It seems that there are many occasions in English/British royal history where an heir to the throne (crowned or not) has been bypassed or usurped, rightly or wrongly, in favour of another candidate?

A few I came up with;-

• King Alfred (871-99), in 871 over his two nephews upon the death of their father and his surviving older brother and predecessor, King Ethelred I of Wessex?
  
  
• King Edward 'the Elder'(899-924) of Wessex who, upon the death of his warrior-sister, Athelflaed 'Lady of the Mercians' in 918, consumed Mercia in favour of his niece, Aelfwynn?
  
  
• King Athelstan (924-39), upon the death of the above, his father, in 924 Athelstan (raised in Mercia) was contested for the throne by his half-brother, Aelfweard (died the same year), and a revolt seems to have occurred against him in Wessex led by another half-brother, Edwin.
  Such that he wasn't crowned until 925?
  
  
• Fraternal kings William II (1087-1100) and Henry I (1100-35) in England over their older brother, Duke Robert of Normandy?
  
  
• King Stephen (1135-54) over his cousin, Mathilda, in 1135, thus causing such bitter civil war in England that "the saints slept" for 19yrs?
  
  
• Edward V (uncrowned), one of the 'Princes in the Tower' who were sons of King Edward IV, 'usurped' by a previously loyal Prince, now King Richard III, c.1483? Indeed, was the Yorkist line itself usurped by the House of Lancaster?
  

Maybe more controversially, we could suggest that Edgar the Atheling (then c.14 years old in January 1066) was "usurped" by King Harold Godwinson with the assent of the witan and King Edward (if we believe the sources that he bestowed kingship?).

How about Arthur, son of Geoffrey, younger brother of Richard I, and elder brother of John? Richard did name him as heir, and according to the strict rules of inheritance, he should have been Richard's successor.

Hereword,

Somehow I seem to have read or heard and forgotten where, that the pre-1066 English society didn't have primogeniture, thus the firstborn or eldest surviving son wasn't necessarily heir to all of the possesions of the father.

Wasn't Alfred himself not a younger son?

Re Wm II and Henry I, I seem to have read - again forgotten where - that as the eldest son, Robert of Normandy had inherited his father's inherited lands, and Wm I had passed his conquests on as livelihood for his younger sons and dowry for his daughters.
This supposedly being in accordance with the feudality laws? (This question perhaps more aimed at Gil).

Sorry if I am confusing things further.

Yes, Nielsen, the system was not strict primogeniture, though the eldest son was probably in pole position. The consent of the witanagemot was necessary for a would-be monarch.

This being in accordance with the systems working(?) in Denmark, which theoretically was a place where kingship was up for grabs among the magnates whenever a king died or was deposed.

Realistically this worked this worked as a kind of balance between the king, who wanted to grab back whatever had been given or promised to the magnates for electing him, and at the same time involving his sons to prepare the 'better' one/s in order to have the means to offer the necessary bribing for election of the next king.

This worked so well, that sons of the same family reigned - with quite a few civil wars and interregnums - from the mid-900 AD untill 1665 - when an absolute, hereditary primogenitural(sp?), monarchy took over, working till 1849 when we became a constitutional monarchy - yet still within the same family til 1863, when the main line became extinct.

An agreement within the Danish parliament, and later (1852) supported by the great European powers of the time, claimed that the throne - following the death of King Frederik VII, would pass to a junior branch of the Oldenburg family, the Glücksburgers - springing from a junior son of Christian III, which accidentally was pre-Danish-absolutism.

The present head of the Danish branch of the Glücksburgers is the Queen Margrethe II, who later this month will celebrate her 40th anniversary on the throne.

Let's not forget William III, Mary II, and Anne, over James Edward Stuart and Bonnie Prince Charlie....

And the Georgians over a plethora of Catholics who had a better claim to the throne.

There was a woman on 5 Live today claiming that the Queen Mum is not the biological mother of Liz, rather her natural mother was a surrogate and a cook.

She said QM had an aversion to Georgie, to such an extent that it was arranged for the cook to produce the heirs as well as the Sunday roast.

This woman (whose name escapes me now) also claimed that this was fairly common practice amongst the ruling class?

Islanddawn wrote:

She said QM had an aversion to Georgie, to such an extent that it was arranged for the cook to produce the heirs as well as the Sunday roast.

This woman (whose name escapes me now) also claimed that this was fairly common practice amongst the ruling class?

That poor cook must have been right knackered if the whole ruling class was using her!

I know! Anyone else would have had enough on their plate with just George plus all the food.

Nielsen wrote:

The present head of the Danish branch of the Glücksburgers is the Queen Margrethe II, who later this month will celebrate her 40th anniversary on the throne.

It’s worth noting also that Margrethe was one of the first modern royal heirs to marry a commoner. With the exception of the Grimaldi family of Monaco (whose princes have been marrying commoners since at least 1816) it was extremely rare for a royal person to wed a commoner. This began to change in the 20th Century. He’s a list a notable royal marriages to non-royal and non-aristocratic spouses since 1900:


Monaco
Prince Louis II adopted his illegitimate daughter Charlotte by Marie Louvet (French) in 1911 and later married Ghislaine Dommange (also French) in 1946.
Princess Charlotte’s son Rainier III wed Grace Kelly (American) in 1956.
Their son Prince Albert married Charlene Wittstock (Rhodesian) in 2011.


Malaya
Tunku Abdul Rahman wed Dulcie Campbell in 1919.


Japan
Prince Akihito married Michiko Shōda in 1959.
Their son Crown Prince Naruhito married Masako Owada in 1993.


Jordan
King Hussein wed Antoinette Gardiner (English) in 1961.
Their son Prince Abdullah married Rania al Yassin (Kuwaiti) in 1993.


Denmark
Princess Margrethe married Henri de Laborde de Monpezat (French) in 1967.
Their son Crown Prince Frederik wed Mary Donaldson (Australian) in 2004.


Norway
Crown Prince Harald wed Sonja Haraldsen in 1968.
Their son Crown Prince Haakon married Mette-Marit Tjessem Høiby in 2001.


Sweden
King Carl XVI Gustaf married Silvia Sommerlath (German) in 1976.
Their daughter Crown Princess Victoria wed Daniel Westling in 2011.


Luxembourg
Grand Duke Henri married Maria Teresa Mestre (Cuban) in 1981.


Thailand
Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn married Yuvadhida Polpraserth in 1994 and later married Srirasmi Akharaphongpreecha in 2001.


Lesotho
King Letsie III married Anna Karabo Mots'oeneng in 2000.


Morocco
King Mohammed VI married Salma Bennani in 2001.


Netherlands
Prince Willem-Alexander married Máxima Zorreguieta (Argentinean) in 2002.


Brunei
Crown Prince Al-Muttahdee Billah wed Sarah Salleh in 2004.


Spain
Prince Felipe married Letizia Ortiz in 2004.


Great Britain & Northern Ireland
Prince William wed Catherine Middleton in 2011.


The heads of state and heirs of the following countries have not married commoners:

Belgium, Bahrain, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Oman, Qatar and Tonga.


The monarchs of the following countries practice polygamy although the heirs are born to non-common mothers:

Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Swaziland.


One wonders if the ‘commonizing’ of so many of the world’s royal families has any long term implication for the institution of hereditary monarchy or (as with Monaco over the last 200 years) will the phenomenon of royalty marrying commonalty simply be seen as normal practice and maybe even become expected.

'Maybe more controversially, we could suggest that Edgar the Atheling (then c.14 years old in January 1066) was "usurped" by King Harold Godwinson with the assent of the witan and King Edward (if we believe the sources that he bestowed kingship?).'

Would one consider that Edgar the Atheling was also usurped by William?

James Francis Edward Stuart could claim to have been usurped by in turn William III, Queen Anne, George I, II and III

The wives of Edward IV, Richard III and George VI were not royal - any more than either of the current Prince of Wales' wives.

But then, as has been mentioned in another thread here, Diana Spencer although not officially "Royal" actually had a more direct descent to the former Kings of England than does Charles, and so she had more 'Royal Blood', if you like, than the current heir to the throne. William and Harry, inheriting both Di's and Charles' bloodlines have better Royal pedigrees than any of the other Royal family.... except Prince Philip of course who trumps everyone else.

PS : Welcome back Gil good to see you again.

Gilgamesh of Uruk wrote:

The wives of Edward IV, Richard III and George VI were not royal - any more than either of the current Prince of Wales' wives.

And Elizabeth I's mother (and three of her stepmothers) were not royal either, although Anne Boleyn had both aristocratic English (Howard) and Anglo-Irish (Butler) blood.

Gloriana's great, great grandfather, Geoffrey Boleyn, had been "in trade": the Boleyn fortune came from woollen cloth, and Geoffrey Boleyn, a shrewd and canny "mercer", did so well that he became Lord Mayor of London, 1457-8. Possibly having a Lord Mayor of London in her family tree was far more of an embarrassment to Elizabeth than having had a mother who had been beheaded as a traitress and an adulteress. Getting your head chopped off was, after all, recognised as being a perfectly respectable royal misfortune.

Back to George's cook.

One could say that she always had a bun in the oven?

Ha, good one Alan!

Wallis Simpson is said to have described Elizabeth as 'the fat Scottish cook'.
However, concerning the original suggestion that

'She said QM had an aversion to Georgie'

I suspect that this is far more to do with trying to make the book, in which the suggestion is published, a financial success than in reality.

Tim

I have mentioned this on other boards. In a biography of KGVI I read that the present Queen was not acclaimed for a couple of days as the Queen Mother thought she might be pregnant, and if it were a boy it would take precedence over Princess Elizabeth.

Gilgamesh of Uruk wrote:

The wives of Edward IV, Richard III and George VI were not royal - any more than either of the current Prince of Wales' wives.

That's true Gil and you're right that Prince Charles pipped Prince William to the post (in the marrying of 'commoners' stakes) by marrying Camilla Parker-Bowles in 2005. So they should be added to the list although the Duchess of Cornwall doesn't really impact upon in the line of succession.

The list mentions 'non-royal' and 'non-aristocratic' spouses. Maybe it should have said 'non-noble' spouses as well. Both Camilla Shand and Elizabeth Woodville were the granddaughters of hereditary barons and so would not be perceived as being truly 'common' by the general public even though technically they both were. (A great-great-granddaughter of a baron might be though - fourth generation and all that.)

Charles' marriage to Lady Diana Spencer was similar to that of Bertie's marriage to Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons and Richard III's marriage to Lady Anne Neville. All three were the daughters of Earls.

I do squirm a bit over the use of common or commoner though, it seems a bit snobby and denegrating. Or is that just our modern interpretation of the word? On the other hand I have no idea what word could be used in it's place. But, as you say Viz, Diana Spencer, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and Anne Neville where hardly what could be termed common.

Whereas Wallis Simpson and Sarah Ferguson definitely were/are, imo anyway.

The term 'commoner' is indeed loaded and the popular usage of the word 'common' (as a form of denigration) can confuse. Traditional royal etiquette, however, does require the use of the term 'commoner' as otherwise the term 'royal' itself would lose meaning. It's a yin and yang thing. One can't survive without the other. It is confusing and the etiquette surrounding which members of the aristocracy should be considered 'commoners' and which not further confuses the issue. This is why, for example, there were many puzzled looks when in 1981 experts on royalty were insisting that Lady Diana Spencer was 'a commoner'.

The list earlier should also include:

Cambodia
King Sihanouk of Cambodia who married Monique Izzi in 1952.

It's easy to forget that Cambodia is a restored monarchy. The horrors of the 1970s still loom large in the imagination and the fact that Sihanouk and Monique (although retired) are both still alive is truly remarkable. Also noteworthy is how Asia seems to have taken the lead in the list. Malaya, Cambodia, Japan and Jordan are preceded only by Monaco from Europe.

I'm quite surprised at how many countries still are ruled, if only constitutionally, by monarchs. You might have thought the Scandinavian countries would have ditched them and become republics, for instance.

The last Tongan king had started to modernise the monarchy there, but I don't know how far he was prepared to go. And I haven't heard anything about the next king's intentions. Tonga has quite a long period of mourning for a monarch so maybe they don't raise their heads for a while.

The Welsh-born Princess Lilian of Sweden died earlier this week aged 97:

http://m.thelocal.se/46668/20130311/

Islanddawn wrote:

There was a woman on 5 Live today claiming that the Queen Mum is not the biological mother of Liz, rather her natural mother was a surrogate and a cook.

She said QM had an aversion to Georgie, to such an extent that it was arranged for the cook to produce the heirs as well as the Sunday roast.

This woman (whose name escapes me now) also claimed that this was fairly common practice amongst the ruling class?

I know this is a late reply but I think the lady in question may have been Lady Colin Campbell - though she's been divorced from the lord from whom she acquired the title for decades.  Her latest targets are the Sussexes.

I don't know why but my gmail email is including suggestions from Quora.  I did once make a comment on that platform where I said I didn't think the Duchess of Sussex was evil - she may have made mistakes but so have most folks. Since then Quora sends me unwanted stuff about the Sussexes despite me asking them to stop. 

I came here to perhaps ask a question about people who have opted (or otherwise left) royal life. And lo - there was a thread devoted to the subject.  I don't propose to go into the tin-foil hattery there has been about both of King Charles III's daughter-in-law.  I'm not a mega-monarchist but I hope Princess Catherine makes a full recovery.

I remember reading that when King James fathered a son by his second wife, Mary of Modena, there was a rumour that a baby had been smuggled in via a warming pan.

During the Seven Years War a French minister did call for Charles Edward Stuart, 'son of the bedpan baby' to attend a meeting with him to discuss the possibility of him taking part in a French supported invasion of Scotland, as in 1745.  However Stuart turned up late and drunk and the minister concluded that the 'Young Pretender' would, unlike 1745, be of no use to them.

This thread is a bit of a blast from the past, over ten years since someone posted on it.

I wonder what happened to 'Hereward Awake' and if he was on the BBC pages?