Though I haven't gotten through many of my books yet, the Oxford one that I'm currently reading has brought up some interesting points, and based on my knowledge of more recent British houses, an inkling of a thesis has begun to form in my mind.
I think it would be interesting to argue that the British monarchy is driven by its inheritance. That is to say, that the actions of the ruler, be it King or Queen, are based upon whether or not there are any children to take the throne, and if there are multiple children, how to get them to stop fighting over who will take over.
Kings such as Henry VIII have gone to great lengths to produce heirs, changing rules to do so. Henry II, who I am currently reading about, gave his sons titles at a very young age, even making one of his sons a Junior King while Henry was still alive! Monarchs and their subjects have always seem to have had an obsession of who will take over their place once they are gone, with whole wars even starting because of it. Though I don't know much about it yet, I have a book about the War of the Roses, which, if I am to understand it, was a war between two houses (Lancaster and York), over which house was entitled to the throne.
By making my way through the British royalty trees, and looking at how their children, (or lack of, for some) influenced a monarch's rule, I could hopefully come up with some great arguments.
More streams of consciousness are sure to follow!
No comments:
Post a Comment