Monday, September 28, 2009
James I and Catholicism, on his accession
One the the best-known of Gardiner's assertions about James I is on page 82: that "he was unwilling that the blood of any man should be shed for diversity of opinion in religion." The assertion is very plausible for the period before the Gunpower Treason, but, although we will see echos of the sentiment until James's death, the king was not strongly married to this point of view.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Succession
Picking up around page 78, Gardiner talks about the candidates to succeed Queen Elizabeth. The best discussion of this topic, I think, is in the introduction to The Correspondence of James VI with Robert Cecil.
The law was fairly clear: succession as settled by Henry VIII would be through his male line. When that failed, Mary (originally excluded as illegitimate) and then Elizabeth, his daughters should succeed. The provision for the failing of all three lines was descent to the "rightful heirs" of Henry VIII. Determining the next "rightful heir" was the sticking point. The king tried to help by inserting in his will that if his line should fail, descent would be through his niece, Francis; then his niece Eleanor; then the next "rightful heirs." The possible heirs in these lines were Edward, Lord Beauchamp; and the Earl of Derby.
Hereditary was politically important in European politics. It was the least costly and least violent way of transferring power. The uncertainty of reproduction undoubtedly made Henry VIII make these complicating provisions, but in fact peoples' idea of "right inheritance" would provide strong contradictory arguments. And by the rules recognized at the time, the nearest heir was James, the grandson of Henry VII's eldest daughter, Margaret. The closest descendent who was an English subject was Arbella Stuart, also in Margaret's line.
There were objections against all these candidates, but there were no more descendants of Henry VII. Others were proposed as descending from Edward III or even earlier kings, but these were mainly foreigners. In the end, the choice was left to Queen Elizabeth, as we will learn, and she may or may not have designated King James. The English hierarchy accepted him as the least tainted of the available choices.
The law was fairly clear: succession as settled by Henry VIII would be through his male line. When that failed, Mary (originally excluded as illegitimate) and then Elizabeth, his daughters should succeed. The provision for the failing of all three lines was descent to the "rightful heirs" of Henry VIII. Determining the next "rightful heir" was the sticking point. The king tried to help by inserting in his will that if his line should fail, descent would be through his niece, Francis; then his niece Eleanor; then the next "rightful heirs." The possible heirs in these lines were Edward, Lord Beauchamp; and the Earl of Derby.
Hereditary was politically important in European politics. It was the least costly and least violent way of transferring power. The uncertainty of reproduction undoubtedly made Henry VIII make these complicating provisions, but in fact peoples' idea of "right inheritance" would provide strong contradictory arguments. And by the rules recognized at the time, the nearest heir was James, the grandson of Henry VII's eldest daughter, Margaret. The closest descendent who was an English subject was Arbella Stuart, also in Margaret's line.
There were objections against all these candidates, but there were no more descendants of Henry VII. Others were proposed as descending from Edward III or even earlier kings, but these were mainly foreigners. In the end, the choice was left to Queen Elizabeth, as we will learn, and she may or may not have designated King James. The English hierarchy accepted him as the least tainted of the available choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)