Kids Rule! Major Problems with Minority Rule (ep 61)

The whole idea of the royal succession was for the throne to pass
from the King to his adult, prepared, son. That’s the pattern
that makes the “The King is dead, long live the King” thing work.
But in English and Scottish and British history, that didn’t
always happen. Sometimes there wasn’t an adult son ready to take
the throne. Sometimes (gasp!) the throne went to a woman! And
sometimes (double gasp!), it went to a child. Throughout Medieval
times, when the King needed to rule and a strong King meant a
strong country, a child on the throne was a bit of a problem. It
was right there in the Bible: “Woe to thee, O land, when thy king
is a child.”

It was not automatically a full disaster. But it was certainly
less than ideal. 

It had taken Henry VIII nearly 30 years of his reign to have a
son, so by the time Edward was born, the King was in his final
decade. Henry’s health was failing by the end of 1546. So he did
everything he could to help smooth the way for his son to take
and keep the throne. Although young, Edward was a determined and
dedicated reformer and his reign saw significant reforms and the
beginning of the use of the term “Protestant.” Edward’s second
Book of Common prayer provided a model for worship that would be
used for 400 years. He was beginning to write in his journal
about his frustration with those who didn’t follow his religious
laws—it’s likely that if he had lived longer, his persecution of
Catholics would have increased. But Edward was one of the few
child Kings who did not grow to adulthood and rule on his
own.

One of the interesting things about the reign of Richard II was
that he had one of his best royal moments while still in his
minority. Although just 14 years old, Richard responded
decisively. He met the rebels at Mile End and agreed to some of
their demands. The rebels grew restive and the King’s men
responded, pulling Tyler off his horse and killing him. Despite
the rebels’ outcries, Richard shouted that he was their true
captain and led them away from the scene. It was not the end of
outbreaks of rebellion, but Richard had shown his potential as a
leader and exercised authority in the defeat, capture, and
execution of the rebels. Ironically, Richard’s success with the
Peasant’s Revolt turned out to contribute to his downfall. It
seemed to fuel Richard’s belief in his absolute power as King—and
he started to exercise it.

If it’s bad to have a king who’s a child, imagine the potential
disaster if the King is an infant. Especially in the midst of a
huge war with France. There’s a moment at the end of
Shakespeare’s Henry V, after the “band of brothers” speech and
the glories of Agincourt and the humor of King Henry and Princess
Katherine where the Chorus comes back on stage and rips the
thrill of victory right out from under us. Henry V’s victories
were followed shortly by his early death.
Henry the Sixth, in infant bands crown’d King
Of France and England, did this King succeed;
Whose state so many had the managing,
That they lost France and made his England bleed.

Of course, England wasn’t the only country with child Kings. The
Stuarts saw a series of Kings named James take the throne as
children. In 1406, James I was 12 and in captivity when he became
King. James II became King at age 6 after his father was
assassinated. The exact birth of James III is disputed, but he
certainly was no older than 10 when he became King. James IV
became King of Scotland at age 15 after his father died in
battle. James V was only 17 months old when he became King after
his father’s death in battle. And James VI was only 13 months old
when he became King. So from 1406 to 1567, the incoming King was
a young boy. There was, of course, one exception. Still a child,
but not a boy. The exception is, of course, Mary Queen of
Scots. 

So having a child on the throne may have been as bad as prop


History shows us what's possible.