Location: REBELLION on the Tudors

Discussion: Kick out The King...?Reported This is a featured thread

Category: Discussion Forum / History
Showing 1 - 13 of 13  |  Show  posts at a time
karenofbethany
karenofbethany
Kick out The King...?
Jan 28 2009, 8:06 PM EST | Post edited: Jan 28 2009, 8:06 PM EST
Straight off I confess my ignorance of facts. I know there have been kings who have been murdered and sent into exile, etc. Somebody will name them here. My curiosity is regarding what did it take to bring a King to justice? It seems as if, once enthroned, kings could get away with any manner of things. Was the argument that they were "divinely anointed?" Look how Henry manipulated/changed the law, how many people he had killed, what he got away with ,,, and lived to a reasonably ripe age for his time doing exactly what he wanted.

Fast forward to the current age - divorce still being a big issue until Charles and Diana did it. What would Henry VIII, or Elizabeth I, or Victoria, or Elizabeth II have to do to be de-throned? 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
Keyword tags: None
queen_elizabeth_1533
queen_elizabeth_1533
1. RE: Kick out The King...?
Jan 28 2009, 8:09 PM EST | Post edited: Jan 28 2009, 8:09 PM EST
I don't know any other way of de-throning a monarch except by rebellion of some sort, but I could be wrong.

I think that they did believe they were divinely annointed, and they used this to deter those who would speak against them. It was kind of their security I guess.

I think they were somewhat subject to the law, though. I remember learning something about the Magna Carta at school, signed by King John I think, and I believe that made Kings and Queens subject to the law (though I don't know if it was enforced). Of course, I learned about that years ago and I may be completely wrong. 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
beardedlady
beardedlady
2. RE: Kick out The King...?
Jan 29 2009, 8:49 AM EST | Post edited: Jan 29 2009, 8:49 AM EST
Charles I certainly supported the "Divine Right of Kings" and that didn't save him. Kings always faced the possibility of losing their thrown especially due to religious and civil wars. This is why the healing of the scrofula was such an important PR move. Kings had to be viewed as above men. And the French Revolution certainly caused some sleepless nights to neighboring monarchs. What? Everyone equal??? dangerous thinking.

Elizabeth I’s crown was under constant threat. It is really an amazing feat that she reigned for so long. I wouldn’t give Victoria or Elizabeth II the same credit.

And if Henry had been a weaker monarch, he too could have found himself a head shorter. But keep in mind, Henry gets blamed for thousands and thousands of executions. I forget the exact number but it is something like 75,000. This is the amount of executions that occurred during his reign. He didn’t order all 75,000 executions. I am not defending the guy…he definitely kept his crown by using tyrannical methods, but he is not the monster that some paint him out to be.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
Boudica
Boudica
3. RE: Kick out The King...?
Jan 29 2009, 11:20 AM EST | Post edited: Jan 29 2009, 11:20 AM EST
"I am not defending the guy…he definitely kept his crown by using tyrannical methods, but he is not the monster that some paint him out to be.
"
I wouldn't defend him either but I also think it's also helpful to have some perspective about the notion of monarchy. IMO a monarch is a tyrant, the only difference is one has a significantly bad conotation, but when one thinks of "monarchy" we think of a kind face behind ermine lined robes holding scepter and orb (at least I do). But really there are just one of the same form of government.

For example, if you go back to Ancient Rome, the Etruscans had kings who were so corrupt and tyrannical it led to the creation of the Roman Republic in 509 B.C. but then the Romans went back to another form of monarchy in the first century B.C. Julius Ceasar became dictator for life but it was Augustus who became the first emperor of Rome, which in Latin the offical title was "princeps" (meaning prime or first citizen) which we get our English word "prince" from. Princeps was chosen by Augustus for his title because he felt "rex" (king) had a tyranical connotation left over from the Etruscans, so Augustus attained the same position just a different title so he won't ruffle any feathers! 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
beardedlady
beardedlady
4. RE: Kick out The King...?
Jan 29 2009, 11:54 AM EST | Post edited: Jan 29 2009, 11:54 AM EST
Great post! Have you seen David Starkey’s lecture on ‘The Monarchy.”? It’s really good and is on Utunes. He defines the Monarchy as the only institution that is “continuous.” He goes on to argue that all institutions are “monarchial” and even the US federal government is based on a monarchy. I thought it was an interesting distinction. Yes, it is funny to think about the titles that rulers have taken over the years ie. - Napoleon taking the title of Emperor, Peter I dispensing with the title Tzar…in the end it is all enlightened despotism! 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    

Imponthenet
5. RE: Kick out The King...?
Jan 29 2009, 3:22 PM EST | Post edited: Jan 29 2009, 3:22 PM EST
A Royal relative of the British, Czar Nicholas II made the mistake of shutting down Parliament ( the Duma), as did England's Charles I. He also dragged his poor, starving, exhausted people who had too many internal problems in need of resolution first into one unnecessary war (WWI) too many, and to put the final nail in his coffin, he made the most dangerous mistake of all: He assumed that no matter what he did, the people would always be for his regime.
I think we all know how that turned out.The French, Bolshevik, and Islamic revolutions all took place for the same reason, and all three leaders ousted by those revolutions were dead within a year.
I've often pondered an observation of the late actor Peter Ustinov, who was smart enough to see why his Czarist -supporting forbears got kicked out of Russia: "Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war, the terroism of the rich."
Any thoughts on this, folks? 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
karenofbethany
karenofbethany
6. RE: Kick out The King...?
Jan 29 2009, 4:01 PM EST | Post edited: Jan 29 2009, 4:01 PM EST
"Great post! Have you seen David Starkey’s lecture on ‘The Monarchy.”? It’s really good and is on Utunes. He defines the Monarchy as the only institution that is “continuous.” He goes on to argue that all institutions are “monarchial” and even the US federal government is based on a monarchy. I thought it was an interesting distinction. Yes, it is funny to think about the titles that rulers have taken over the years ie. - Napoleon taking the title of Emperor, Peter I dispensing with the title Tzar…in the end it is all enlightened despotism!"
The difference IMO between U.S. and Monarchy is the system of checks and balances with the legislature, except in the case of Presidential veto - and presidents limited terms of office. "The People" could not get rid of a bad king without a revolution and then there would be so much bloodshed. I just hate the way Henry convoluted the laws to suit his preferences. It did not help that whatever faction was majority on his privy council backed him up, i.e., making up charges against Anne Boyelyn which were patently false and everyone knew it but allowed it to happen - did not dare even SAY anything against it for fear of losing life. So I have to say that although he was not personally responsible for 75,000 deaths, during his reign he could have stopped any number of them - he had that absolute right as king. Do you find this valuable?    
karenofbethany
karenofbethany
7. RE: Kick out The King...?
Jan 29 2009, 4:03 PM EST | Post edited: Jan 29 2009, 4:03 PM EST
"A Royal relative of the British, Czar Nicholas II made the mistake of shutting down Parliament ( the Duma), as did England's Charles I. He also dragged his poor, starving, exhausted people who had too many internal problems in need of resolution first into one unnecessary war (WWI) too many, and to put the final nail in his coffin, he made the most dangerous mistake of all: He assumed that no matter what he did, the people would always be for his regime.
I think we all know how that turned out.The French, Bolshevik, and Islamic revolutions all took place for the same reason, and all three leaders ousted by those revolutions were dead within a year.
I've often pondered an observation of the late actor Peter Ustinov, who was smart enough to see why his Czarist -supporting forbears got kicked out of Russia: "Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war, the terroism of the rich."
Any thoughts on this, folks?"
What a great quote! Yes it seems to be the rich who cause all of the trouble. THe poor only start things (usually under the leadership of someone who is looking for recognition, too) when they are starving. I always said that if I had to sit and watch my children cry from hunger I would say or do just about anything to get them a piece of bread. Do you find this valuable?    
Boudica
Boudica
10. RE: Kick out The King...?
Jan 29 2009, 4:52 PM EST | Post edited: Jan 29 2009, 4:52 PM EST
"A Royal relative of the British, Czar Nicholas II made the mistake of shutting down Parliament ( the Duma), as did England's Charles I. He also dragged his poor, starving, exhausted people who had too many internal problems in need of resolution first into one unnecessary war (WWI) too many, and to put the final nail in his coffin, he made the most dangerous mistake of all: He assumed that no matter what he did, the people would always be for his regime.
I think we all know how that turned out.The French, Bolshevik, and Islamic revolutions all took place for the same reason, and all three leaders ousted by those revolutions were dead within a year.
I've often pondered an observation of the late actor Peter Ustinov, who was smart enough to see why his Czarist -supporting forbears got kicked out of Russia: "Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war, the terroism of the rich."
Any thoughts on this, folks?"
Great example! Another from Russian history is Tsar Alexander II, like Henry VIII he was responsible for great reform some positive some negative. He was the tsar who emanicpated the serfs, reorganized the army and navy, established local government, reformed the judiciary system, he even abolished capital punishment. But censorship and supression of left wing revolutionary movements he was particularly notable for, and eventually they assasinated him with a bomb in 1881, which was actually a second attempt on his life. Had Alexander II lived, he would have passed his plans to convene an elected Duma or parliament, this didn't happen until his grandson Nicholas II was coerced to do so in 1905, only declare the tsar and his ministers were not responsible to the Duma about nine months later, which didn't shut down the Duma it weakened its authority to give oversight over the executive branch. The assasination of Alexander II probably influenced his sucessors in that it made them think being a strong, unyielding autocratic tsar would keep them safe from the revolutionaries, which in hindsight they certainly weren't. Do you find this valuable?    
Boudica
Boudica
11. RE: Kick out The King...?
Jan 29 2009, 4:54 PM EST | Post edited: Jan 29 2009, 4:54 PM EST
"Great post! Have you seen David Starkey’s lecture on ‘The Monarchy.”? It’s really good and is on Utunes. He defines the Monarchy as the only institution that is “continuous.” He goes on to argue that all institutions are “monarchial” and even the US federal government is based on a monarchy. I thought it was an interesting distinction. Yes, it is funny to think about the titles that rulers have taken over the years ie. - Napoleon taking the title of Emperor, Peter I dispensing with the title Tzar…in the end it is all enlightened despotism!"
I haven't heard the lecture, I'll have to check it out it sounds like an interesting argument! Do you find this valuable?    
MsSquirrly
MsSquirrly
12. RE: Kick out The King...?
Jan 29 2009, 5:34 PM EST | Post edited: Jan 29 2009, 5:34 PM EST
"Great post! Have you seen David Starkey’s lecture on ‘The Monarchy.”? It’s really good and is on Utunes. He defines the Monarchy as the only institution that is “continuous.” He goes on to argue that all institutions are “monarchial” and even the US federal government is based on a monarchy. I thought it was an interesting distinction. Yes, it is funny to think about the titles that rulers have taken over the years ie. - Napoleon taking the title of Emperor, Peter I dispensing with the title Tzar…in the end it is all enlightened despotism!"
beardedlady, did you mean youtube or itunes? I only found one short clip of Starkey's Monarchy on youtube. Do you find this valuable?    
Bluevanillalady
Bluevanillalady
13. RE: Kick out The King...?
Jan 29 2009, 6:01 PM EST | Post edited: Jan 29 2009, 6:01 PM EST
Here is some great info on the Magna Carta if anyone is interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta

makes for some interesting thought on it's effects of the future monarchs & world for that matter. Do you find this valuable?    
beardedlady
beardedlady
14. RE: Kick out The King...?
Jan 29 2009, 6:37 PM EST | Post edited: Jan 29 2009, 6:37 PM EST
Thanks for the link!

Starkey's lecture is definitely under uTunes. I just did a search - it is put out by Cambridge University. I wish I could include a link but I just searched from within itunes to find it and it falls under the category of "iTunes U" which I call Utunes. Is that the right name for it? I can never get these acronyms right.

Anyway, let me know what you think when you watch it. The man is so brilliant. I just wish he would not make the Princess Diana comments. That part sort of sounded pompous to me - to say that she would have led a life of drug addiciton had she survived. HARSH! Do you find this valuable?