Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

If you start from 1066, the last direct line legitimate monarch was Richard III.

Then you have the Tudors with a fairly weak claim, then they handed it on to the Stuarts with an even weaker claim. Then it was swapped around a bunch of European families whose only real claim to the throne was that they weren't Catholics.

Since the Plantagenets' male line died out with Richard III in 1485, who would be the legitimate monarch if religion/politics hadn't gotten in the way?

share|improve this question
Define "Legitimate"? :) –  DVK Dec 30 '11 at 19:04
By the rules of the game, eldest son, or if no sons then eldest daughter. –  none Dec 30 '11 at 19:29
Oh, I just saw your previous comment. If you mean cognatic primogeniture, I'm pretty sure no-one knows, as Edward IV was the last king of the Plantagenet line to produce children that did not late become monarch. He must have thousands of living descendent today, most unwitting. –  Noldorin Jan 1 '12 at 0:55
@Noldorin - but there is apparently a direct descendent ! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… –  none Jan 1 '12 at 1:12
Direct descendent means nothing. There are plenty of them. Cognatic primogeniture is the key here! Very hard to prove. –  Noldorin Jan 1 '12 at 2:24

2 Answers 2

If you accept that the Parliament of the United Kingdom currently has "sovereign and uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical, or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal ... it can, in short, do every thing that is not naturally impossible", then I point you to the Act of Settlement 1701, which states that succession to the British throne will pass to the oldest surviving Protestant descendant of the Electress Sophia of Hanover (1630-1714).

That's the interpretation I go by, since I like the idea of Parliament being the ultimate source of sovereignty, picking monarchs and heads of state at its whim.

share|improve this answer
Alas, it's not true. The monarch still has nominal power to dismiss Parliament. In fact the Queen must formally open Parliament each year, as is currently the case. She must also sign bills before they take action, though this is again formality. She has quite range of significant powers, but they are all basically nominal, since if she or any following monarch tried to take too much power, everyone would ignore them. –  Noldorin Dec 31 '11 at 20:17
So yeah, the idea you like and the reality are somewhat different... but in practice Parliament has all the power (and mainly the Commons at that). The Queens powers are layed out in the British constitution and are quite significant, except for when you note she just defers to the PM in all case. As is famously said, "the Queen reigns, but she does not rule" See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… for the significant powers the monarch possesses, including appointing/dismissing any MP (including the PM)! –  Noldorin Dec 31 '11 at 20:19
@Noldorin: that last statement isn't true. The Queen can appoint ministers and peers, but not MPs. –  Steve Melnikoff Jan 1 '12 at 14:50
Yes, the Queen opens Parliament & all power is in "Her Majesties Government" etc. However if she was to go against that, then it's not that she would be ignored, but Parliament would make a new Monarch, and hence she wouldn't be queen anymore. –  Rory Jan 3 '12 at 10:52
@Lohoris No the queen cannot in any meaningful way "dismiss Parliament". She can dismiss parliament and call a new election if the existing Prime Minister asks her to dismiss Parliament. There is no way, now, that a monarch could go against the wills of Parliament. –  Rory Mar 26 '12 at 16:24

The question is based on the premise that the monarch of England is simply determined by applying a set of defined rules - i.e. legitimate, male line succession. As argued by others above, this has always in practice been combined with a degree of pragmatism (i.e. who is the best ruler) and even an element of democracy (as shown by the Act of Settlement) not to mention brute force. It's also highly debateable whether 1066 is the most appropriate starting point (why not King Alfred the Great?). However, ignoring those elements, I've had a go at applying the rules of succession to William the Conqueror's descendents below.

The somewhat surprising conclusion is notwithstanding the various immediate breaks in succession, the lines tend back to the line that had the throne, largely due to judicious use of marriage, imprisonment and execution! The only exception is the Jacobite claim, which is technically with Franz, Duke of Bavaria, although this line has never claimed the throne of England.

Here is the full list, with the dates that the people would have technically claimed the throne:

William the Conqueror - 1066-1087

Robert Curthose of Normandy - 1087-1134

Henry Beauclerc - 1134-1135

Matilda of England - 1135-1167

Henry Plantagenet - 1167-1189

Richard the Lionheart - 1189-1199

Arthur of Brittany - 1199-1202

Eleanor of Brittany - 1202-1241

Henry of Winchester (III of England) - 1241-1272

Edward Longshanks (I of England) - 1272-1307

Edward of Caernarfon (II of England) - 1307-1327

Edward III - 1327-1377

Richard II - 1377-1400

Edmund Mortimer - 1400-1425

Richard of York - 1425-1460

Edward IV - 1460-1483

Edward V - 1483-1483 (assuming we ignore the fact that parliament declared him illegitimate?)

Elizabeth of York - 1483-1503

Henry VII - 1503-1547

Edward VI - 1547-1553

Mary I - 1553-1558

Elizabeth I - 1558-1603

James I - 1603-1625

Charles I - 1625-1649

Charles II - 1649-1685

James II - 1685-1701

For the following line, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite_succession

James Stuart (Old Pretender) - 1701-1766

Bonnie Prince Charlie - 1766-1788

Henry Benedict Stuart - 1788-1807

Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia - 1807-1819

Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia - 1819-1824

Maria Beatrice of Savoy - 1824-1840

Francis V Duke of Modena - 1840-1875

Maria Theresia of Austria-Este - 1875-1919

Rupprecht of Bavaria - 1919-1955

Albreacht of Bavaria - 1955-1996

Franz Duke of Bavaria - 1996-present.

share|improve this answer
I think Henry VII here should be Henry VIII - unfortunately I can't edit as is only one character –  Mark May 25 at 14:05

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.