth. D.v.p. 14
Apr 1537.)

(Filippe, born 25 May 1533. 11th Duke of Cornwall, 1537. D.v.p. 29 Apr
1539.)

(Joao, born 3 Jun 1537. 12th Duke of Cornwall, 1539. d.v.p. 2 Jan
1554.)

SEBASTIAO I, born 20 Jan 1554. Succeeded his grandfather as King of
England, France and Portugal and Lord of Ireland, 1557. Died 4 Aug
1578.

HENRIQUE VII, born 31 Jan 1512. Succeeded his great-nephew as King of
England and France, King of Portugal (as Henrique I) and Lord of
Ireland, 1578. Died 31 Jan 1580.

RANUCCIO I, born 28 Mar 1569. Succeeded his great-uncle as King of
England and France and Lord of Ireland, 1580. Succeeded his father as
Duke of Parma and Piacenza, 3 Dec 1592. Died 5 Mar 1622.

(Alessandro Francesco Maria, 13th Duke of Cornwall, b. and d. 8 Aug
1602.)

ALESSANDRO I, born 5 Sep 1610, 14th Duke of Cornwall from birth. A
deaf-mute, so excluded from the Parmesan succession. Succeeded his
father as King of England and France and Lord of Ireland, 1622. Died
24 Jul 1630.

ODOARDO I, born 28 Apr 1612. Succeeded his father as Duke of Parma and
Piacenza, 1622. Succeeded his brother as King of England and France
and Lord of Ireland, 1630. Died 11 Sep 1646.

RANUCCIO II, born 17 Sep 1630, 15th Duke of Cornwall from birth.
Succeeded his father as King of England and France, Duke of Parma and
Piacenza and Lord of Ireland, 1646. Died 11 Dec 1694.

(Odoardo, born 12 Aug 1666, 16th Duke of Cornwall from birth. D.v.p. 5
Sep 1693.)

ELISABETTA I Maria, born 25 Oct 1692. Succeeded her grandfather as
Queen of England and France and Lady of Ireland, 1694. Married King
Felipe V of Spain, 24 Dec 1714. Died 11 Jul 1766.

CARLOS I Sebastiao, born 20 Jan 1716, 17th Duke of Cornwall from
birth. Duke of Parma 1731-1735, King of Naples and Sicily 1733-1759.
Succeeded his half-brother as King of Spain (as Carlos III), 10 Aug
1759. Succeeded his mother as King of England and France and Lord of
Ireland, 1766. Died 14 Dec 1788.

(Felipe, born 13 Jun 1747. Mentally retarded and epileptic, so
excluded from the Spanish succession. Duca di Calabria. 18th Duke of
Cornwall, 1766. Died 19 Sep 1777.)

CARLOS II, born 11 Nov 1748. Prince of Asturias, 1759. 19th Duke of
Cornwall, 1777. Succeeded his father as King of England and France,
King of Spain (as Carlos IV) and Lord of Ireland, 1788. Abdicated the
throne of Spain, 26 Mar 1808. Died 20 Jan 1819.

FERDINANDO I, born 14 Oct 1784. 20th Duke of Cornwall and Prince of
the Asturias, 1788. Succeeded as King of Spain on his father's
abdication, 26 Mar 1808. Renounced his claim to the Spanish throne to
General Napoleon Buonaparte, May 1808. Restored as King of Spain,
March 1814. Succeeded his father as King of England and France and
Lord of Ireland, 1819. Died 29 Sep 1833.

ISABEL II, born 10 Oct 1810. Succeeded her father as Queen of England,
France and Spain and Lady of Ireland, 1833. Deposed as Queen of Spain
1868 and abdicated 1870. Died 9 Apr 1904.

(Fernando, 21st Duke of Cornwall, Prince of the Asturias, born and
died 11 Jun 1850.)

(Alfonso, born 28th November 1857, 22nd Duke of Cornwall from birth.
King of Spain 29 Dec 1874, as Alfonso XII. D.v.m. 25 Nov 1885.)

ALFONSO II, born 17 May 1886, King of Spain (as Alfonso XIII) from
birth. Succeeded his grandmother as King of England and France and
Lord of Ireland, 9 Apr 1904. Succeeded his second cousin once removed
as heir male of the House of Capet, 29 Sep 1936. Abdicated as King of
Spain, 15 Jan 1941. Died 28 Feb 1941.

(Alfonso, born 10 May 1907, Prince of the Asturias from birth. 23rd
Duke of Cornwall, 1904. D.v.p. 6 Sep 1938.)

JAIME, born 23 Jun 1908, Duke of Segovia. Renounced his rights to the
Spanish throne, 21 Jun 1933. 24th Duke of Cornwall, 1938. Succeeded
his father as King of England and France and Lord of Ireland, 1941.
Died 20 Mar 1975.

ALFONSO III, born 20 Apr 1936, Duke of Cadiz. 25th Duke of Cornwall,
1941. Succeeded his father as King of England and France and Lord of
Ireland, 1975. Died 30 Jan 1989.

(Francisco, born 22 Nov 1972, "Duc de Bourbon". 26th Duke of Cornwall,
1975. D.v.p. 7 Feb 1982.)

LUIS ALFONSO, born 25 Apr 1974. 27th Duke of Cornwall, 1982. Succeeded
his father as King of England and France and Lord of Ireland, 1989.

[mike stone]

Post by Donald Renouf
And here's a "Lancastrian succession list", showing the rightful
descent of Henry IV's claim.

[snip]

Post by Donald Renouf
SEBASTIAO I, born 20 Jan 1554. Succeeded his grandfather as King of
England, France and Portugal and Lord of Ireland, 1557. Died 4 Aug
1578.
HENRIQUE VII, born 31 Jan 1512. Succeeded his great-nephew as King of
England and France, King of Portugal (as Henrique I) and Lord of
Ireland, 1578. Died 31 Jan 1580.
RANUCCIO I, born 28 Mar 1569. Succeeded his great-uncle as King of
England and France and Lord of Ireland, 1580. Succeeded his father as
Duke of Parma and Piacenza, 3 Dec 1592. Died 5 Mar 1622.

Does that mean the Dukes of Parma were rightfully Kings of Portugal after 1580?
Was their claim ever raised?

[Pierre Aronax]

Post by mike stone

Post by Donald Renouf
And here's a "Lancastrian succession list", showing the rightful
descent of Henry IV's claim.

[snip]

Post by Donald Renouf
SEBASTIAO I, born 20 Jan 1554. Succeeded his grandfather as King of
England, France and Portugal and Lord of Ireland, 1557. Died 4 Aug
1578.
HENRIQUE VII, born 31 Jan 1512. Succeeded his great-nephew as King of
England and France, King of Portugal (as Henrique I) and Lord of
Ireland, 1578. Died 31 Jan 1580.
RANUCCIO I, born 28 Mar 1569. Succeeded his great-uncle as King of
England and France and Lord of Ireland, 1580. Succeeded his father as
Duke of Parma and Piacenza, 3 Dec 1592. Died 5 Mar 1622.

Does that mean the Dukes of Parma were rightfully Kings of Portugal after 1580?
Was their claim ever raised?

Yes, but mezza voce only, since they were close allies of the king of Spain
who usurped the throne of Portugal. But they took the arms of Portugal in an
escucheon on their arms, and that is how this escutcheon of Portugal ended
in the great coat-of-arms of the kingdom of the Two-Siciles and is still in
the coat-of-arms of the duke of Calabria (who, as I noted some time ago, as
legal although not genealogical heir of the Farnese, is perhaps a better
virtual legitimist king of Portugal than is the duke of Anjou. Although one
can ask if the claim to Portugal as been or not "merged" or not in the
headship of the House of Farnese).

Pierre

[Frank Johansen]

Post by mike stone

Post by Donald Renouf
HENRIQUE VII, born 31 Jan 1512. Succeeded his great-nephew as King of
England and France, King of Portugal (as Henrique I) and Lord of
Ireland, 1578. Died 31 Jan 1580.
RANUCCIO I, born 28 Mar 1569. Succeeded his great-uncle as King of
England and France and Lord of Ireland, 1580. Succeeded his father as
Duke of Parma and Piacenza, 3 Dec 1592. Died 5 Mar 1622.

Does that mean the Dukes of Parma were rightfully Kings of Portugal after 1580?
Was their claim ever raised?

They tried to claim the Portugese throne, but did not get much support.
The Portugese themself was of the opinion that a claimat had to be
Portugese, not Italian, so they rallied around head of the next line -
The Duke of Braganza.

Regards
Frank H. Johansen

[Pierre Aronax]

Post by Donald Renouf

Post by Graham Truesdale
See my 'legitimist succession list' post from 2001 (doesn't seem
like three years ago!)

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kMwU6.25205%24YB3.4261573%40news2-win.s

Post by Donald Renouf

Post by Graham Truesdale
erver.ntlworld.com&output=gplain
for the rightful succession through Elizabeth of York and her son Henry.

And here's a "Lancastrian succession list", showing the rightful
descent of Henry IV's claim.
HENRY IV, born 3 Apr 1367. Created Duke of Hereford, 1397. Succeeded
father as 2nd Duke of Lancaster, 3 Feb 1399. King of England and Lord
of Ireland, 30 Sep 1399. Died, 20 Mar 1413.
HENRY V, born 16 Sep 1387. 2nd Duke of Cornwall, 1399. Succeeded
father as King of England and Lord of Ireland, 20 Mar 1413. Heir of
France, 1420. Died 31 Aug 1422.
HENRY VI, born 6 Dec 1421, 3rd Duke of Cornwall from birth. Succeeded
father as King of England and Lord of Ireland, 31 Aug 1422. Succeeded
grandfather as King of France, 21 Oct 1422. Died 21 May 1471.
(Edward, born 13 Oct 1453, 4th Duke of Cornwall from birth. Prince of
Wales, 1453. D.v.p. 4 May 1471)
AFFONSO I, born 15 Jan 1432. Succeeded his father as King of Portugal
(as Affonso V) 9 Sep 1438. Succeeded his second cousin as King of
England and France...

Plesae, do not mix France with all that: Edward III had no claim to the
French throne. Would he have been, that would suppose crazy rules of
succession where 1) that women can't inherit, but can transmit claims to
their sons (so that Edward would not have been bypassed by Charles IV's
nieces); 2) that closer degree is preferred over senior line (so that Edward
would not have been bypassed by Charles IV's grandnephew); and 3) that still
unborn children have no right (so that Philip V and Charles IV would not
have been bypassed by Louis X's grandson). According to this purported
"logic", at the death of Richard II, the heir of his "claim" on France would
have been Edmund, duke of York (closer by degree even if younger by line
than Henri of Lancaster). I don't think it makes sense to go further and
search next sueccessors for that claim. For what is of the treaty of Troye
which gave the succession of France to Henry V, it was void ab initio and,
even if it had not been, it was link by the treaty to Henry's marriage to
Catherine of France, so that only descendants of Henry's body would have had
a claim to it, not a collateral heir like the king of Portugal.

Pierre

[Donald Renouf]

Post by Pierre Aronax
Plesae, do not mix France with all that: Edward III had no claim to the
French throne. Would he have been, that would suppose crazy rules of
succession where 1) that women can't inherit, but can transmit claims to
their sons (so that Edward would not have been bypassed by Charles IV's
nieces); 2) that closer degree is preferred over senior line (so that Edward
would not have been bypassed by Charles IV's grandnephew); and 3) that still
unborn children have no right (so that Philip V and Charles IV would not
have been bypassed by Louis X's grandson). According to this purported
"logic", at the death of Richard II, the heir of his "claim" on France would
have been Edmund, duke of York (closer by degree even if younger by line
than Henri of Lancaster). I don't think it makes sense to go further and
search next sueccessors for that claim. For what is of the treaty of Troye
which gave the succession of France to Henry V, it was void ab initio and,
even if it had not been, it was link by the treaty to Henry's marriage to
Catherine of France, so that only descendants of Henry's body would have had
a claim to it, not a collateral heir like the king of Portugal.

Of course the English claim to France was nonsense. I was merely
following the practice whereby all Kings of England (and later Great
Britain) from Henry VI onward also called themselves "King of France"
as a title of pretence, despite the fact that none of them were
descended from Henry V after 1471 and so were just as unrelated as the
King of Portugal.

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by Graham Truesdale

Post by Richard
This has all been played out in various ng's bf, but I'd like some
clarification on some issues.
1) Henry IV legitimised the line leading to Henry Tudor on the
condition that the descendents were barred from the throne? Yes? If so
no Beaufort could possibly take the throne - thus Henry Tudor was an
illegal occupant of the throne. Did Henry IV pass this through
parliament?

See my 'legitimist succession list' post from 2001 (doesn't seem
like three years ago!)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kMwU6.25205%24YB3.4261573%40news2-win.s
erver.ntlworld.com&output=gplain
for the rightful succession through Elizabeth of York and her son Henry.

Post by Richard
2) To what extent did a King's will need to be passed through
parliament to be considered unbreakable upon his death? Take the
example of Edward VI - his will was completely ignored and Mary became
Queen. In another example - Henry VIII took the descendents of his
older sister Margaret out of the succession - yet a descendent DID
become King (James I) and I believe HVIII did pass this through
Parliament.

The Grey line did have a stronger legal claim in 1603 than 1553, IMHO.

Post by Richard
3) What happened to Margaret of Anjou(?) HVI Queen

http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal01218
Shakespeare uses a bit of dramatic licence by making her appear
in *Richard III*

That isn't true. Margaret of Anjou was killed along with them. Henry the 6th was known to have died after his son and his wife while imprisoned in the tower.

[Graham]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by Graham Truesdale

Post by Richard
This has all been played out in various ng's bf, but I'd like some
clarification on some issues.
1) Henry IV legitimised the line leading to Henry Tudor on the
condition that the descendents were barred from the throne? Yes? If so
no Beaufort could possibly take the throne - thus Henry Tudor was an
illegal occupant of the throne. Did Henry IV pass this through
parliament?

See my 'legitimist succession list' post from 2001 (doesn't seem
like three years ago!)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kMwU6.25205%24YB3.4261573%40news2-win.s
erver.ntlworld.com&output=gplain
for the rightful succession through Elizabeth of York and her son Henry.

Post by Richard
2) To what extent did a King's will need to be passed through
parliament to be considered unbreakable upon his death? Take the
example of Edward VI - his will was completely ignored and Mary became
Queen. In another example - Henry VIII took the descendents of his
older sister Margaret out of the succession - yet a descendent DID
become King (James I) and I believe HVIII did pass this through
Parliament.

The Grey line did have a stronger legal claim in 1603 than 1553, IMHO.

Post by Richard
3) What happened to Margaret of Anjou(?) HVI Queen

http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal01218
Shakespeare uses a bit of dramatic licence by making her appear
in *Richard III*

That isn't true. Margaret of Anjou was killed along with them. Henry the 6th was known to have died after his son and his wife while imprisoned in the tower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Anjou says that she died on 25 August 1482. Or if you want a more reliable source, see the Dictionary of National Biography - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Margaret_(1430-1482)_(DNB00)

[RCLOVELY]

Post by Richard
no Beaufort could possibly take the throne - thus Henry Tudor was an
illegal occupant of the throne.

I am sure many historians will answer this in a scholarly ways, but here is my
take on Henry VII occupying the throne.
When you invade a country, kill the king, march into the capitol with loyal
troops at your back, the government is going to give you what you want, legal
or not.

RC