Would King Henry II’s children be considered legitimate

  • Thread starter Thread starter JacobHarrison
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JacobHarrison said:
The true rightful heir lives in France so she is probably Catholic. The issue with infiltrating the U.K. government is that the Queen gives assent to laws, and she will never give assent to the changing of the monarchy.
Click to expand...
If George III was not the rightful king at the time, that means the United States rebelled against the wrong monarch and therefore the Declaration of Independence is invalid. Each one of the fifty states is, constitutionally, still to this today a British colony. Not sure about Puerto Rico, though.
 
Last edited:
Don’t say that — it’ll just encourage this US invasion of Britain plan.
 
I already explained how William’s legitimacy comes from Harold Godwinson’s sacred oath on Holy Relics meaning that Harold should have promoted William being the next King to the Witan instead of accepting the crown.
 
But since Henry II’s sons are illegitimate due to his illegitimate marriage, it means that the monarchs at the time the English colonized the America’s were illegitimate so America is not a British colony.
 
Why would a king’s legitimacy derive from an earl fulfilling an oath? Whether Harold swore an oath or not (which is disputed) and whether, if he did swear it, it was under duress (which is disputed) has no bearing on William’s right to the throne, only on Harold’s honesty. The right to elect the king rested with the Witan, and the Witan chose first Harold, and then Edgar until forced by the approach of William’s invading foreign army to back down.

Harold II and then Edgar II were the legitimate kings. William’s usurpation derived solely from conquest. William III and Mary II were at least members of the royal family and in the line of succession. William I had no claim whatsoever apart from force of arms.
 
Last edited:
JacobHarrison said:
But since Henry II’s sons are illegitimate due to his illegitimate marriage, it means that the monarchs at the time the English colonized the America’s were illegitimate so America is not a British colony.
Click to expand...
Nice one. They’d better give the place back to its original owners, then. 🙂
 
Last edited:
Because Harold in fulfilling of his oath should never have accepted the crown and should have tried convincing the Witan to elect William. An oath sworn on holy relics is a sacred unbreakable oath. Because of that, William got a Papal blessing for the invasion.
 
We are going round in circles.
JacobHarrison said:
Because Harold in fulfilling of his oath should never have accepted the crown and should have tried convincing the Witan to elect William
Click to expand...
What Harold should have done or should not have done is irrelevant. It was not up to Harold to decide who should be king, it was up to the Witan. What arguments one person or more could or should have made before the Witan don’t alter the facts: William was not an atheling, nor did he have any other close relationship to the House of Wessex such that he was a potential elected king, and he was not elected king. He usurped the throne by invasion. What Harold should have done or should not have done is, I repeat, irrelevant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top