Hear Ye, Hear Ye: Royal Heirs May Wed Catholics

[chevalier]

To make a sweeping generalisation like that you need some evidence!

Anybody post-1689: James II never abdicated, the whole “Glorious” revolution affair was thoroughly illegal, as was the Hanovarian succession.

Regarding 1603, there were problems with succession from Elisabeth, who illegitimatised some of the heirs, as well as problems with her own succession and that of Mary (the Bloody Mary), as Edward VI did appoint Lady Jane Grey (a Protestant queen) his heir. Before, on authorisation from the parliament, Henry VIII excluded his elder sister’s offspring (Mary Tudor the queen of Scottland, wife of James IV, who died at Flodden).

Henry VII had the last male patrilineal Plantagenet executed in 1499 (Tudors were lucky earls succeeding via women to the royal crown according to their theory of things) and Henry VIII his son and successor ordered the execution of that gentleman’s sister in 1541.

The Wars of the Roses amply show how convoluted and apt for “individual interpretation” Plantagenet succession was, after Richard II, the last king of the main line, was rebelled against by the Duke of Lancaster his nephew (Henry IV).

Previously, there were some major problems. Henry II was the son of Empress Matilda, who battled for the throne against Stephen of Blois, who held on to the throne, whom Henry II son of Matilda actually succeeded.

A generation earlier, William Rufus was the third son of William the Conqueror, and had an elder brother, who lived until 1134. Henry I was the even younger brother, and he was the one after whom Stephen (or Matilda) followed.

Guillaume le Bâtard, which translates into English as William the Conqueror: tagging your Boulogne cousins and your brother bishop along and defeating a depleted English army (from fighting your Norwegian cousins up north) does not make you the rightful king of England. For a long time, Edgar the Atheling, who actually had a better claim than Harold Godwinson (the Harold II of Hastings), remained a pretender, and Harold’s sons lived, as did his daughter, who was the ancestress of many Russian dynasts and actually a French-born wife of Edward II (Norman calculation of numerals for Edwards). Godwinsons were Norwegian/Danish royalty, not Anglo-Saxon royalty, despite being Anglo-Saxons.

As for the house of Wessex (not Godwinsons, the previous dynasty), not a single succession was uncontested after Edgard the Peaceful, who died in 975. Nothing particularly attention-driving before except there were many competing Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and there was a succession turmoil in the 9th century in Wessex (and one in the 8th as well), which emerged as a leader after some time, although Mercia possibly was before. Saxon rulers, however, go back (not necessarily by blood) to Hengist and Horsa, who were invaders (which was not a matter of simply grabbing some land for their own people, as evidenced by the fact that Celtic genes remained in the general populace).

Before, we have Vortigern, who is largely legendary, and of whom various things are told. Romans also were usurping invaders, asserting their rule by might. Brythons may have been indigenous but they weren’t exactly living in a unified monarchy, nor were they the only people there.

By the way, descendants of Brython rulers fought on the side of William at Hastings, and Tudors also had a share of Welsh (i.e. Brython) rulers’ blood. There were very minor nobles (even simple gentry in more modern nomenclature) who had been descended from previously royal houses (the example in the link is not the only one) of this or that patch of land, and even “de iure” princes, although they would not be accorded that title by the powers that were.

So have fun finding rightful kings. Not like that’s any harder than with the rest of the world.

 

[Kaninchen]

So have fun finding rightful kings.

I suppose that it gives the ‘Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare’ people something to do in their spare time.

 

[chevalier]

Forgot to add Edgar the Atheling had a sister, who had children, inheriting the claim of the old Wessex dynasty. One of the children was Edith, wife of Henry I of the Norman dynasty, although she had brothers. Well, basically, my point is it’s very, very hard, to talk about “rightful kings” in the context of England.

 

[Kaninchen]

Forgot to add Edgar the Atheling had a sister, who had children, inheriting the claim of the old Wessex dynasty. One of the children was Edith, wife of Henry I of the Norman dynasty, although she had brothers. Well, basically, my point is it’s very, very hard, to talk about “rightful kings” in the context of England.

. . . . if you’re an obsessive.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

No doubt. However my old pastor suspected there might at some stage be something like a Middle Eastern oil embargo. My understanding is that apart from Russia, Norway and Britain, there’s not much oil in Europe. The price of oil supply might just be acceptance of Islam. That’s why he said he thought it wouldn’t be very sincere.

Combine an oil embarge with the current European debt crisis, and a European winter, and what would you have? He did make a comment, “Suppose you get a Arab statesman, who does a bit of fence building with his mates (at the time he used Yassir Arafat as a sort of model, but obviously it won’t be him). Then they deliver an ultimatum to the West. ‘Right boys, either you get Israel out of there, or we turn off the taps (oil).’ We’d all be broke in a week.”

I’ve seen nothing in the recent “Arab Spring” to see that they’re going to modulate Islam. If anything it was the Western supported dictators who kept the lid on the pot to some extent. In fact, they seem even more intent than ever that Islam will remain the dominant religion. There have been several church massacres since then, with new regimes promising Islam will have a dominant role.

In such a scenario, one might say the Europeans could then try to invade the Middle East and forcibly take some oil wells. But they might find they have new found enemies in Russia, China, Japan, India and the USA in that case. The rest of the industrialised world wouldn’t just sit on its hands.

As I said, I found the old pastor was very accurate. Whether he will prove to be right in this case or not remains to be seen.

That’s something along the lines of what I think may happen. If I didn’t have personal experience of the old pastor’s prophetic accuracy, I wouldn’t say it.

We’ll see.

That view of the situation sounds more like the basis for a novel than fact. It assumes that Middle Eastern countries put proselytizing Islam before their profits. I don’t think so.

 

[Kaninchen]

That view of the situation sounds more like the basis for a novel than fact. It assumes that Middle Eastern countries put proselytizing Islam before their profits. I don’t think so.

Ah, but the oracle has spoken so hundreds of millions of people will immediately become Muslims the moment we’re asked by some supposed cartel of Islamic countries - neglecting things like the fact that we get about 40% of EU oil imports from the Russian Federation, of course.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Anybody post-1689: James II never abdicated, the whole “Glorious” revolution affair was thoroughly illegal, as was the Hanovarian succession.

Regarding 1603, there were problems with succession from Elisabeth, who illegitimatised some of the heirs, as well as problems with her own succession and that of Mary (the Bloody Mary), as Edward VI did appoint Lady Jane Grey (a Protestant queen) his heir. Before, on authorisation from the parliament, Henry VIII excluded his elder sister’s offspring (Mary Tudor the queen of Scottland, wife of James IV, who died at Flodden).

Henry VII had the last male patrilineal Plantagenet executed in 1499 (Tudors were lucky earls succeeding via women to the royal crown according to their theory of things) and Henry VIII his son and successor ordered the execution of that gentleman’s sister in 1541.

The Wars of the Roses amply show how convoluted and apt for “individual interpretation” Plantagenet succession was, after Richard II, the last king of the main line, was rebelled against by the Duke of Lancaster his nephew (Henry IV).

Previously, there were some major problems. Henry II was the son of Empress Matilda, who battled for the throne against Stephen of Blois, who held on to the throne, whom Henry II son of Matilda actually succeeded.

A generation earlier, William Rufus was the third son of William the Conqueror, and had an elder brother, who lived until 1134. Henry I was the even younger brother, and he was the one after whom Stephen (or Matilda) followed.

Guillaume le Bâtard, which translates into English as William the Conqueror: tagging your Boulogne cousins and your brother bishop along and defeating a depleted English army (from fighting your Norwegian cousins up north) does not make you the rightful king of England. For a long time, Edgar the Atheling, who actually had a better claim than Harold Godwinson (the Harold II of Hastings), remained a pretender, and Harold’s sons lived, as did his daughter, who was the ancestress of many Russian dynasts and actually a French-born wife of Edward II (Norman calculation of numerals for Edwards). Godwinsons were Norwegian/Danish royalty, not Anglo-Saxon royalty, despite being Anglo-Saxons.

As for the house of Wessex (not Godwinsons, the previous dynasty), not a single succession was uncontested after Edgard the Peaceful, who died in 975. Nothing particularly attention-driving before except there were many competing Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and there was a succession turmoil in the 9th century in Wessex (and one in the 8th as well), which emerged as a leader after some time, although Mercia possibly was before. Saxon rulers, however, go back (not necessarily by blood) to Hengist and Horsa, who were invaders (which was not a matter of simply grabbing some land for their own people, as evidenced by the fact that Celtic genes remained in the general populace).

Before, we have Vortigern, who is largely legendary, and of whom various things are told. Romans also were usurping invaders, asserting their rule by might. Brythons may have been indigenous but they weren’t exactly living in a unified monarchy, nor were they the only people there.

By the way, descendants of Brython rulers fought on the side of William at Hastings, and Tudors also had a share of Welsh (i.e. Brython) rulers’ blood. There were very minor nobles (even simple gentry in more modern nomenclature) who had been descended from previously royal houses (the example in the link is not the only one) of this or that patch of land, and even “de iure” princes, although they would not be accorded that title by the powers that were.

So have fun finding rightful kings. Not like that’s any harder than with the rest of the world.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to check all the points you raise. The first one however makes the assumption that in the UK sovereignty does not vest with parliament. Secondly, regarding Lady Jane Grey - she had no claim to the throne and there is no system for a king (i.e. Edward VI) to appoint an heir. Therefore, his eldest sister Mary I would have been his rightful heir.

 

[chevalier]

I have neither the time nor the inclination to check all the points you raise. The first one however makes the assumption that in the UK sovereignty does not vest with parliament. Secondly, regarding Lady Jane Grey - she had no claim to the throne and there is no system for a king (i.e. Edward VI) to appoint an heir. Therefore, his eldest sister Mary I would have been his rightful heir.

I have no vested interest either way, really, in fact I’d be more pleased to hear that Mary I was the rightful heir. I mentioned Lady Jane Grey to point out that her claim was not so hopeless as some would have it (Edward VI’s pronouncement did not go through the parliament process as that was interrupted by Edward’s death). Secondly, even if you accept the the theory that the Parliament can do anything and everything to the succession that it wants (to say that it, itself, is the sovereign, is too far-fetched, as the actual sovereign is the monarch in parliament or even the monarch itself, frequently referred to as such), the Parliament actually has three houses and must be convened by the lawful monarch. Therefore, at least beginning with the “Glorious” Revolution there has been no lawful parliament in the UK and each de facto succession of the wrong person actually vitiates the parliament convened and participated in by such a person, along with any royal assents being invalid.

 

[paperwight66]

Parliament actually has three houses and must be convened by the lawful monarch.

Three houses? House of Commons, House of Lords and… ???

It’s news to me that we have three Houses, but still, what do I know, I only live and vote here.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I have no vested interest either way, really, in fact I’d be more pleased to hear that Mary I was the rightful heir. I mentioned Lady Jane Grey to point out that her claim was not so hopeless as some would have it (Edward VI’s pronouncement did not go through the parliament process as that was interrupted by Edward’s death). Secondly, even if you accept the the theory that the Parliament can do anything and everything to the succession that it wants (to say that it, itself, is the sovereign, is too far-fetched, as the actual sovereign is the monarch in parliament or even the monarch itself, frequently referred to as such), the Parliament actually has three houses and must be convened by the lawful monarch. Therefore, at least beginning with the “Glorious” Revolution there has been no lawful parliament in the UK and each de facto succession of the wrong person actually vitiates the parliament convened and participated in by such a person, along with any royal assents being invalid.

I would agree with you that the monarch is part of the legislature. I would not go as far as you and describe the monarch as one of the houses (chambers) of parliament, though. It does not matter whether Edward VI put Lady Jane Grey’s succession to parliament or not. There is no provision for the monarch naming a successor. When it comes to disagreements between monarch and legislature the latter prevails. Parliament has had the “upper hand” at least since the Glorious Revolution.

I suspect we are going off at an inappropriate tangent.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Three houses? House of Commons, House of Lords and… ???

It’s news to me that we have three Houses, but still, what do I know, I only live and vote here.

I think Chevalier was saying that the monarch is a part of the legislature even though it would be unusual to class the monarch as a legislative chamber. Parliament does consist of The Queen, House of Lords, and the House of Commons.

 

[paperwight66]

I think Chevalier was saying that the monarch is a part of the legislature even though it would be unusual to class the monarch as a legislative chamber. Parliament does consist of The Queen, House of Lords, and the House of Commons.

Hmmm, have to query that, I’m afraid.
According to www. parliament .uk/ (Parliament’s own website), ‘Parliament consists of two distinct houses’.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Hmmm, have to query that, I’m afraid.
According to www. parliament .uk/ (Parliament’s own website), ‘Parliament consists of two distinct houses’.

Please read my last post. I did not say The Queen was a house of Parliament. The Queen is a part of all three branches of the UK Government: legislative, executive, and judicial.

 

[chevalier]

I would agree with you that the monarch is part of the legislature. I would not go as far as you and describe the monarch as one of the houses (chambers) of parliament, though. It does not matter whether Edward VI put Lady Jane Grey’s succession to parliament or not. There is no provision for the monarch naming a successor. When it comes to disagreements between monarch and legislature the latter prevails. Parliament has had the “upper hand” at least since the Glorious Revolution.

I suspect we are going off at an inappropriate tangent.

Actually, Henry VIII’s inheritance by Mary I hinged on the ability of the monarch to alter the succession by authorisation from parliament. Remember that Mary I was considered illegitimate by both Henry and the law of England at the time, to the point she was denied the title of princess, she was Lady Mary Tudor. Henry VIII specifically placed her in succession, followed by Elisabeth, followed by the Grey offspring, to the exclusion of the offspring (legitimate! and possibly male) of his elder sister Mary Tudor queen of Scotland. Similarly Elisabeth was declared illegitimate.

In accordance with the above, Edward VI, on the face, had two illegitimate sisters (Mary and Elisabeth), along with the legitimate Grey cousins, and any offspring of his aunt Marry Tudor queen of Scotland. That would eventually be Mary Stuart (beheaded on the orders of Elisabeth I), followed by her son James (VI and I). Further Grey offspring were declared illegitimate by Elisabeth along with her own annulling the marriage they came from.

So, basically, if you took the law on its face along with the idea that nothing can change the order of succession (neither king nor parliament, which was not accepted in that era since back at that time elements of both bequeathing and even election were very much alive in European monarchies), then as long as you considered it proper to follow the exclusion of illegitimate offspring according to domestic laws, you’d need to consider Lady Jane the Queen. As Catholics we believe that Mary I was very much legitimate and in fact we could even follow up and attempt to say that Cranmer’s decree of nullity was illegal (wrong on the premises, as well as want of jurisdiction due to previous evocation of the case by the Pope) also according to secular law. But still, Lady Jane’s claim was far from preposterous (not like it was her own anyway, she wanted no part of it).

 

[chevalier]

Hmmm, have to query that, I’m afraid.
According to www. parliament .uk/ (Parliament’s own website), ‘Parliament consists of two distinct houses’.

I probably went too far in treating the monarch as an actual house of parliament in a legal sense. However, the monarch is not only a constituent part of parliament but also its head. The monarch is also the sole entity entitled to convene parliament, which means that without being convened by the monarch, parliament is illegitimate. Likewise no bill becomes law without royal assent.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Actually, Henry VIII’s inheritance by Mary I hinged on the ability of the monarch to alter the succession by authorisation from parliament. Remember that Mary I was considered illegitimate by both Henry and the law of England at the time, to the point she was denied the title of princess, she was Lady Mary Tudor. Henry VIII specifically placed her in succession, followed by Elisabeth, followed by the Grey offspring, to the exclusion of the offspring (legitimate! and possibly male) of his elder sister Mary Tudor queen of Scotland. Similarly Elisabeth was declared illegitimate.

In accordance with the above, Edward VI, on the face, had two illegitimate sisters (Mary and Elisabeth), along with the legitimate Grey cousins, and any offspring of his aunt Marry Tudor queen of Scotland. That would eventually be Mary Stuart (beheaded on the orders of Elisabeth I), followed by her son James (VI and I). Further Grey offspring were declared illegitimate by Elisabeth along with her own annulling the marriage they came from.

So, basically, if you took the law on its face along with the idea that nothing can change the order of succession (neither king nor parliament, which was not accepted in that era since back at that time elements of both bequeathing and even election were very much alive in European monarchies), then as long as you considered it proper to follow the exclusion of illegitimate offspring according to domestic laws, you’d need to consider Lady Jane the Queen. As Catholics we believe that Mary I was very much legitimate and in fact we could even follow up and attempt to say that Cranmer’s decree of nullity was illegal (wrong on the premises, as well as want of jurisdiction due to previous evocation of the case by the Pope) also according to secular law. But still, Lady Jane’s claim was far from preposterous (not like it was her own anyway, she wanted no part of it).

There is a difference between the facts you present as the same. On the one hand it is a particular matter for a monarch to nominate someone as a successor. That differs from having one’s children declared illegitimate and thus ineligible to succeed. That is always going to be an issue considering Henry VIII’s complex politics.

We should not create a sweeping generalisation for all European monarchies. While there have been many machinations by monarchs to attempt to control the succession plus deposing and usurping. Nonetheless, it has been the practice since William the Conqueror for the monarch’s heirs to be the monarch’s legitimate offspring: not for the monarch to choose successors.

 

[chevalier]

There is a difference between the facts you present as the same. On the one hand it is a particular matter for a monarch to nominate someone as a successor. That differs from having one’s children declared illegitimate and thus ineligible to succeed. That is always going to be an issue considering Henry VIII’s complex politics.

I am somewhat sympathetic with the view that monarchs can’t really pick successors freely, not even from among closest family members. However, while never practiced successfully in England with regard to the crown itself, it was not uncommon among nobles and even monarchs generally in Europe. Parliaments were also involved in succession matters, as were, for example, less specific gatherings of nobility and maybe other subjects. Elections also happened.

Moreover, if you don’t believe in the ability of any man-made law to affect succession, you’d have a lot of trouble with Plantagenet succession due to attainders, which were considered to block people from succession. Additionally, you’d be unable to consider the Windsors the rightful monarchs in the end anyway (preceded by senior genealogical heirs of James II, if not someone earlier).

Please note your idea of how succession should work is one of many. Other people have other ideas. Yet different ones are still possible, even if you or I disagree with them. Hence there’s bound to be mess in the area of the rightful kingship.

We should not create a sweeping generalisation for all European monarchies.

Scotland: Shortly after Macbeth, the MacWilliams from 11th to 13th century were rival claimants descended from William FitzDuncan, son of king Duncan, who was succeeded by his brothers and not by his son. Houses of Balliol and Bruce were rival claimants, arbitrated between by Edward of England in 1292, who used the opportunity to claim overlordship (this had been done before by English kings). Balliols were put in place and removed by the king of England. The house of Bruce took over, not without a Balliol rebellion supported by England. Then from 1688 same as England.

Ireland: Lots of feuding minor kings with a shifting high kingship. Some Viking local rulers (e.g. Dublin) by invasion and conquest. Norman conquest from England, replacing local kingly dynasties, some of which dating back verifiably to 4th century and, not verifiably, even further back. Some of those dynasties are still extant, although not accorded many privileges, nor even a princely title, despite being the longest existing royal houses in Europe.

France: Merovingians deposed by force and with some reliance on a papal statement, later Carolingians deposed by force and replaced by Capets while patrilineal Carolingians still lived (namely the counts of Vermandois) (Godfrey of Bouillon would have had a stronger claim to Carolingian succession than the Capets). Napoleon and his dynasty came to power by revolutions and plebiscites. Orlean Bourbons took over from the still extant main line. Now there’s a lot of controversy as to who’s the heir of the main line, while the Orleanist line is still extant.

Germany/Holy Roman Empire: German Carolingians replaced by elective monarchs even though Carolingians were still extant in France. Plenty of new sovereigns emerged with the dissolution of the HRE by its last emperor in 1806. Changes were made by Napoleon, at the Vienna congress, in 1871 when establishing the Hohenzollern empire, and at other occasions.

Austria: Habsburgs were not descendants of Babenberg dukes ruling there, the last of whom had a daughter with living descendants, but there were also patrilineal Babengers until 1583 in Frankonia. Meanwhile Bohemian royals took over but were expelled by Habsburgs.

Hungary: Lots of unstable successions and in-fighting early on. Anjou dynasty was imported at some point early in 14th century after the failure of the royal Arpads. Those were followed by an elected king, son of the king of Poland, disputed by Habsburgs. Then a native, elected king. And then another import from Poland. And after that, Habsburgs in 1526 (as per a treaty) in what was basically foreign rule. Controversies with Zapolya and Bathory houses about the succession and even elections.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The monarch is also the sole entity entitled to convene parliament, which means that without being convened by the monarch, parliament is illegitimate.

It is not as straightforward as you make it seem. As a consequence I don’t know if you know what actually happens. The UK is a constitutional monarchy and The Queen does nothing except on ministerial advice. Therefore, The Queen never dissolves or summons a parliament except on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Likewise no bill becomes law without royal assent.

This royal assent is never withheld. To do so would cause a major constitutional crisis. The royal assent is also simply announced in both Houses of Parliament. The Queen never gives it personally. Queen Anne was the last monarch to attempt to withhold assent and Queen Victoria the last to personally give the royal assent.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Hmmm, have to query that, I’m afraid.
According to www. parliament .uk/ (Parliament’s own website), ‘Parliament consists of two distinct houses’.

Parliament: The highest legislative authority in the United Kingdom. Made up of the House of Commons, House of Lords and the Queen.

Taken from parliament.uk/about/how/role/parliament-crown/ accessed at 22.53 GMT 06/11/2011 (cf. this link).

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I am somewhat sympathetic with the view that monarchs can’t really pick successors freely, not even from among closest family members. However, while never practiced successfully in England with regard to the crown itself, it was not uncommon among nobles and even monarchs generally in Europe. Parliaments were also involved in succession matters, as were, for example, less specific gatherings of nobility and maybe other subjects. Elections also happened.

Moreover, if you don’t believe in the ability of any man-made law to affect succession, you’d have a lot of trouble with Plantagenet succession due to attainders, which were considered to block people from succession. Additionally, you’d be unable to consider the Windsors the rightful monarchs in the end anyway (preceded by senior genealogical heirs of James II, if not someone earlier).

Please note your idea of how succession should work is one of many. Other people have other ideas. Yet different ones are still possible, even if you or I disagree with them. Hence there’s bound to be mess in the area of the rightful kingship.

Scotland: Shortly after Macbeth, the MacWilliams from 11th to 13th century were rival claimants descended from William FitzDuncan, son of king Duncan, who was succeeded by his brothers and not by his son. Houses of Balliol and Bruce were rival claimants, arbitrated between by Edward of England in 1292, who used the opportunity to claim overlordship (this had been done before by English kings). Balliols were put in place and removed by the king of England. The house of Bruce took over, not without a Balliol rebellion supported by England. Then from 1688 same as England.

Ireland: Lots of feuding minor kings with a shifting high kingship. Some Viking local rulers (e.g. Dublin) by invasion and conquest. Norman conquest from England, replacing local kingly dynasties, some of which dating back verifiably to 4th century and, not verifiably, even further back. Some of those dynasties are still extant, although not accorded many privileges, nor even a princely title, despite being the longest existing royal houses in Europe.

France: Merovingians deposed by force and with some reliance on a papal statement, later Carolingians deposed by force and replaced by Capets while patrilineal Carolingians still lived (namely the counts of Vermandois) (Godfrey of Bouillon would have had a stronger claim to Carolingian succession than the Capets). Napoleon and his dynasty came to power by revolutions and plebiscites. Orlean Bourbons took over from the still extant main line. Now there’s a lot of controversy as to who’s the heir of the main line, while the Orleanist line is still extant.

Germany/Holy Roman Empire: German Carolingians replaced by elective monarchs even though Carolingians were still extant in France. Plenty of new sovereigns emerged with the dissolution of the HRE by its last emperor in 1806. Changes were made by Napoleon, at the Vienna congress, in 1871 when establishing the Hohenzollern empire, and at other occasions.

Austria: Habsburgs were not descendants of Babenberg dukes ruling there, the last of whom had a daughter with living descendants, but there were also patrilineal Babengers until 1583 in Frankonia. Meanwhile Bohemian royals took over but were expelled by Habsburgs.

Hungary: Lots of unstable successions and in-fighting early on. Anjou dynasty was imported at some point early in 14th century after the failure of the royal Arpads. Those were followed by an elected king, son of the king of Poland, disputed by Habsburgs. Then a native, elected king. And then another import from Poland. And after that, Habsburgs in 1526 (as per a treaty) in what was basically foreign rule. Controversies with Zapolya and Bathory houses about the succession and even elections.

I do not disagree with you that there are different methods of succession. There are many and not just in theory but in practice too. As regards naming a successor, this is a common practice in Arabian monarchies. I stated that we should not generalise about other monarchies is because this thread is about the British one not others.