Parliament and the principle of elective succession in Elizabethan England

P. Kewes
{"title":"Parliament and the principle of elective succession in Elizabethan England","authors":"P. Kewes","doi":"10.7228/manchester/9780719099588.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The question of precisely how far parliament should be involved in settling the succession to the crown constitutes a neglected strand of the Elizabethan succession debate. Patrick Collinson and his successors have examined in detail the attempts undertaken by committed Protestants from the 1560s through to the 1580s to secure legislation debarring Mary, queen of Scots. However, this chapter demonstrates that a necessary corollary of the campaign for exclusion was the argument that parliament, even one summoned after Elizabeth’s death without statutory warrant, could determine the identity of her rightful successor or even choose the next ruler. Theoretical justifications of this scenario, however, were seldom disinterested, and were typically designed with a practical purpose and a specific person in mind. It may be a mistake to treat them as expressions of abstract political thought. Drawing on new archival evidence, this chapter reveals that he intended beneficiary of the boldest such scheme propounded in 1586, when the Scottish queen was still alive, was her infant son James. It concludes by reflecting on the memory and polemical uses of Elizabethan parliaments in late Stuart England.","PeriodicalId":207891,"journal":{"name":"Writing the history of parliament in Tudor and early Stuart England","volume":"529 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Writing the history of parliament in Tudor and early Stuart England","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7228/manchester/9780719099588.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The question of precisely how far parliament should be involved in settling the succession to the crown constitutes a neglected strand of the Elizabethan succession debate. Patrick Collinson and his successors have examined in detail the attempts undertaken by committed Protestants from the 1560s through to the 1580s to secure legislation debarring Mary, queen of Scots. However, this chapter demonstrates that a necessary corollary of the campaign for exclusion was the argument that parliament, even one summoned after Elizabeth’s death without statutory warrant, could determine the identity of her rightful successor or even choose the next ruler. Theoretical justifications of this scenario, however, were seldom disinterested, and were typically designed with a practical purpose and a specific person in mind. It may be a mistake to treat them as expressions of abstract political thought. Drawing on new archival evidence, this chapter reveals that he intended beneficiary of the boldest such scheme propounded in 1586, when the Scottish queen was still alive, was her infant son James. It concludes by reflecting on the memory and polemical uses of Elizabethan parliaments in late Stuart England.
伊丽莎白时代英格兰的议会和选举继承原则
国会到底应该在多大程度上参与解决王位继承问题是伊丽莎白时代王位继承辩论中被忽视的一个问题。帕特里克·科林森和他的继任者详细研究了从16世纪60年代到16世纪80年代虔诚的新教徒为确保立法废除苏格兰女王玛丽的地位所做的努力。然而,本章表明,排斥运动的必然结果是,议会,即使是在伊丽莎白死后没有法定授权的情况下召集的议会,也可以确定她的合法继承人的身份,甚至选择下一任统治者。然而,这种情况的理论理由很少是无私的,而且通常是为了实际目的和特定的人而设计的。把它们当作抽象政治思想的表达可能是错误的。根据新的档案证据,本章揭示了1586年提出的最大胆的计划的受益人,当时苏格兰女王还活着,是她襁褓中的儿子詹姆斯。最后,回顾了斯图亚特王朝晚期英格兰伊丽莎白时期议会的记忆和辩论运用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信