On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:57:34 -0800 (PST), Naraht
wrote:
>On Mar 9, 2:44 am, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
>> Amazing what a civil war or two over who's king can do to motivate
>> people to nail down all the details of succession. :-D
>
>While I agree with the sentiment, I think that two is an
>underestimate. At least four wars spring to mind that appear to fit in
>this category:
>1) The Invasion of William the Conqueror (1066)
>2) The Anarchy, the civil war between King Steven and Empress Maud
>(1135-1154)
>3) The War of the Roses (1455-1485) and
>4) The Revolution of 1688 (AKA the War of English Succession).
Not to mention the various Tudor successions - not just Lady Jane Grey
but a large part of the policy of Elizabeth I was deciding on her
successor and ensuring it would be uncontested.
Which of course is highly ironic given the biggest military building
project of her reign was the fortifications of Berwick whose guns were
first fired to salute James I/VI in 1603! |
