To think Richard III clearly murdered the princes in the tower?

I wasn’t “unable” you just refuse to follow primogeniture and recognise the difference between a usurper declaring heirs before him in the line of succession illegitimate and the rightful monarch declaring heirs after him in the line of succession illegitimate.

You don’t seem to understand a line of succession. You are saying by primogeniture that illegitimate males (James) should inherit before legitimate females (Jane) which is all wrong.

No I am not saying Richard III was only after Elizabeth of York, I am saying, that Richard III, being 8th in line for the throne behind ALL his brother’s children declared them ALL illegitimate, thereby passing over all these male & female heirs to gain the throne.

Yes I said that to another poster and WE were taking about in practice, not by the rules. And then I clarified it for you when you said “that’s not true” by saying “not in practice” and have given multiple examples.

Henry VIII’s “whims” were LAW btw. It is law that makes heirs legitimate or illegitimate, and that affects how you apply primogeniture. Henry VIII had declared all descendants of his elder sister Margaret Tudor as illegitimate and barred from succession, because Scotland was an enemy, and Margaret had married the King of Scotland, Margaret was the GGM of James.

This isn’t uncommon, other heirs have been declared illegitimate for being French for example.

Primogeniture (/ˌpraɪməˈdʒɛnɪtʃər, -oʊ-/) is the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn legitimate child to inherit the parent's entire or main estate in preference to shared inheritance among all or some children, any illegitimate child or any collateral relative

Do you know what a line of succession is? Elizabeth was heir after her little brother Richard. Elizabeth and all her sisters were higher up the line of succession than Richard III was…so Richard III had to skip over ALL of them:

Edward IV’s heirs were

1. Edward V
2. Richard (nephew of Richard III)
3. Elizabeth
4. Cecily
5. Anne
6. Catherine
7. Bridget
8. Richard III

He used the bog standard usurping method and have them all declared illegitimate to bring him immediately to the #1 spot.

It’s not at all daft.

I think the most fascinating part of the modern royal family is that now they can't literally kill each other, they kill each other via news reports and social media. Viva la revolution!

Not one other female heir was overlooked in favour of a male family member.

Lets not forget Lady Jane Stanley, the legitimate heir of Elizabeth I overlooked for James I.

Logicslly speaking, he had no need to kill them as they had already been declared illegitimate and therefore out of the line of succession.

Henry Tudor, on the other hand, needed them to be legitimate so he could strengthen his position by marrying their sister, but not there to take their place on the throne over her…..

Elizabeth was Edward IV’s eldest legitimate child until a usurper killed her brothers and made her illegitimate. How was she not the heir, as in second in line after Edward V? Didn’t you say never has the brother of a monarch taken a throne ahead of a daughter of a monarch? That is exactly what happened!

Richard had them ALL declared illegitimate so he could take the throne from ALL of them. To think otherwise is plainly to ignore primogeniture. Elizabeth was ahead of Richard in the line of succession, he had to sideline her in some fashion.

Ok. If you insist on ignoring all the others…

Because Richard III wanted to usurp the throne, so he made her illegitimate. He usurped the throne from her as much as from her brothers.

Yes the brother of a monarch ascended ahead of both the monarch’s sons and his daughters through abuse of the legal system and a bit of murder.

But the Third Sucession Act did not remove the stain of illegitimacy, which is what I said. “Mary and Elizabeth, who had both been declared illegitimateand incapable to inherit, were not restored to legitimacy in the 1543/44 Act; they were only restored to succession of the Crown (with several provisos stipulated in his will of 1547, such as they could not marry without the Privy Council's approval). This meant that the place in the succession of Mary and Elizabeth remained doubtful.”

Rules of primogeniture- illegitimate children still cannot inherit, no matter what a succession act says….

Stephen I was a nephew- son of the deceased brother, usurped throne from Matilda daughter and legitimate heir of Henry I

Richard III- after the princes disappeared/died rule should have gone from him as Lord Protector to Elizabeth of York, eldest daughter of Edward IV with no surviving brothers- so he, her uncle, brother of Edward IV usurped the throne from her too.

Henry VII- legitimate heir of Edward IV was Elizabeth of York. Henry VII was a distant cousin of Edward IV. He usurped it from her by forcing her to marry him.

“This started with the statement that brothers of a monarch were above daughters in the line of succession.”
No it did not. This started with a statement that in practice, daughters were usually passed over or sidelined in favour of another male relative. The rules were often ignored when on the rare occaision the only surviving legitimate heir of a monarch was female. And that is true.

No, you don’t remember because you don’t know the history.

Edward VI didn’t try to remove Mary I from succession, his father Henry VIII had already done that by declaring Mary and Elizabeth to be illegitimate in the Third Sucession Act.

per Edward VI’s Device for the Sucession, Lady Jane Grey was his legitimate heir as he excluded his half-sisters for being illegitimate. Lady Jane Grey was proclaimed Queen. Within days, Mary I contested the throne and won Parliament to her side, they tore up Edward’s Device for Sucession and Jane Grey was declared a usurper. It was a coup Mary did. And Jane lost her head as did others.

You can’t have it both ways, saying dead monarchs can’t decide succession when I mention a branch is barred from succession by Henry VIII and then admitting that it can be done by mentioning another branch barred from succession.

Henry VII’s claim to the throne was through Margaret, so she had a stronger claim than he did. But no one would fight to put a woman on the throne would they?