Yes, there seems to be an ambivalence about her legitimacy as a reigning monarch. I took a look at the description of the events surrounding her proclamation and then how events shifted against her. What stands out in my view here was the role of the Privy Council - at first, favoring her but then when opinion and pressure went the other way, then proclaiming Mary Tudor as queen instead. So, was the Privy Council during those centuries of monarchy more significant and legally important than nowadays in a constitutional and ceremonial monarchy? Did the recognition of the Privy Council signify much more than the simple formalities of the modern era?
Read William F's excellent post about this problem. Henry VIII's previous Act of Succession had been ratified by Parliament and remained the law of the land. It was never formally repealed. A declaration by the Privy Council alone could not alter this. Parliament to this day remains the ultimate arbiter of the succession which is currently governed by the 1701 Act of Settlement.
368
Message Thread
« Back to index