burntcopper (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
burntcopper) wrote2006-07-28 02:25 am
burntcopper) wrote2006-07-28 02:25 am
Entry tags:
claiming the throne shite
Just read an article on the BBC about some bloke who tried to say he was a claimant to the throne in the 1930s.
The words 'rightful heir' get thrown about a lot. I know there's some bloke in Australia who insists he is. I just... :facepalm: These people have clearly been reading too many ballads and fantasy novels. There is no such thing as a 'rightful heir' or 'true heir' when it comes to thrones and the position of royalty. Just because so-and-so is the eleventh-generation descendant of a deposed king/the crown prince that got smuggled away by the loyal retainer the night there was a coup and the nasty mean uncle took the crown, this does not give him anymore claim to the throne than the average pigkeeper. The next pigkeeper you come across may very well have a fuckload more 'royal blood' than said 'rightful heir', because royalty, as has been very, very well documented throughout the ages, has a habit of shagging everyone from the maidservants to the courtiers. The amount of maidservants that got sent off with a bit of money to hush them up is untrue. The amount of mistresses and actual *acknowledged* bastards is also untrue.
Kingship is conferred by *force* and *power*. Whoever has the throne at the time is the rightful king. See the Wars of the Roses for a good example. Also see the Georges. And best of all, William the Conqueror. Note the title. I haven't seen any relatives of the Godwinsons laying claim to the throne since 1066. The rightful heir is normally the most direct heir the current king has, and if said heir gets ousted when the king dies for being too weak too hold onto power, the traditional and correct response to any whining from them or their descendants is 'Tough luck, Sonny Jim, come back when you've consolidated enough power and influence to get yourself on the throne by either family connections, force or looking like a very stable marriage candidate with enough political power to prop up the current regime.' (see William of Orange for that one) Charles II only got invited back because he seemed a stable choice politically, and Parliament realised a politically astute figurehead with no illusions about what they could do to him if they really got pissed off was a good idea. Also note that this was *after* Cromwell died.
Of course, the romanticists' view is not helped by Tolkein. Aragorn only gets the throne because he has the elves backing him, friendship as a half-decent general from the Rohirrim, a bit of charisma, the instability of Gondor post-War of the Ring and Faramir doesn't want power the way his dad ruled. Yes, that's right. *Ruled*. The Stewards of Gondor were only Stewards in name. Like Pratchett, if that throne had been made of anything other than stone, it would be a mass of wood lice and collapse when you poked it. If Faramir hadn't been severely injured, had a bad experience with Dad going nuts, and also hadn't come under the influence of everyone who'd been affected by the elves' political manouevering and the general approval from the Rohirrim (who never actually supported him as a throne-claimant, they just didn't mind having a good fighter on their side), Aragorn wouldn't be within a sniff of that throne. And even then it's mostly Aragorn consolidating power whilst Faramir was recovering from his injuries.
Besides, people going on about the whole 'bloodline being passed down the ages from son to son, and there's also this ring and sword' bollocks - um... what makes you think there wasn't an affair on the mothers' side on occasion? The only thing you can absolutely, definitely prove in any pregnancy or birth is who the mother is. DNA testing only goes so far, and most of these stories don't have anything like that to guarantee it. Not to mention any of them that have the genetic power thing in there as a tester, hello, bastards, plus very probable that mummy dearest had an affair with another noble who in all likelihood had the gene as it was (nobility being a pretty small genepool).
:breathes: Rant over. Honest.
The words 'rightful heir' get thrown about a lot. I know there's some bloke in Australia who insists he is. I just... :facepalm: These people have clearly been reading too many ballads and fantasy novels. There is no such thing as a 'rightful heir' or 'true heir' when it comes to thrones and the position of royalty. Just because so-and-so is the eleventh-generation descendant of a deposed king/the crown prince that got smuggled away by the loyal retainer the night there was a coup and the nasty mean uncle took the crown, this does not give him anymore claim to the throne than the average pigkeeper. The next pigkeeper you come across may very well have a fuckload more 'royal blood' than said 'rightful heir', because royalty, as has been very, very well documented throughout the ages, has a habit of shagging everyone from the maidservants to the courtiers. The amount of maidservants that got sent off with a bit of money to hush them up is untrue. The amount of mistresses and actual *acknowledged* bastards is also untrue.
Kingship is conferred by *force* and *power*. Whoever has the throne at the time is the rightful king. See the Wars of the Roses for a good example. Also see the Georges. And best of all, William the Conqueror. Note the title. I haven't seen any relatives of the Godwinsons laying claim to the throne since 1066. The rightful heir is normally the most direct heir the current king has, and if said heir gets ousted when the king dies for being too weak too hold onto power, the traditional and correct response to any whining from them or their descendants is 'Tough luck, Sonny Jim, come back when you've consolidated enough power and influence to get yourself on the throne by either family connections, force or looking like a very stable marriage candidate with enough political power to prop up the current regime.' (see William of Orange for that one) Charles II only got invited back because he seemed a stable choice politically, and Parliament realised a politically astute figurehead with no illusions about what they could do to him if they really got pissed off was a good idea. Also note that this was *after* Cromwell died.
Of course, the romanticists' view is not helped by Tolkein. Aragorn only gets the throne because he has the elves backing him, friendship as a half-decent general from the Rohirrim, a bit of charisma, the instability of Gondor post-War of the Ring and Faramir doesn't want power the way his dad ruled. Yes, that's right. *Ruled*. The Stewards of Gondor were only Stewards in name. Like Pratchett, if that throne had been made of anything other than stone, it would be a mass of wood lice and collapse when you poked it. If Faramir hadn't been severely injured, had a bad experience with Dad going nuts, and also hadn't come under the influence of everyone who'd been affected by the elves' political manouevering and the general approval from the Rohirrim (who never actually supported him as a throne-claimant, they just didn't mind having a good fighter on their side), Aragorn wouldn't be within a sniff of that throne. And even then it's mostly Aragorn consolidating power whilst Faramir was recovering from his injuries.
Besides, people going on about the whole 'bloodline being passed down the ages from son to son, and there's also this ring and sword' bollocks - um... what makes you think there wasn't an affair on the mothers' side on occasion? The only thing you can absolutely, definitely prove in any pregnancy or birth is who the mother is. DNA testing only goes so far, and most of these stories don't have anything like that to guarantee it. Not to mention any of them that have the genetic power thing in there as a tester, hello, bastards, plus very probable that mummy dearest had an affair with another noble who in all likelihood had the gene as it was (nobility being a pretty small genepool).
:breathes: Rant over. Honest.
no subject
Pardon an Anglophile American from chiming in, but I thought the Crown was pretty well settled from at least Victoria on - her grandon Edward (right?) to his son George to his first son Edward and then to 2nd son Bertie when
EdwardDavid decided Wallis was more attractive (god, that man SO had to be gay) to the present Queen, yes? Where is there room in this lineage for another claiment?(And if he's claiming male descent in lieu of the present Queen, it's my understand that England never had the no-females-allowed rule that France did)
But, again, American, not British, altho I'm fascinated by y'all.
And most excellent points on Aragorn. I never thought about how the elves were the power behind the King there...
no subject
Not much fun for Bertie, though, since he didn't want to be king, but felt he had to do it.
no subject
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/5222426.stm
Re: Aragorn. I was thinking about teh Faramir/Steward/Aragorn factor, and then realised that the only ones who have any 'proof' on Aragorn's bloodline are the elves. Otherwise it's just the word of one scruffy ranger who if you look at it during the early days of LOTR had no interest in being king whatsoever.
no subject
The Act remains in force and there is no room for any unknown claimant (unless he's got a serious army).
no subject
*happy sigh*
no subject
Well, than and, "Wouldn't everybody else be worse?"
no subject
'I've managed to garner enough support because you nutters have been killing off everybody for the past few years, I have a clear head and am not obviously a nutter, so get out of the way, throne will be mine!'
'PS: I promise to get the country completely out of debt.'
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Mostly when it comes to the royal family I say..zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
no subject