When Elizabeth died, did she decide to have James on the throne or did he just automatically assume it. I don't think she favored the Stuarts that much so it's kind of surprising that she would name one to the throne, although he was of her relation...
2 comments:
Elizabeth never came right out and named anyone as her successor.
James was never specifically mentioned, but as Elizabeth got older, and it was known she'd never have children, James was the only logical heir. James realized this himself, and was very careful to stay on Elizabeth's good side; after the execution of his mother, only a token protest was made.
There was a report put about by her council that, on her death bed, Elizabeth named Mary, Queen of Scots' son as the next king. The person to make that announcement was Robert Cecil...who was already in communication with Scotland's king. Looking at who was available at the time, though, James VI was the only person who fit the bill. He was male, had the right bloodline, and had the approval of the English government.
Elizabeth did name James as her successor and their was only one other person who was related. Arabell Stuart because she was part Tudor and part Stuart but her claim was denied
Post a Comment