The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0948 Wednesday, 25 October 2006
Date: Monday, 23 Oct 2006 19:13:37 -0700
Subject: 17.0923 The Archbishop Wasn't There? So Forth.
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0923 The Archbishop Wasn't There? So Forth.
The Archbishop cites two instances where the throne of France descended
through the female. The first, King Pepin, deposed the rightful lineal
King Pepin, which deposed Childeric,
Did as heir general, being descended
Of Blithild, which was daughter to King Clothair,
Make claim and title to the crown of France.
The second, Hugh Capet, usurped the crown from the rightful lineal heir
Charles the Duke of Lorraine:
Hugh Capet also, who usurped the crown
Of Charles the Duke of Lorraine, sole heir male
Of the true line and stock of Charles the Great ...
It is easy to skip over those two words "deposed" and "usurped".
The only two examples the Archbishop cites to justify Henry V's upcoming
war for the throne of France, are cases where the rightful, sitting
monarch was ousted. These are not cases where the last legitimate male
monarch has recently died and the next legitimate heir happens to be a
woman or her male descendant. The Archbishop doesn't dare cite examples
where the crown of France could have descended via a female but didn't
because the custom in France has always been to follow exclusively male
The Archbishop's real message seems to be "So you want to grab the
throne by force, and claim your rightful descent via your great, great
grandmother. Well, there is a precedent for that sort of thing."
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.