Bill1978 said:

Out of curiosity, if Henry VIII was able to dictate the order of succession, as in skip the older sister's family which technically he shouldn't have, how come Edward's concept was eventually overruled? Why didn't Edward have the right to change the order of succession and skip his family and give it to his cousin's family? Does it have something to do with Henry's being an Act passed and approved by Parliament, while Edward's was more of a Will statement which parliament hadn't approved at the time of his death? Because my current thinking is, why should a previous King's idea take precedent over the current King's idea. And I though it was the current monarch's divine right to pass the crown to whoever they so decided.

Excellent questions, and ones that have been raised in recent years.

The third act of succession (1544), which granted places to both Mary and Elizabeth, stated that the king reserved the right to alter the succession though his will and/or letters patent. So parliament did not have to be called again if Henry wished to make further changes. As it happened, he did make certain amendments in his will. For instance, the third act did not explicitly deny the throne to the children of Margaret Tudor, Henry’s eldest sister. In his will, Henry did deny them a claim by naming his sister Mary’s heirs, namely the children of Frances Grey, as his successors after Edward, Mary and Elizabeth.

Edward established his succession in his will and through letters patent (signed on 21 June). Clearly Edward, and his supporters, believed he held the same powers as Henry VIII. This was an idea also promoted by Eric Ives in his study on Jane Grey and the succession crisis of 1553. For Ives, Mary Tudor was a rebel who successfully usurped the throne, an incredible achievement given that, for much of the crisis, most of the political elite opposed her and that she (allegedly) was not the legal heir.

Though Edward was still a minor, this did not mean any act passed under him was invalid. Edward’s regency council exercised the right to govern the realm in the King’s name. Edward may have promoted the changes to his succession but he ultimately was backed by his council, so it was not a matter of a young king enacting his policies alone. Later, members of the council tried to exonerate themselves of any blame in the whole affair claiming they had been ‘bullied’ and ‘tricked’ into agreeing, which I suppose raises questions about the sincerity of their support and thus the legitimacy of the changes. Yet most of their later protests are somewhat amusing given their previous strong language against Mary’s right to succeed, and the relative ease of some of these men to deny her the throne. Undoubtedly there were men who did not approve and were cajoled into it – some believing Jane Grey was the winning candidate, so they best support her and do well for themselves out of it. But they had still ratified Edward’s actions, ensuring that the changes that were made were not just the product of a minor who could not exercise power independently.

The real issue is the power of Edward’s device and the letters patent. Did the powers granted to Henry VIII in the third act of succession – giving him the right to make such drastic changes to the line of succession through means outside parliament – extend to his successor? Evidently many historians doubt this, believing Edward still needed parliament to ratify his changes. There were also contemporaries who pressed for a parliament to be convened to make the whole matter more official. The judges called to sign the letters patent, which they eventually did validating the fourth draft of Edward’s ‘device’, wanted a parliament called because, the lord chief justice later claimed, they knew that Edward’s changes directly opposed the 1544 act and an act of parliament could only be taken away with another one. Ives argued in his Jane Grey book that these men, namely chief justice Edward Montagu, were saying all this after the event itself. Montagu had to explain to Mary why they had supported Edward and he alleged that the judges had not been comfortable with the changes but, basically, they were bullied into it by the duke of Northumberland. Ives believes this is Montagu making himself look good – claiming he always knew Mary was the rightful queen, that he had stood up to the duke, but in the end he was threatened and had to conform.

Perhaps Montagu was honest when he said that the judges thought parliament needed to be called to amend a previous act of parliament. The government intended to call parliament for 18 September showing that though they did not believe Edward’s will and letter patent were powerless, the presence of parliament was comfortable and resolved matter nicely. Even Edward told the lawyers that parliament would later be called to confirm his will. One question I have is whether the format of Edward’s ‘device’ was what the 1544 act intended when it said the king had the right to change the succession through certain other means. The device was a medley of things – to quote Ives’s, it was ‘part patent, part proclamation, part will’. He called it ‘an instrument as unique as was the situation’. To me, it shows the council’s confusion, so they threw together all the aspects they thought was necessary. Their confusion indicates that they were not entirely confident that the king held the power to do what he was doing. This may have been a special circumstance – Edward was dying and didn’t have time for all the legal niceties – but if the 1544 act stood and was true for Edward, then why did he need to produce a document so unusual? Why not copy what his father had done precisely? Could it be that Edward and his supporters did feel uneasy because they, unlike Henry VIII, had not passed their own act of parliament explicitly saying that Edward could change the succession outside parliament? To me, the whole affair appears desperate, and I cannot accept Ives’s portrayal of Edward and his council’s actions as logical.

I suppose I haven’t answered your question! Ultimately, the issue of Edward’s right to act like his predecessor remains unclear. I recommend Ives’s study; it may win you over as it evidently did not me (though I completely agree with his views about the duke of Northumberland – a much maligned figure of this period).

Thanks for the info, Nasim, but I think my head is going to explode.   

I was always under the impression that Edward would have had to have his wishes affirmed by Parliament. 

Sharon said:

Thanks for the info, Nasim, but I think my head is going to explode.   

I was always under the impression that Edward would have had to have his wishes affirmed by Parliament. 

This is what I always assumed, and I still think contemporaries were concerned about using parliament. Plus there is just something ‘odd’ to me about the format of the ‘device’ ratified. However, I think Ives has done well to highlight the fact that the third act did grant the monarch the right to make changes to the succession through letters patent and/or a will (something ignored by many other historians). I recommend his article, ‘Tudor dynastic problems revisited’, Historical Research, 81, 212 (2008), pp. 255-79, which explains things in a better way than I have.

On a side note – I also thought for some time that the Scottish relations were denied a claim in the third act till a former tutor told me to read for myself Henry VIII’s will in the National Archives and see that it was in this document, and not the 1544 Act, that they were passed over for Mary Tudor’s heirs. So Henry VIII did exercise, to quote the 1544 statute, the right to elevate a person of royal blood ‘to eny title stile or name of eny estate, dignitie or honour what so ever it be’ through ‘letters patentes and laste Will of his Highnes’. A perfect indication of the type of king that Henry ended up as – one who used parliament to pass an act saying that he could independently overturn their decisions if he so chose to. Nice!

Nasim said:

Sharon said:

Thanks for the info, Nasim, but I think my head is going to explode.   

I was always under the impression that Edward would have had to have his wishes affirmed by Parliament. 

---

 

This is what I always assumed, and I still think contemporaries were concerned about using parliament. Plus there is just something ‘odd’ to me about the format of the ‘device’ ratified. However, I think Ives has done well to highlight the fact that the third act did grant the monarch the right to make changes to the succession through letters patent and/or a will (something ignored by many other historians). I recommend his article, ‘Tudor dynastic problems revisited’, Historical Research, 81, 212 (2008), pp. 255-79, which explains things in a better way than I have.

 

On a side note – I also thought for some time that the Scottish relations were denied a claim in the third act till a former tutor told me to read for myself Henry VIII’s will in the National Archives and see that it was in this document, and not the 1544 Act, that they were passed over for Mary Tudor’s heirs. So Henry VIII did exercise, to quote the 1544 statute, the right to elevate a person of royal blood ‘to eny title stile or name of eny estate, dignitie or honour what so ever it be’ through ‘letters patentes and laste Will of his Highnes’. A perfect indication of the type of king that Henry ended up as – one who used parliament to pass an act saying that he could independently overturn their decisions if he so chose to. Nice!

Thanks for the reference.  Kudos to Ives.  It doesn't surprise me at all that Henry put a statement in the Act so he could overide Parliament.  It's so like him. 

You explained things perfectly. Your explanation was excellent, as always.  Thanks again.

Weir implies a lot of things as truth.  I'm pretty sure first read that in her book The Children of Henry VIII – although it's been a heck of a long time since I read that so I may be mistaken!  I've never read a book solely on Edward but in everything else I've read about his death I've never come across that rumour so it is a bit weird.

Bill1978 said:

Why does Weir imply it is truth?

Bella44 said:

Weir implies a lot of things as truth.

Hee. You guys aren't wrong. The problem is, once you start looking through Weir's books for the “weasel words” like probably, may have, presumably, undoubtedly, could have, might have, should have, possibly, etc. – you can't stop seeing them. They're everywhere.

Impish_Impulse said:

Bill1978 said:

Why does Weir imply it is truth?

Bella44 said:

Weir implies a lot of things as truth.

Hee. You guys aren't wrong. The problem is, once you start looking through Weir's books for the “weasel words” like probably, may have, presumably, undoubtedly, could have, might have, should have, possibly, etc. – you can't stop seeing them. They're everywhere.

Remove those words and her books shrink dramatically.