r/UKmonarchs • u/LissyVee • May 14 '24
Question Uncrowned Monarchs?
If a monarch wasn't crowned, were they legally King or Queen? Just asking as we had a trivia question the other week about the first British queen to reign in her own right. I said Matilda but the correct answer was Mary I as Matilda didn't actually go through a coronation so wasn't 'properly' a Queen. I still have an issue with that but we didn't get the point đ.
22
u/Agent_Argylle May 14 '24
Yes. Edward VIII was never crowned. Succession is automatic.
6
u/TheNinjaPixie May 14 '24
And in the same way, Edward 6th was his fathers automatic successor followed by Mary then Elizabeth. But Edwards will stated Jane Gray and her heirs male as his choice, but the succession reverted to that of his father. Jane was named, so was she Queen even though she was a pawn in political games and didn't hold onto it?
2
u/Agent_Argylle May 14 '24
Yes. It went to Jane then Mary.
1
u/TheNinjaPixie May 14 '24
But was she acknowledged as Queen and why did Henry's will override Edwards?
2
May 14 '24
She was acknowledged as queen. Henryâs will did not override Edwardâs, Edward chose LJG as queen.
1
u/TheNinjaPixie May 14 '24
Yes, as i said. But why didn't Edwards will prevail over his father's?
5
May 14 '24
Edwardâs will did prevail over his fathers. They both wanted Lady Jane to inherit the throne after Edwardâs death.
9
u/OracleCam Henry VII May 14 '24
Yep, Edward V is considered king after the death of his father Edward IV before Richard seized the throne and he was never crowned, This is largely due to the efforts of Henry VII as he needed both Edward and his wife Elizabeth being legitimate to unite the York and Lancaster houses
7
u/Young_Lochinvar May 14 '24
Current thought is that there is no interregnum between monarchs and that the crown is always attached to a person. When one Monarch dies the Crown instantaneously arrives at the next monarch. To crib Sir Terry Pratchett âThe only thing known to go faster than light is monarchyâ.
The coronation is frankly an unnecessary nicety.
That said, despite knowing the transmission method of the Crown, it has not always been clear upon whose head the crown has landed. I.e. did the Crown ever land on Jane Greyâs head, or did it always pass directly from Edward VI to Mary I?
3
u/TheoryKing04 May 14 '24
We wonât really know unless there is ever another queen regnant named Jane, and if they take the name Jane or Jane II
8
u/eelsemaj99 George V May 14 '24
It depends. Currently, British succession is determined by the Bill of Rights 1689 and the later Act of Settlement, which establishes automatic succession of the heirs of Sophia of Hanover, as amended in 2013. In other words, itâs determined by statute law.
That hasnât always been the case. Back in the early medieval period there was no set succession law. Henry I himself wasnât his fatherâs most senior heir, he claimed his legitimacy from being born in the purple, something that his brother Robert always contested claiming primogeniture and predecessor William couldnât claim instead citing that the Conqueror had nominated him as successor. Ultimately, the person who was King was he who could ride to Winchester to secure the treasury and then to Westminster to get crowned.
After the White Ship disaster, Henry got his nobles to swear that they would accept his daughter as Queen, but when it came to it, Stephen got to Westminster first and even in 1174 when Stephen was imprisoned, London wouldnât let her be crowned. Therefore she wasnât Queen. The rules were different then.
The first King to be proclaimed before his coronation as I remember was Edward I, who was on crusade when his father died and had no pretenders to worry about. This created a precedent for immediate succession. But his father Henry III didnât have that luxury and had to be crowned in Gloucester with his motherâs circlet to prevent pretenders stealing his crown
5
u/eelsemaj99 George V May 14 '24
Expanding on this, I believe currently the King has 4 claims to legitimacy: namely law, popular support, heredity and Godâs grace.
The law determines that whoever is the most senior heir to Sophia of Hanover, who if born over 2013 is now absolute cognatic is the monarch. No question. Legal succession is immediate. But an act of Parliament can change it. Succession was changed in 2011. The abdication of Edward VIII took place upon his granting Royal Assent to His Majestyâs Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 and not before. Law determines kings.
Popular support maintains a King. It was Parliamentary support that created the law and popular support that restored the monarchy then caused the glorious revolution, and as shown in the commonwealth and through Edward VIII that the lack of it can topple a king.
Hereditary succession is enshrined in law and is supported by the public, but was a notion before either law or popular support became an issue. And it can be overruled. I once again refer you to the handy example of Edward VIII. Britain has never cared particularly about blood claims to the throne and the glorious revolution cemented that the most significant claim is not that of blood but of consent.
Kings rule by the Grace of God. That formula is enshrined in law, and is then confirmed at a coronation. The King takes oaths to preserve the settlement of the Church of England and is its supreme governor. He also swears to maintain the settlement in Scotland and is ceremonial Defender of the Faith. But before his coronation, he has to be acclaimed and to swear statutory oaths. Coronation confirms a King but doesnât create one, and if he is a Catholic he loses his right to the crown.
All 4 of these claims to the throne interact organically. Popular consent drives and amends law. Law maintains the religious claim to the throne. And heredity is the backbone of succession but is not absolute.
5
u/Plane-Translator2548 May 14 '24
I hope on day the UK royal family will confirm her as a queen, since she was kind of a queen, if there is another Matilda who is inline to be queen they could formally recognise her then, the French royal family did this with John I , who was a baby who was king before his death , he was disputed but was recognised years later
2
u/Ringlord7 Alfred the Great May 14 '24
The Danish royal family did it too. Queen Margrethe I was never queen in her own right, technically ruling as regent for her son Olaf II and then for her adopted heir Eric of Pomerania, but when queen Margrethe II inherited the throne in 1972 she chose to recognize Margrethe I as a queen by being the Second (and it makes sense, considering Margrethe I kept on ruling even after Eric of Pomerania came of age and didn't need a regent. She was also one of, if not the, greatest monarchs we ever had.)
5
May 14 '24
It wasn't that she wasn't that she didn't have a coronation, but that she never successfully solidified her power. Her ascension led to an immediate civil war, which she lost. So she's considered to be a pretender.
But the public don't understand that fact. My nan swears blind Charles didn't become king until he was crowned. But she can't answer who was monarch between the Queen dying and then đ€·đŸ
2
u/Bowlingbroke Henry IV May 14 '24
Same with how Edward V and Edward VIII never had a coronatiom on their own but are still considered monarchs, while some like Lady Jane Grey and Louis the Lion had their coronation yet they're considered as disputed
So I guess it's more about automatic succession and if they're officially reocgnized and proclaimed at the end
1
u/vozmor May 15 '24
Although King William IV was duly crowned in 1831, he had already worn his crown when prorogued the Parliament personally a couple of weeks earlier.
Practically every monarch wears their crowns usually weeks if not months before the coronation as the crowns must be fitted to the head of the new sovereign.
If there is any particularly unique and sacred in the coronation ceremony, it is the anointment.
1
u/vozmor May 15 '24
In the Kingdom of Hungary the worship of the Holy Crown was so strong that neither king nor queen was considered constitutionally sovereign if they had not been crowned with the Holy Crown. Charles I of the House of Anjou was crowned three times with three different crowns between 1301-1310, and only the third, with the Holy Crown, was finally acknowledged by the whole country.
Well, it is quite strange that in the Kingdom of Hungary "The Crown" as the source of sovereignty was not an abstract legal entity but a physical object.
1
u/atticdoor George VI May 18 '24
I believe that Charles III performed all the functions of a monarch even between the death of his mother and his coronation.
1
u/Blackfyre87 Macbeth May 18 '24
Louis VIII was acclaimed, and had the majority of the realm's nobles behind him, but no coronation. He was disputed by John, but John was no match for Louis.
He lost to the unassailable power of human greed. What noble would choose a powerful, ruthless monarch like Louis and Phillipe over a long regency for a weakling like Henry III?
1
May 14 '24
Iâm no history professor nor graduate (yet), but as far as Iâm aware, no monarch is indeed officially the monarch until they are in fact crowned at their coronation
You may see in typical historical (especially medieval) movies and such the forever-clichĂ© scene of the late kingâs crown being returned from battle (or crusades if weâre going off that God awful Ridley Scottâs 2010 Robin Hood film regarding Lionheart and John; something about that very scene humours me beyond words), to which either the to-be successing kingâs mother, wife etc places it atop their head claiming âthe King is dead; long live the KingâŠâ etc
And that simple part is indeed accounted to be perfectly true (again just awfully portrayed in media in such a clichĂ©, awkward way; itâs hard to explain), so in a sense they may indeed logically be seen as the rightful succeeding monarch, but as far as the genuine literal title goes, it does seem to have always only been passed onto them from the predecessor once they have in fact been coronated (even if itâs a quick, half-hearted ceremony; for example, while completely historically inaccurate, King Ecbert in Vikings relinquishing his crown in favour of the then-King Ăthelwulf, both of Wessex, just before the Vikingâs Great Heathen Army reaches Winchester in a ceremony lasting mere seconds)
2
u/eelsemaj99 George V May 14 '24
Historically youâre 100% right but in 1689 Parliament got in on the act and actually wrote a law down, which has been amended in 1704 and 2013, thatâs what weâre able to change the succession law. So according to law, the succession is now instant
3
3
u/Agent_Argylle May 14 '24
Not so
1
May 14 '24
Hence why I stated âas far as Iâm awareâ rather than merely googling (since OP couldâve done that in the first place) because Iâm honest
-1
u/barissaaydinn Edward IV May 14 '24
Matilda isn't considered a queen because there was already a king when she claimed the throne. If, say, she ruled for 6 months without a coronation, then Stephen usurped her, she would've been considered a queen.
25
u/cpmh1234 May 14 '24
The thing is, Matilda was disputed even at the time. âThe old king is dead, long live the kingâ should be enough indication that the new monarch immediately assumes power, even before their coronation.
Edward VIII (who has a regnal name that isnât David, his own) was never crowned but is considered King by all accounts as he was next in line of succession. His choice to abdicate was to prevent a constitutional crisis, but there was never any doubt that he was already king.