Talk:Third Succession Act

As title :) 80.189.118.212 (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

NO. In fact the Act was ignored in 1603 when James Stuart King of Scotland became King of England, completely contrary to the stipulations of the Act, which should have made Edward Seymour, Lord Beauchamp King of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.229.210 (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

You confused the Act with the will of Henry VIII. The Act made no mention to succession beyond Henry VIII's children and their descendants other than to say that Henry VIII could dispose of the Crown by a letter patent or his will "signed with his most gracious hand." Since his will was signed with a dry stamp instead of by hand James VI was able to claim then Crown on a technicality. Emperor001 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have changed the loaded term "usurped" to the more neutral "removed" in the sentence about the Lady Jane Grey and her 13-day reign. As explained in Talk:Alternate successions of the English crown#The Third Succession Act and Edward VI of England Edward tried to overturn the Third Succession Act of 1543 without actually repealing it (which was made extraordinarlily difficult by the fact that the Act defined any attempt to amend or repeal it as "high treason"). The succession crisis after the death of Edward therefore hinged on the legality of his actions without going through Parliament. It might well be argued that Lady Jane Grey was the usurper, not Mary I. But, however that may be, "removed" covers all eventualities.--Ereunetes (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article makes no mention whatsoever about the fact that, in the event of Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth all dying without issue, and of Henry not having legitimate issue by Catherine Parr, or that line dying out, then the crown was to pass not to the heir of Henry's older sister Margaret Tudor, but rather to the heir of Henry's younger sister, Mary Tudor. That is why Jane "usurped" the throne, as she was the heir to Mary Tudor(Jane's mother Frances Brandon having relinquished her own claim). Thus upon the death of Elizabeth I in 1603, the Crown should have passed NOT to James Stuart, heir of Margaret Tudor, but rather the legitimate heir of Mary Tudor. This is conveniently ignored by many, as it would mean that following the Third Succession Act(which was a lawful act of Parliament) to the letter, the line leading to Queen Elizabeth II would not have inherited the Crown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.229.210 (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Care to prove that the King himself committed treason by changing the Succession? Since when did Parliament have final say on this for any of the Roses dynasties? It is amusing to think that Edward VI could not do so, unlike his father, but Parliament would not be committing treason by inviting James VI to England expressly against the very same Succession they signed off on. It was only the time of Charles I that Parliamentarian prerogative became enshrined to define treasonous actions on the part of the Crown, the regicides simply calling him Charles Stewart. After all, they had exercised their power to bring his father to England without a living King or Queen to hold them to their surety of the Succession. If the Succession were so holy, then it would not matter who broke arrangements, but reality is something different than the version of the article stated. Henry was the one who introduced the Succession, just as all monarchs had done before. Richard III had the de la Poles in his line of Succession, but the Lords ignored this by advancing the attainted Earl of Richmond, representing the Lancastrians.

No Parliamentarian ever had the authority to decide the Succession, other than offer or withdraw their support for the Royal faction the preferred, and other than other Plantagenets, only Warwick the Kingmaker ever really pushed the issue since the Anarchy between Matilda and Stephen. For the King to seek legislation in the Succession could only mean he needed safeguards for it in the event of his death and the regency of his sickly son, since the late Wars of the Roses had indeed been largely decided by Warwick's meddling. It is true that Northumberland pretty much followed Warwick in the kingmaking business, but it is also true that Edward had demanded signatures for his succession from numerous Parliamentarians he counted on just like Henry before.

Whether or not he had the time to pass this in an Act of Parliament is irrelevant to the Succession's legitimacy regarding Queen Jane, since both Mary and Elizabeth had already been bastardized and removed numerous times before, whereas Jane was never on either account, and always remained in the Succession since Henry had barred Margaret's Scottish heirs from the very beginning. Read the James VI/I articles about the Succession with regard to the Spanish Match and Parliamentarian criticism. James rebuked the Commons for interfering, which they technically were not supposed to do, but realistically had the power to influence simply because James owed his station to them, even illegally so, per the Succession here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.128.164 (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

As it is now, this motherfucking asshole keeps revert warring without talk page discussion. He is also a hypocrite by hogging the Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester article, adding his preferred narrative about Leicester, without providing sources himself. Fucking asshole, get a fucking life.

Surtsicna, the other editor reverting, is a known Marian partisan by his edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.129.160 (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

There are a number of things in this article that are factually incorrect and in desperate need of correction. I learned long ago not to make edits myself, so I just offer advice from the sidelines and let others debate it. But:

First, and despite the content of the section titled "Title and Dating," the Third Act for the Succession was actually passed and received Crown assent in 1544, not 1543, and is thus referred to today in the vast majority of textbooks and reference media ... and by most academic historians ... as an Act of 1544. Certainly one can quibble about referencing conventions pre-1793, but doesn't it make better common sense to use the modern referencing convention rather than the antique one?

The section on Relation to the First and Second Succession Acts is worded in a way that unnecessarily muddles the issue of the will of Henry VIII. In actual fact, Article VI of the Third Act empowered Henry VIII to convey the Crown via his last will and testament only in the event that Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth predeceased him and did so without having married and produced issue, and only if Henry had no additional children by Katherine Parr. In such circumstances, the Tudor Dynasty would end upon Henry's own death, and it was therefore left to Henry to determine who should form the new dynasty. The purpose of Article VI was to forestall a return to the dynastic warfare of the fifteenth century by empowering Henry to chart a viable future course for the Crown.

Paragraph two of the same section, sentence two beginning "Mary and Elizabeth ..." is confused/confusing as well. Yes, Mary and Elizabeth had both been declared illegitimate and incapable of inheriting the Crown under the first two acts for the succession. And yes, they "expressly remained" illegitimate under the Third Act, but they did not "remain incapable to [sic] inherit," as the sentence implies through poor syntax. More correctly, "Mary and Elizabeth had both been declared illegitimate, and they expressly remained so in the 1543/44 Act." I suggest removing the awkwardly worded phrase "they were only capacitated [sic ... did someone use Google Translate?!?] to succeed to the Crown (with several provisos, such as they could not marry without the Privy Council's approval)." After all, how can one both "remain ... incapable to [sic] inherit [the Crown]" (first phrase) and simultaneously "capacitated to succeed to the Crown" (second phrase)?

Regarding the "several provisos," there again seems to be some confusion in this Wiki entry. Yes, the Third Act empowered Henry to limit the ability of either Mary or Elizabeth to succeed to the Crown (despite remaining illegitimate) if he chose to do so, but only if either daughter married or engaged in some other politically relevant act (e.g.: Mary going into exile for religious reasons) during Henry's lifetime and thereby offended Henry. Actions taken after Henry's death could not legally be governed by his last will. Further, Article V of the Act explicitly revokes the possibility of provisos affecting Mary and Elizabeth after Henry's death, though the revocation is obscured in dense legal language. Aware of this fact, Henry did not attempt any such provisions in his last will and testament, since that will was written in his last days (in December 1546 or January 1547) and thus over 2 years after he had assented to the Third Act.

Lastly, the section on "Historical Effect" is too brief and seems not to understand the legal basis for Edward VI's "Devise for the Succession." Edward was not attempting to "bypass" the Treason Act of 1547 since it is not legally possible for a reigning monarch to commit treason against himself (in the English legal context, treason is an act of personal disloyalty committed against the monarch, not [as in the US and other republics] against the nation or Parliament or the citizenry). Rather, he was attempting to act in accordance with the exact wording of the Third Act: "His Highness should and might give, will, limit, assign, appoint or dispose the said imperial crown and other the premises to what person or persons, and give the same person or persons such estate in the same, as it should please His Majesty by his gracious letters patents under the great seal [emphasis added], or by his last will ...." Edward and his advisors attempted to assert that the Third Act had empowered any English monarch to transmit the Crown via letters patent and did not limit that power to Henry VIII alone. Thus the "Devise" was indeed issued as letters patent under the Great Seal and co-signed by a large number of the political elite. Historians still debate whether the Third Act empowered only Henry VIII as an individual possessor of the Crown to choose his successor or whether it instead empowered every successive monarch to do the same. Consensus leans, however, toward the power being limited to Henry VIII alone and applicable to only the unique circumstances Henry VIII and his three children represented. If anything, Edward was trying to "bypass" the Third Act for the Succession, not the Treason Act of 1547. DesertSkies120 (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Regarding short titles: these are a thing from the 19th century onward. It's highly doubtful that this Act ever had a "formal" short title as claimed in this article. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Article V does not revoke Henry's ability to make provisos regarding the succession of Mary and Elizabeth. Rather, it says, somewhat tautologically, that their reign is to be unencumbered by any such provisos if Henry didn't specify any in his will. That rather strongly implies to me that he had the power to make provisos that would apply during their reign (which he in fact made, specifically requiring the Privy Council's permission to marry). (Though this analysis is based on a second hand account, not the text of the will, which I haven't found.) Hairy Dude (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I note that ‎Pisarz12345 edited this article to indicate that the Third Succession Act of 1543/4 was repealed by both the See of Rome Act of 1554 and the Act of Supremacy of 1558/9. I have asked on his/her own Talk page if he/she could please tell us exactly how those two later acts had any bearing on any of the three Henrician Succession Acts, particularly the Third Act. I asked that he/she please quote a clause from either supposedly-repealing act that bears directly on the royal succession. I wonder if perhaps he/she has not actually read the entire text of the three Succession Acts, the Second Act of Repeal of 1554, and the Act of Supremacy of 1558/9 and is therefore simply mistaken about their precise content?

The See of Rome Act (properly styled The Second Act of Repeal, 1& 2 Phil. & M. c.8) and the Act of Supremacy of 1558/9 (1 Eliz.1 c.1) both addressed only issues of the governance of the English Church. Those acts said absolutely nothing about the royal succession. Conversely, the Third Succession Act said absolutely nothing about church governance. The Succession Act addressed only the royal succession, specifically who was "in" and who was "out," and gave Henry VIII the power to limit the ability of his daughters to succeed him on the throne.

Why would Parliament repeal the Third Succession Act of 1543/4, given that it gave Mary a statutory claim to the English crown despite her statutory illegitimacy? Repeal of the Third Succession Act would have made the Second Succession Act the governing statute on the royal succession, and that would in turn have confirmed the late Jane Grey Dudley as the legitimate statutory successor of Edward VI, followed by Jane's younger sister Katherine. Repeal of the Third Succession Act would have dislodged Mary from the throne she had only recently ascended!

Similarly, if the Royal Supremacy Act of 1558/9 also repealed the Third Succession Act, wouldn't that be redundant, since (you claim) the Second Act of Repeal had already repealed the Third Succession Act? Again, if the Royal Supremacy Act of 1558/9 did indeed repeal the Third Succession Act, Elizabeth would have had no claim to the throne, since she was removed from the succession by the Second Succession Act, and repeal of the third would have resulted in the Second becoming the governing statute once again?

In short, your edit is not factually correct. I have therefore reverted it. I am a retired historian with a PhD in Tudor History. The Tudor royal succession is one of my areas of specialization. DesertSkies120 (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply