Page images
PDF
EPUB

Was William the Conqueror's or Harold's the better title to the throne?

What was the constitutional effect of the battle of Hastings?
Was William II. the rightful successor to his father?

Had Henry I. ever a good title to the throne? How did he acquire it?

Did Stephen succeed rightly to the throne?

Which has the preference of succession, the son of a daughter, or the daughter of a son?

What was Henry II.'s title to the throne?

How is the Saxon line said to have been restored in the person of Henry II.?

By what right did Richard I. succeed to the throne, and who succeeded him, and how?

Had Henry III. a strict title to the throne?

How did the crown descend from Henry III. to Richard II.--and through how many generations?

Who succeeded to Richard II., and under what circumstances? How did the Duke of Lancaster make out his title to the throne? Did the Parliament in the reign of Henry IV. entirely new model the succession to the throne? What was enacted? Who succeeded Henry IV.?

In whose reign did the house of York assert their right to the throne ?

Was Edward IV. a York or a Lancaster?

What was the opinion of the Parliament of Edward IV. concerning the three Henrys?

Whom did Richard III. succeed, and by whom was he succeeded? What was the nature of Henry VII.'s title?

In whom was the strict right to the crown when Henry. VII. ascended the throne?

In what point did the caution of Henry VII.'s parliament resemble that of Henry IV.'s

Did Henry VII. ever acquire a better title to the throne than that under which he had seized it?

Had Henry VIII. a strict title to the throne?

Were any attempts made in this King's reign to regulate the succession ? And what occasioned them?

To whom did Henry VIII. transmit his crown?

Whom did Elizabeth succeed, and by whom was she succeeded? Had James I. a valid title to the English crown?

Was there anything remarkable in the title of James I.? State it.

What did the Judges of Charles I. represent to him to be the nature of his rights?

What great constitutional principle was asserted and solemnly recognised at the Restoration ?

What was the Bill of Exclusion? What was its object, and did it attain that object?

What led to the Revolution of 1688 ?

What kind of an abdication was that of James II.?

On what principles did the nation act at that memorable period? Did the abdication of James II. lead to a destruction of the constitution, or to a mere vacancy of the throne?

If the throne should ever become vacant, who must supply that vacancy?

How was it supplied in 1688 ?

What was the settlement of the crown on that occasion?

Did William, Mary, and Anne take the crown by hereditary descent?

How would the succession have stood, had there been no abdication, and James II. had left no issue but Mary and Anne?

What led the nation to settle the crown upon the Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover?

What precautions were taken to secure a Protestant succession ? Is it lawful now publicly to deny the right of the King and Parliament to new model or alter the succession?

What was the last limitation of the crown made by Parliament ? How did George I. succeed to the throne?

What were the common stocks, or ancestors, from Egbert downwards?

Who is now the common stock?

Is the descent now as absolutely hereditary as formerly?

THE KING'S ROYAL FAMILY.

THE first and most considerable branch of the king's royal family, regarded by the laws of England, is THE QUEEN.

The queen of England is either Queen Regent, Queen Consort, or Queen Dowager. The queen regent, regnant, or sovereign, is she who holds the crown in her own right; as the first, and perhaps the second queen Mary, queen Elizabeth, and queen Anne; and such an one has the same powers, prerogatives, rights, dignities, and duties, as if she had been a king. But the queen consort is the wife of the reigning king; and she, by virtue of her marriage, is participant of divers prerogatives above other women.

And, first, she is a public person, exempt and distinct. from the king; and not like other married women, so closely connected as to have lost all legal or separate existence so long as the marriage continues. For the queen is of ability to purchase lands, and to convey them, to make leases, to grant copyholds, and do other acts of ownership, without the concurrence of her lord; which no other married woman can do: a privilege as old as the Saxon æra. She is also capable of taking a grant from the king, which no other wife is from her husband; and in this particular she agrees with the Augusta, or pissima regina conjux divi imperatoris of the Roman laws; who, according to Justinian, was equally capable of making a grant to, and receiving one from the emperor. The queen of England hath separate courts and offices distinct from the king's, not only in matters of ceremony, but even of law; and her attorney and solicitor general are entitled to a place within the bar of his majesty's courts, together with the king's counsel. She may likewise sue and be sued alone, without joining her husband. She may also have a separate property in goods as well as lands, and has a right to dispose of them by will. In short, she is in all legal proceedings

looked upon as a feme sole, and not as a feme covert, as a single, not as a married woman. For which the reason given by sir Edward Coke is this: because the wisdom of the common law would not have the king, whose continual care and study is for the public, and circa ardua regni, to be troubled and disquieted on account of his wife's domestic affairs; and therefore it vests in the queen a power of transacting her own concerns, without the intervention of the king, as if she was an unmarried woman.

Though the queen is in all respects a subject, yet, in point of the security of her life and person she is put on the same footing with the king. It is equally treason, by the statute 35 Edw. III., to compass or imagine the death of our lady the king's companion, as of the king himself; and to violate or defile the queen consort, amounts to the same high crime; as well in the person committing the fact, as the queen herself, if consenting. A law of Henry the eighth made it treason also for any woman, who was not a virgin, to marry the king without informing him thereof; but this law was soon after repealed, it trespassing too strongly, as well on natural justice as female modesty. If, however, the queen be accused of any species of treason, she shall, whether consort or dowager, be tried by the peers of parliament, as queen Ann Boleyn was in 28 Henry VIII.

The husband of a queen regnant, as prince George of Denmark was to queen Anne, is her subject: and may be guilty of high treason against her: but, in the instance of conjugal infidelity, he is not subject to the same penal restrictions. For which the reason seems to be, that, if a queen consort is unfaithful to the royal bed, this may debase or bastardise the heirs to the crown; but no such danger can be consequent on the infidelity of the husband to a queen regnant.

A Queen Dowager is the widow of the king, and as such enjoys most of the privileges belonging to her as queen consort. But it is not high treason to conspire her death, nor to violate her chastity, for the same reason as was before alleged, because the succession to the crown is not thereby endangered. Yet still, pro dignitate regali, no man can marry a queen dowager without special licence from the king, on pain of forfeiting his lands and goods. This sir Edward Coke tells us was enacted in parliament in 6 Henry VI., though the statute be not in print. But

she, though an alien born, shall still be entitled to dower after the king's demise, which no other alien is. A queen dowager, when married again to a subject, doth not lose her regal dignity, as peeresses dowager do their peerage when they marry commoners. For Catherine, queen dowager of Henry V., though she married a private gentleman, Owen ap Meredith, ap Theodore, commonly called Owen Tudor; yet, by the name of Catherine queen of England, maintained an action against the bishop of Carlisle. And so the queen dowager of Navarre, marrying with Edmond earl of Lancaster, brother to king Edward the first, maintained an action of dower, after the death of her second husband, by the name of queen of Navarre.

The prince of Wales, or heir apparent to the crown, and also his royal consort, and the princess royal, or eldest daughter of the king, are likewise peculiarly regarded by the laws. For, by statute 25 Edw. III., to compass or conspire the death of the former, or violate the chastity of either of the latter, are as much high treason as to conspire the death of the king, or violate the chastity of the queen. And this upon the same reason, as was before given; because the prince of Wales is next in succession to the crown, and to violate his wife might taint the blood royal with bastardy: and the eldest daughter of the king is alone inheritable to the crown, on failure of issue male, and therefore more respected by the laws than any of her younger sisters; insomuch that upon this, united with other (feodal) principles, while our military tenures were in force, the king might levy an aid for marrying his eldest daughter, and her only. The heir apparent to the crown is usually made prince of Wales and earl of Chester, by special creation, and investiture; but being the king's eldest son, he is by inheritance duke of Cornwall, without any new creation.

The younger sons and daughters of the king, and other branches of the royal family, who are not in the immediate line of succession, were little farther regarded by the ancient law, than to give them a certain degree of precedence before all peers and public officers, as well ecclesiastical as temporal. This is done by the statute 31 Henry VIII., c. 10., which enacts, that no person, except the king's children, shall presume to sit or have place at the side of the cloth of estate in the parliament chamber; and that certain great officers therein named shall have prece

« PreviousContinue »