Literally the only person ever to impose direct military rule in England:
1 Like
So that was James VII, King of Scotland?
The rulers of England have not necessarily had the best interests of the Irish at heart for many centuries.
Once again a thing I saw on the Internet was that the plantations in Ireland were begun under the Catholic English Queen Mary and that had she lived longer, the Ireland of today could have been Presbyterian as a reaction to that.
Full male suffrage didn’t arrive in the UK until 1918 (same time as partial suffrage for women). The last reform act of the 19th century, the Representation of the People Act 1884, gave ~60% of men the vote.
1 Like
I couldn’t find it in a cursory search of the PAS database yesterday. I’d hoped to find out when it was registered from that. Have you found it?
As for the pilgrim badge issue: yeah, I’m highly sceptical as well that it is part of a crown, especially if there are similar pilgrim badges. That’s why I added the “imagine if” above.
ETA: never mind, found it. I’d restricted my search to post medieval while it is listed as late medieval.
Looks like the record was created in June 2018. No idea how long PAS processing times are these days, so since the article says it was found in 2017 it’s possible he alerted them right away I suppose? Of course if he waited until he met his FLO at a rally or something there are delays to be expected as well.
1 Like
There’s a reason why bits of laws that allow British cabinet ministers to effectively legislate with limited reference to Parliament are known as Henry VIII clauses.
I seem to recall learning that he would almost certainly have got his dissolution annulment (which was pretty much standard operating procedure for mediaeval royalty, along with things like dispensation to marry your aunt) were it not for the fact that the Pope was being held prisoner by Katherine of Aragorn’s uncle, Emperor Charles V (a.k.a. Carlos I of Spain).
[Edited to correct precisely which form of not-being-married-any-more Henry VIII was aiming for.]
2 Likes
So there ya go! And of course, during that time, the UK was an empire, with millions of subjects unable to have a say in their own governance. That didn’t change until… when, the 40s? Early 50s? With the… what was it, the citizenship act?
To be fair, though, that was far more people who could vote before that. Same with the expansion of the franchise in the US during the Jackson years. As incomplete as it was, it was an expansion that set the stage for all that came later.
Exactly.
1 Like
As I understand things, It varied widely. New Zealand had universal suffrage from 1893 (men and women, European and Maori – though with racially determined, communal electorates). Black Kenyans didn’t get the vote until 1957 (again, in race-based constituencies), only six years before independence.
And none of them, of course, ever had any right to vote in British parliamentary elections (less significant for the Dominion of New Zealand, much more so for the Colony of Kenya), unless they were actually resident in the UK – where, to be fair, they would (in theory, at least) have the same right to vote and run for office as their white counterparts. Dadabhai Naoroji, a Parsi from Gujarat, moved to England and was returned as the member for Finsbury Central at the general election of 1892.
I was specifically talking about the Nationality act in 1948, which opened up migration from SE Asia and the West Indies especially. That did have a measurable impact on the voting public in the UK.
But yes, that’s entirely true.
1 Like
Oh sorry, I misunderstood.
I’m happy to be corrected, but I didn’t think the 1948 Act changed much in terms of migration rights? I thought that the more important status was that of British Subject – which anyone becoming a Citizen of the UK and Colonies under the 1948 act would already have had, and which in itself granted the right to live and work in the UK. (Until 1962, anyway, when the UK became one of the few countries to deny right of entry to its own nationals.)
Maybe I’m misremembering, but I believe that it opened the door for former subjects, now citizens to move to the UK. Obviously, there was lots of people in SE Asia looking to escape the violence of the conflict that came out of the partition and people from Caribbean colonies looking for opportunities.
1 Like
Same person as James II of England. It’s just my inner Scot typing, I didn’t mean to confuse anyone.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
