Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles

[Emsworth]

Basically, then, the marriage of John of Gaunt to Catherine Swynford did not legitmise their three children (the Beauforts), who were born by Catherine was he was his mistress; in which case, the Tudor legitimacy is very tenuous indeed

Indeed, that would be a valid analysis of the law. But the point was moot in any event, as Henry VII's claim to the throne was conquest. He could have also claimed the Crown Marital by right of his wife, Elizabeth of York.

[Emsworth]

That is quite correct. Even if their claim was tenuous, it was recognized by an Act of Parliament, which overruled everything else.

[Emsworth]

Very true. In fact, I like the Tudors, the two Henry's and Elizabeth anyway

Yes, the convenience of Acts of Parliament...

Of course, Acts of Parliament were themselves ignored on several occasions; James I, for instance, should never have become King according to the law.

[Emsworth]

Very true. In fact, I like the Tudors, the two Henry's and Elizabeth anyway

Yes, the convenience of Acts of Parliament...

Of course, Acts of Parliament were themselves ignored on several occasions; James I, for instance, should never have become King according to the law.

Why wouldn't James I have had a right to the throne?

An Act of Parliament passed during the reign of Henry VIII allowed Henry to determine the line of succession in his will. According to the will, the descendants of Margaret Tudor (Queen of Scotland) were excluded. The rightful heir according to the law was therefore Lady Anne Stanley, daughter of the Earl of Derby. James, however, had a stronger claim by inheritance, and an army, so Lady Anne was merely ignored.

[Emsworth]

I thought the acts of Henry were repealed?

IIRC, the only major provision repealed before James I's accession was the one declaring Mary illegitimate. (Elizabeth did not bother to legitimize herself ex post facto.) Henry's will, I believe, remained valid.