Washington Named Britain's Greatest Foe

[Razgovory]

I'll take that as a no.  They did not have a legal right.

I don't know where you'd get that from.

Of course Parliament had the legal right.  They executed a King, the acclaimed a King, they established a legal oath for all future monarchs to swear to and they then passed a law regulating what monarchs can and can't do.  Given all of that I think it would be absurd to say that they don't also have the right, for example, to depose a King or - which is what they did - to say a King's behaviour has meant he's effectively abdicated.

I thought they executed the king for raising a rebellion against his own country.  There is a difference between "right" and "Might".  What did Charles II do?  That so violated the laws that parliament would invite foreign invasion?

[Sheilbh]

There is a difference between "right" and "Might". 

Not in the English constitution

What did Charles II do?  That so violated the laws that parliament would invite foreign invasion?

It was James II.  Charles was quite popular.  James purged bits of local government, was preparing to pack Parliament, formed a large standing army, prorogued Parliament without its consent and arrested Bishops who refused to carry out his pro-Catholic policies.  For a country that had gone to war 40 years earlier to assert Parliament's powers there were enough hints of Charles I to suggest that he had, in 17th century terms, broken covenant between governor and governed.

[crazy canuck]

Sounds like an invitation.  Unless Edward was going to make him king of someplace other then England. 

I am not sure what you mean Raz.  Edward the Confessor first promised the succession and then revoked that promise.  If I invite you to my house and then call you and say you are no longer invited, you cannot take the position you continued to be invited in as the police drag you away for trespassing.

I think the history is a bit iffy on that part.  Edward was not alive at the time William conquered England.

But Edward was alive when he breached his promise to William and named Harold as the successor instead.  To say William was still invited after that is a bit of a stretch.  Its more like someone with a weak claim trying to take the crown by force...

[Valmy]

But Edward was alive when he breached his promise to William and named Harold as the successor instead.

I do not think Edward did any such thing.  Edward hated the Godwins.  But it was Harold who promised not Edward wasn't it?  The whole religious basis of the invasion was that Harold had perjured himself in front of God, Jesus, and all the Saints.

[Sheilbh]

I do not think Edward did any such thing.  Edward hated the Godwins.  But it was Harold who promised not Edward wasn't it?  The whole religious basis of the invasion was that Harold had perjured himself in front of God, Jesus, and all the Saints.

That was my understanding too.  I don't think Edward invited William.  Harold swore on the relics of a Saint not to pursue his claim and then did.

[crazy canuck]

But Edward was alive when he breached his promise to William and named Harold as the successor instead.

I do not think Edward did any such thing.  Edward hated the Godwins.  But it was Harold who promised not Edward wasn't it?  The whole religious basis of the invasion was that Harold had perjured himself in front of God, Jesus, and all the Saints.

You might not think so, but there are a fair number of acedemics who disagree with you.  It makes sense that Edward promised the succession to William during his dispute with the Godwins (and their banishment) in return for William's support.  But after the Godwin's return from banishment and particularly after Harold and the rest of the Godwins controlled most of England it no longer made any sense to keep such a promise.  There is also some doubt that there was an actual promise made to William and that William simply seized on a misunderstanding, wilfully or not, to justify his attempt at the crown.

It also does not make any sense that Harold swore to uphold the claim of William.  There was no reason for him to do so either before, during or after the banishment of his house.  There is some indication that this is simply a piece of propoganda created after the successful invasion.  After all, when one steals a crown, one must have some justification for doing so.

[Sheilbh]

It also does not make any sense that Harold swore to uphold the claim of William.  There was no reason for him to do so either before, during or after the banishment of his house.  There is some indication that this is simply a piece of propoganda created after the successful invasion.  After all, when one steals a crown, one must have some justification for doing so.

Wasn't it because he was a 'guest' of William?

Though no doubt it could have been propaganda.

[Razgovory]

There is a difference between "right" and "Might". 

Not in the English constitution

What did Charles II do?  That so violated the laws that parliament would invite foreign invasion?

It was James II.  Charles was quite popular.  James purged bits of local government, was preparing to pack Parliament, formed a large standing army, prorogued Parliament without its consent and arrested Bishops who refused to carry out his pro-Catholic policies.  For a country that had gone to war 40 years earlier to assert Parliament's powers there were enough hints of Charles I to suggest that he had, in 17th century terms, broken covenant between governor and governed.

Sorry, got my Stuarts mixed up for a moment.  Did the whole of parliament vote to invite William to land on their shores with a foreign army?

[grumbler]

Warning, Will Robinson!  Danger!

Don't go there, Sheilbh.  It's a rathole.  Trust me. 

[crazy canuck]

It also does not make any sense that Harold swore to uphold the claim of William.  There was no reason for him to do so either before, during or after the banishment of his house.  There is some indication that this is simply a piece of propoganda created after the successful invasion.  After all, when one steals a crown, one must have some justification for doing so.

Wasn't it because he was a 'guest' of William?

The timing of when Edward gave his "promise" is a bit confused - which is one of the things that makes it a bit suspect.  I have seen some references to when William visited Edward and others when William hosted Edward.

For what it is worth here is what wiki has to say about it

Historians have puzzled over Edward's intentions for the succession since William of Malmesbury in the early twelfth century. One school of thought supports the Norman case that Edward always intended William the Conqueror to be his heir, accepting the medieval claim that Edward had already decided to be celibate before he married, but most historians believe that he hoped to have an heir by Edith at least until his quarrel with Godwin in 1051. William may have visited Edward during Godwin's exile, and he is thought to have promised William the succession at this time, but historians disagree how seriously he meant the promise, and whether he later changed his mind.

[crazy canuck]

Warning, Will Robinson!  Danger!

Don't go there, Sheilbh.  It's a rathole.  Trust me. 

The danger is venturing down rabbit holes made by the Grumbler.

[Malthus]

It also does not make any sense that Harold swore to uphold the claim of William.  There was no reason for him to do so either before, during or after the banishment of his house.  There is some indication that this is simply a piece of propoganda created after the successful invasion.  After all, when one steals a crown, one must have some justification for doing so.

Wasn't it because he was a 'guest' of William?

Though no doubt it could have been propaganda.

My understanding is that the promise was essentially extorted from Harold. Also, the oath was sworn over hidden relics concealed from Harold until after the oath was sworn - and that's in the "official" Norman version. 

[Valmy]

My understanding is that the promise was essentially extorted from Harold. Also, the oath was sworn over hidden relics concealed from Harold until after the oath was sworn - and that's in the "official" Norman version. 

You don't rule Normandy by being fair.

[grumbler]

The danger is venturing down rabbit holes made by the Grumbler.

Just because your straw men keep stumbling and falling down after encountering rabbit holes, don't blame me for existence of the holes; blame yourself for the existence of the straw men.  The holes have been there all along. 

[crazy canuck]

The danger is venturing down rabbit holes made by the Grumbler.

Just because your straw men keep stumbling and falling down after encountering rabbit holes, don't blame me for existence of the holes; blame yourself for the existence of the straw men.  The holes have been there all along. 

Silly Rabbit.