It is available at:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Tudor-Constitution-Documents-Commentary/dp/052128757X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1374782952&sr=8-4&keywords=G.R.+Elton. From the amazon.com website, the following commendation is made: “There is no alternative in sight which comes close to conveying the story of the English Reformation in narrative power and substantial information.” Heiko A. Oberman, University of Arizona.
(A rich plethora of other volumes are on offer from Mr. Elton.)
Structure of the book over 482 pages and 10 chapters:
1. Crown
2. Council
3. Seals and Secretary
4. Financial Administration
5. Ancient Courts
6. Conciliar Courts
7. Ecclesiastical Courts
8. Parliament
9. Church
10. Local Courts
Each chapter above consists of two things: (1) Mr. Elton’s introductory commentary and (2) a long list of documents from 1485-1601, including landmark legal rulings. This volume will bring the Royal, Parliamentary, legal and ecclesiastical institutions into considerations on the English Reformation.
Of course, as a premier historian, Mr. Elton includes a scholarly bibliography.
Mr. Elton notes there has been a “spectacular expansion of Tudor studies” in the last 50 years.
We bring preliminary musings.
"To rule or not to rule? Rule by military victory, dynastic succession, or both in some combination? Or, with other factors like a Parliament and the Church too?"
The Tudors had been “victors in civil war.” Henry VII had satisfied the first duty of kingship: “govern effectively and to the satisfaction of the greater part of the realm” (1).
The Tudors were never “altogether free from dynastic worries” having observed other “disturbed dynastic successions.” It was “hereditary right” that played the largest part. Of course, wars could alter that.
Henry VII “took the simple line of describing himself as king once he had overthrown Richard III” (1). Or, might makes right. This was not a legal basis, but one of a "victor in war." Nonetheless, heirs “harnessed the dynastic principle.”
Henry’s 1st Parliament was proof enough. “Only a true king can summon a true Parliament.”
Following victory in war and the calling of the Parliament, it was not a far leap to this theological conclusion: “All Tudors rested the title on accomplished fact, which, they argued announced God’s choice.” There there. That's that. Never mind elections as we know them.
In 1495, Henry VII was safe on the throne, all “pretenders overcome,” and “European recognition” achieved. But doubts “could not be avoided” (2).
In 1502, the presumptive Tudor heir, Arthur Tudor, died. Arthur's early death was unexpected at the nubile age of 15 after a brief marriage lasting 20 weeks with Catherine of Aragon.
Upon the death of Arthur, the next presumptive heir in dynastic succession, young Prince Henry, assumed the royal duties of his brother. He would have several years in that role.
Upon the death of Henry VII in 1509, Prince Harry fleeted up and became Henry VIII. To establish, or reaffirm, the Tudor relationship with Spain, Henry VIII declared that he would marry Catherine of Aragaon. Never mind the troubled issues of the Papal dispensation from Julius II. Harry would marry Catherine.
Henry VIII came to the throne at age 18 as “an adult and to the music of general acclamation” (2).
But, dynastic issues remained. Catherine was not breeding heirs for Henry.
He divorced Catherine (or had his marriage annulled) and married the pregnant Ann Boleyn. Mr. Cranmer was in the mix as we've been noting.
With "dynastic issues" at bar, the "First Act of Succession" was passed. Mary was "bastardized." That was that. Thereby, "the future issue" of Henry and Ann would be legitimated.
The marriage to Ann went south. Ann lost her head. Henry took up with Jane Seymour. The dynastic issue gets more complicated.
A “Second Act of Succession” was ordered up—now Mary and Elizabeth were bastards. And that was that. Two bastards, not one.
The "Second Act of Succession" provided for the "future issue" from old Harry and Jane Seymour. Any future issue would be legitimate, "dynastically."
Of note, in this act, there was an allowance to the King “to bequeath by will” the throne as if “the crown were a piece of property.” This will be effected when the Stuarts fleet up in 1603 to the English throne. It is undoubted that "dynastic issues" were involved in poor Harry's matrimonial crusades.
In 1544, a “Third Act of Succession” was declared. This reaffirmed and reiterated that the King could determine dynastic succession by will.
In this "Third Act," the succession was outlined: Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth in that order (“the previous bastardizations being now ignored”). Might makes right, right?
In December 1546, Henry "refines" the will. He provides another potential line of succession.
If the Edwardian, Marian and Elizabethan succession should fail to have issue, the throne would devolve to the issue of Henry VIII’s oldest sister, Margaret Tudor (the Stuart line).
The question of “succession remained a vital issue” during Elizabeth 1’s reign (3). With Edward and Mary dead and Elizabeth childless, who's next? Henry had the foresight to anticipate this.
Henry VIII’s will came into “operation without trouble or question.”
James 1st will come to the English throne in 1603. He was the son of Henry VIII's eldest sister.
"To rule or not to rule? Rule by military victory, dynastic succession, or both in some combination? Or, with other factors like a Parliament and the Church too?"
No comments:
Post a Comment