Talk:List of usurpers

message: Are we going to consider the American/French/Russian revolutionaries for this page? Stilgar135 02:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be wrong. What is normally meant by "usurper" is a person who seizes the throne in a monarchy. When the monarchy is replaced by a republic in a revolution, that falls in under a different category. Eixo 13:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: How about expanding the list (and perhaps retitling it) to include claimants to the throne who failed in their attempt to usurp? e.g. James Francis Edward Stuart, Charles Edward Stuart, Anthony William Hall? Snalwibma 09:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A pretender and a usurper are not the same thing.  john k (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Who invited William and Mary to take the English throne?  Is such an operation legal?  He was invited to England by seven private individuals.  Then James fled.  Then parliament assembled and offered him and his wife the crown.  But this was clearly an usurpation, as James had not renounced his rights, and he had at any rate a son who was his legal heir.  Furthermore, no act of parliament is valid without royal assent, so either a) the Convention Parliament's acts were illegal in that they were taken without James's assent; or, if James was no longer king, b) they were invalid because there was no king to give his assent.  The legality was highly dubious, and he was certainly considered a usurper by many. john k (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand the list?

message: Some anon user keeps adding Barack Obama and GW Bush to this list. Can we lock the page to stop the edit war?--75.198.144.227 (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because he has a point. Not about GW Bush though (at least I think), but Barack Obama—and Chester A. Arthur by the way—are/were both natural-born subjects of the British monarch. (Both their fathers were themselves natural-born subjects. Just look into the Blackstone Commentaries and the British Nationality Acts on conferment of British citizenship etc.) You can't be a natural-born subject of the British crown and at the same time a natural born citizen of the US. The two concepts are not compatible. Since birth and allegiance go together, they are de facto usurpers. —85.178.91.12 (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Obama Sr. was born in Kenya, when it was British. Arthur's father was British (from Ireland with Scottish ancestors) and naturalized too late, 14 years after Arthur's birth. Obama himself admitted on his website during the campaign to having been governed by the British Nationality Act at birth: see here. Blackstone (I.10) writes: "all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception". (Common law, now codified.) So, it's a fact that Obama was a natural born subject of the British monarch at birth. He admitted it himself. SCOTUS said in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (quoting from US. v. Rhodes): "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together." In Minor v. Happersett, SCOTUS voiced doubts that children born on US soil of foreign parent(s), i.e. children with additional non-US allegiance, are natural born citizens. Obama was born in Hawaii, but he's also a British subject—or at least he was for a few years—, just like Arthur was. Very simple. Clear case of usurpation. You're either a natural born subject or a natural born citizen. You can't be both. —85.178.91.12 (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

text: You've got a point there about the legal situation. But you're incorrect about the fathers. Their status completely matters. They were both British, both natural-born subjects, and they conferred that status onto their respective children: Obama and Arthur. The latter two were US citizens (at least Obama), but both were definitely also natural born British subjects, because British citizenship law also confers natural born status by strict jus sanguinis. You can be born on Mars or Proxima Centauri… if your father is British, you're too. That's what the British Nationality Act said, that's what British common law said, that's what Obama admitted. These are facts. It's not "unfounded". Only the conclusion is (to some extent)—but only because it isn't backed up by neutral sources: there is no clear-cut SCOTUS decision on subjects vs. citizens, only judicial opinions in related cases. So I can say he's a usurper, because he's apparently "exercising authority unconstitutionally", and you can say I'm wrong. Impossible to decide who's right. There's no SCOTUS ruling in this matter. —85.178.91.12 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: They were NOT usurpers, as they were invited to succeed to the Crowns of England, Scotland, and Ireland by the Convention Parliament of 1689. This act was regarded as being legal under British Isles laws, except by the Jacobites and their sympathisers - (203.211.76.9 (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they were usurpers because James VII and II never abdicated and even if he had his son Prince James was the heir.  William and Mary were aided in their usurpation by Parliament, but they were technically usurpers as under the applicable succession laws James VII and II was still the rightful king until his death and his son was his heir, but they continued to rule as the de facto monarchy.  Emperor001 (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [[King William III of England]] and [[Queen Mary II of England]]

message: Shouldn't Richard III be on the list too?  Edward V was the rightful king but was then deposed based on the story that he was really illegitimate.  Upon his and his brother's death Elizabeth of York would have been the rightful queen but she stepped aside for Henry Tudor (who is on the list) her husband to take the crown and Henry VIII, their son, ultimately was both the son of a usurper and the son of the rightful claimant.  Now of course if Richard III's claim was valid then he was the rightful king and Elizabeth of York a bastard too.  Should potential/probable usurpers be listed here?  Emperor001 (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard III

message: As I recall Edward IV successfully deposed Henry VI on 4 March 1461, and was later himself deposed by Henry VI on 3 October 1470. Then in 1471 he again usurped Henry VI's throne, but this time for good. Why does he not appear on this list?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:80:73E:D06F:F579:E4D:A1B5 (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Edward IV should not be on the list.  He was not a usurper because he was the rightful heir who merely took the throne that should have passed to him but initially did not because of Henry IV's usurpation.  Emperor001 (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward IV and Henry VI