Legal Succession: Henry VII Part One.

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Constance of Castile, Duke of Lancaster, Henry III of Castile, Henry IV, Henry VII of England, King Richard III of England, Kings and Queens of England, Letters Patent 1397, Pope Eugene IV, War of the Roses

This is the Legal succession issue which inspired me to do this series. It is complex so I will divide it into a couple of blog entries.

Many know that Richard III was killed at Bosworth Field on August 22 1485 in the last battle of the War of the Roses and that the victor on the field of battle, Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, a scion of the House of Lancaster, mounted the English throne to become King Henry VII. The question I ask is, did Henry VII have any legal claims to the throne? Was he a usurper or did he obtain the crown by conquest? My assertion is that his blood claim to the throne was weak, there were many ahead of him in the order of succession, therefore that he obtained the throne by right of conquest.

First of all I would like to examine his blood claim to the throne of England. His claim to the throne begins with his descent from King Edward III via his son, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. As we have already seen The House of Lancaster came to power when Henry IV usurped the throne from Richard II in 1399. Henry IV was the son of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and his first wife, Blanch of Lancaster. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, married a second time, Constance of Castile, daughter of King Pedro the Cruel of Castile. John of Gaunt and Constance of Castile had one daughter, Catherine, who married her cousin, King Enrique III of Castile. From this union descends the Kings and Queens of Spain.

The descent from John of Gaunt which gave Henry Tudor a weak claim to the throne was through John of Gaunt’s third union with Katherine Swynford née (de) Roet. Initially Katherine was the governess to Gaunt’s daughters, Philippa and Elizabeth. After the death of Gaunt’s first wife, Blanch, John and Katherine entered into a romantic relationship which produced 4 children, all illegitimate being born out-of-wedlock. However, two years after the death of Constance of Castile, John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford legally married at Lincoln cathedral 1393.

Subsequent Letters Patent in 1397 by Richard II and a Papal Bull issued by the Pope Eugene IV legitimized the adult children of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford with full rights to the throne. However, an Act of Parliament in the reign of Henry IV confirmed their legitimacy but barred the children from having rights to the throne. Later historians would argue whether or not the barring of the children of this union from the English throne was legal or not. This Act of Parliament did weaken the claims of Henry Tudor.

I will stop here and continue this series next week.

Advertisements

The Princes in the Tower

Tags

Charles II of England, Duke of Buckingham, Henry Stafford, Henry Tudor, Lady Margaret Beaufort, Richard Duke of York, Richard III, The Princes in the Tower

This is one of the great mysteries of history. Many people know the story, even those who may not follow royalty or even history in general. It is a classic tale of tragedy. Two young boys, one the age of 12, and a King, the other 10, his brother a royal duke,  are sent to the Tower of London by their uncle who usurps the throne. Then the Princes were never heard from again. What happened to them? Were they killed? Did they get taken away to live their lives in obscurity? Nobody knows.

After Richard III took the throne in June of 1483 the two princes were seen less and less within the Tower, and by the end of the summer of they had disappeared from public view altogether. The consensus among historians is that the princes were murdered.

Here are the five major suspects:

1. King Richard III

2. Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham; friend and Ally of Richard III

3. James Tyrrell, servant of King Richard III

4. Lady Margaret Beaufort;

5. Henry Tudor,son of Lady Margaret and later King Henry VII.

When I look at the list I question some of them. Let’s take Richard III himself. Legend has it that the two princes were smothered to death with their pillows. This was first mentioned in the writings by Sir Thomas Moore. Moore has Tyrell doing the killings. I have a hard time thinking that Richard III did the dirty deed himself and it seems that other historians who are evaluating him agree on that point.

I often thought that Henry Tudor would also be a logical choice. After taking the throne from Richard III he did do away with some of the Plantagenet heirs that had a better claim to the throne than he. Most notable was Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick who was the a potential claimant to the English throne during the reigns of both Richard III and Henry VII.* From the time Henry VII took the throne the Earl of Warwick was also imprisoned within the Tower of London where he remained a constant threat to Henry’s claim on the throne.

In 1499 a man named Perkin Warbeck pretended to be Prince Richard, Duke of York one of the young Princes in the Tower. He conspired with the Earl of Warwick to escape from the Tower. Many historians claim that the real motive for the execution was the upcoming marriage of Henry VII’s eldest son, Arthur, Prince of Wales, who was about to marry Infanta Catherine of Aragon. It seems that her parents, King Fernando II-V and Isabel I of Spain did not want the marriage to go through while there remained a threat to Henry’s throne.

I write of this to show that there is historical precedence of Henry VII killing those who had a better blood claim to the throne that he. The problem with this theory is that it is well-known that the two princes disappeared by the end of the summer and this was a couple of years prior to Henry Tudor becoming King of England. So unless they princes were housed someplace else after being held in the Tower I do not see how Henry Tudor can be guilty of their death.

In 1674 during the reign of King Charles II of England and Scotland bones were discovered in by workmen rebuilding a stairway in the Tower. They were presumed to the the bones of the young princes and they were ceremoniously interred in Westminster Abbey, in an urn bearing the names of Edward and Richard. It has never been proven that those bones belonged to the young princes. Since DNA testing has been done to the bones of Richard III, I think now is the right time to perform DNA testing on the bones discovered in 1674.

If the bone are that of the two young princes, then the mystery of their whereabouts will be answered. If, however, they prove to not be the bones of the young princes the mystery will remain. How they were killed and who killed them will always be a mystery.

Legal Succession: Richard III

Tags

England, Henry II of England, King Richard III of England, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Leicester, Plantagenet, Queen Elizabeth I of England, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Richard III Society, The College of Arms, Tudor, Westminster Abbey, Westminster Cathedral, Windsor Castle

Now we come to the succession of one of England’s most controversial kings. I already posted a blog entry about his character so this post will be how Richard obtained the throne of England.

In his late 30s Edward IV began suffering health problems and when he was 40 died on Easter Sunday 1483. It is not historically known what killed the king but historians suspect Pneumonia and typhoid. He linged before dying and created his youngest brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester as Lord Protector to his son, Edward, then 12 years old. On Edward IV’s death his son became King Edward V.

Next in succession after the new king was his Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York. It does not seem certain that women had sucession rights at this time. If they had succession rights then the new king’s surviving sisters, Elizabeth, Ceciley, Anne, Catherine and Bridget were next in line. This takes care of the descendants of Edward IV. Edward V one surviving paternal uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Before Richard in succession stood the two surviving children of his older brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The two surviving children of the Duke of Clarence were Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick and Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury. There is some question that they had no claim to the throne due to their father being executed for treason.

Therefore, if women had rights to the throne Richard, Duke of Glouster was 10th in line for the English throne upon the death of his brother, Edward IV. If women did not have rights to the throne then Richard was 4th in line to the throne at the death of his brother.

The new King Edward V was at Ludlow in Shropshire when his father died. He and his entourage heaed south to London where they met up with Richard, Duke of Glouster at Stony Stratford.  Richard dined with Edward V’s party which consisted of Earl Rivers and Edward’s half-brother, Richard Gerey. The next morning, before heading out to London Richard had Rivers and Grey, along with the king’s chamberlain, Thomas Vaughan, arrested and sent back north. They were all subsequentlycharged with treason and executed. Edward V protested, but to no avail the remainder of his entourage was dismissed and Richard escorted him to London.

Edward V was placed in the Tower of London awating his coronation which was set for June 22 of that year. Shortly after his arrival the kings arrival in the Tower of London, his brother, Richard, Duke of York, was also placed in the Tower. This was not unusual for the tradition at the time was that an uncrowned king would stay in the Tower as much as possible until his coronation. Shortly after the young Duke of York’s arrival the coronation was postponed.

On June 25, 1483 a council, headed by Lord Protector, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, issued an order proclaiming Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York to be illegitimate on the grounds that Edward IV had supposedly entered into an agreement (a pre-contract) to marry another woman prior to his marriage with Elizabeth Woodville while this first woman was still alive.

The next day on the basis of this ‘illegitimacy’  Edward V was removed from the throne and his uncle  proclaimed king in his place while his younger brother was deprived of his ducal titles which reverted back to the crown. The placing of the Duke of Glouster on the throne as Richard III was later confirmed by an Act of Parliament (Titulus Regius). Richard III named  Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick as his hier despite an earler attainer which took away his rights, as stated earlier, due to his father’s execution for treason.

Richard III was clearly a usurper. Edward IV was in a valid marriage and therefore Edward V was legitimate and the legal and lawful king. After Richard III became king, Edward V and his young brother, Richard Duke of York, were seen infrequently until the end of the summer when they were never heard from again.

Richard III died in battle in 1485 when Henry Tudor trook the throne. The legality of Hnery Tudor taking the throne of England was the primary reason I started this series. In next week’s post I will examione the claims of Henry Tudor. On Thursday I will examine what happened to the two young princes in the Tower.  

The Legacy of Richard III

Tags

England, Henry II of England, King Richard III of England, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Leicester, Plantagenet, Queen Elizabeth I of England, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Richard III Society, The College of Arms, Tudor, Westminster Abbey, Westminster Cathedral, Windsor Castle

For a king that only ruled England for 2 years Richard III is a very interesting character. He has been in the news a lot recently due to unearthing his skeleton in a parking lot in Leicester, but there has always been a fascination with him among royal enthusiasts and historians. My next entry in the Legal Succession series will examine his mounting the throne of England in 1483. Today I want to take a look at the issues that surround the life of this controversial king.

Richard III was the last Plantagenet king when he died on the battlefield. The dynasty began with King Henry II in 1154 and was England’s longest-serving dynasty. He was replaced by the Tudor dynasty, and as we shall see the Tudor family only had a slim claim to the throne. because the Tudor’s had such a tenuous claim to the English throne they spread a great deal of negative propaganda toward the king they defeated when they took the throne.

Much of what many people know about Richard III comes not from the pens of historians but from the pen of a playwriter, William Shakespeare, who, writing under the watchful eye of Elizabeth I, England’s last Tudor monarch, depicted Richard in a very unfavorable light. We also have the Richard III Society, a group that has existed now for over 90 years that has aimed at a re-assessment of King Richard’s character.

Having studied Richard III myself I must admit he remains a bit of an enigma due to some unresolved issues. Was he a usurper? Did he illegally take the throne from his nephew, King Edward V? Did he have Edward V and his brother, Richard, Duke of York, murdered in the Tower of London? Or were these young princes murdered on the orders of Henry VII who wanted to rid England of any Plantagenet that may be a threat to his throne? Did Richard III, as Duke of Gloucester, murder King Henry VI?

Those are the question that have not been answered. What has been lost to history are the accomplishments of the king. He seems to have been a very able administrator. The Council of the North, established by his brother, Edward IV in 1472, brought economic strength to the commoners of Northern England. Richard III is said to have been instrumental in establishing a court of requests where grievances could be heard by the poor who could not afford a lawyer. He also introduced the concept of bail to protect suspected felons from imprisonment before trial and to protect their property from seizure during the period they awaited trial.

By Royal Charter Richard III founded the The College of Arms or Herald’s College removed the restrictions on printing books and had laws translated from French into English for the common man to understand.

I think when re-evaluating any historical figure hopefully one strives for balance. I do not think Richard III was the monster of Tudor propaganda nor am I ready to canonize him as a saint. I think he was a monarch of his times capable of great achievements along with violence and cruelty when deemed necessary.

As the future burial of his remains are being planned I just want to comment on the attitude from Buckingham Palace on the entire ordeal. It has pretty much remained silent. There seems to be a storm brewing over the remains of the last Plantagenet king. The Towns of both York and Leicester are fighting over where he should be buried. Some members of Parliament desire that Richard III be buried at Westminster Abbey or Windsor Castle with other monarchs. However, since Richard was a Catholic king, many feel he should be interned in the grand Catholic Westminster Cathedral in central London. Despite the attempts to rehabilitate the kings image he is still viewed as a usurper and the one who had the two Princess in the Tower murdered. Although I know many would love to see Elizabeth II attend an elaborate ceremony of the re-burial of an English king, with all of the controversy surrounding the situation, I cannot blame her for keeping a distance.

Downton Abbey

Tags

1912, Downton Abbey, Julian Fellowes, King George V of Great Britain, Lord Grantham, Maggie Smith, Queen Mary, Roaring 20s, the Spanish influenza pandemic, World War I

Have you caught the Downton Abbey fever? I know I have! I am going to take a little divergence from the normal entries in this blog to discuss the show. Apologies at first, I am going to cut and past from Wikipedia the general…and boring information about the show.

Downton Abbey is a British period drama television series created by Julian Fellowes and co-produced by Carnival Films and Masterpiece. It first aired on ITV in the United Kingdom on 26 September 2010 and on PBS in the United States on 9 January 2011 as part of the Masterpiece Classic anthology.

The series, set in the fictional Yorkshire country estate of Downton Abbey, depicts the lives of the aristocratic Crawley family and their servants in the post-Edwardian era — with the great events in history having an effect on their lives and on the British social hierarchy. Such events depicted throughout the series include news of the sinking of the RMS Titanic in the first series; the outbreak of World War I, the Spanish influenza pandemic, and the Marconi scandal in the second series; and the Interwar period and the formation of the Irish Free State in the third series.

I love period pieces. My favorites are the ones depicting the 19th and early 20th century. This show depicts the early 20th century and I believe it accurately captures the look and the feel of these times along with the social and political challenges of the time. One of the things that struck me recently when watching the show was how it is relevant to our modern times.

Although the issues we deal with are some what different the human reaction is still the same. It seems that nobody likes change, even when that change is necessary, and it society as a whole often has to be dragged kicking and screaming through the changes. Downton Abbey displays this real well. Lord Grantham, and in particular his mother, Violet, the Dowager Countess of Grantham, (played by the brilliant and scene stealing Academy Award winning actress Maggie Smith) are both stuck in the 19th century and its values. Lord Grantham’s American born wife, Cora, and his daughters are caught up in the changes of society and in fact are welcoming the change.

The show also intertwines the story lines with the service help that is taking care of the family. These people also feel the effects of the changes within society and similarly to those upstairs, the elder members of the service team are more resistive to the changes than the younger members of service.

Years ago I read a wonderful book, 1919 The Year Our World Began by William K. Klingaman. The book details how the events of World War I truly did sweep away the old aristocracy and the ways of living in the world that was centuries old. The sinking of the Titanic (that even is talked about in the pilot episode), World War I and other events begin the slow breaking down of the walls of class society that had existed for centuries.

These struggles are depicted in the show while being acted out by a troop of wonderful actors. This truly is a gem to watch and although it takes the form of a soap-opera to some extent, it is by no stretch of the imagination cheesy or melodramatic. Just the opposite. The stories are done with class and dignity and are very well written with great dialogue.

Before I close my final thoughts have to do with Royalty. The show is now up to the early years of the 1920s (it began in 1912) and at this time King George V and Queen Mary had been on the throne more than 10 years and lived through all of these changes themselves. I would love to see the king and queen or the flamboyant prince of Wales (future Edward VIII) visiting Downton Abbey.

The show airs on PBS’ Masterpiece Theater Sunday nights at 9:00pm but check your local stations!  They are currently on season 3 but your local libraries or netflix will have the previous two seasons.

Pope Benedict XVI to abdicate on February 28.

Tags

conclave of Cardinals, Great Western Schism, Gregory XII, Her Majesty, John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI to abdicate on February 28., the Queen of the Netherlands

It was announced this morning that Pope Benedict XVI will abdicate on February 28. The 85-year-old Pope sites that he no longer has the strength to perform his duties.

I posted this news here today because many do consider the papacy an elective monarchy while some consider it a theocracy. I have always considered the Papacy an elective monarchy and its history with the Emperors and Kings of Europe is intertwined.

Coming on the heels of the news of the coming abdication of Her Majesty, the Queen of the Netherlands this does raise the debate once again should a monarch abdicate when they reach an advanced age when they feel they can no longer carry out their duties?

The predecessor to Benedict XVI was Pope John Paul II who continued to reign even when he could not walk or speak well. This is no criticism on Benedict XVI’s decision to abdicate, I just think that with people living longer in the past it is really necessary for them to suffer through with their duties while in ill-health?

The last pope to step aside was Gregory XII in 1415, who did so in order to end the Great Western Schism. I wonder if this will set a precedent for future popes? John Paul II was the first Pope to not have a Papal Coronation and Benedict XVI followed suit. This demonstrates the Vatican is capable of change!

Benedict XVI became Pope in 2005 and his papcy has been rocked by scandal. Also, he is a very Conservative Pope and from my readings there are many Catholics who desire a Pope that is more progressive to make what they seem as necessary changes to the Church.

After the 28th of February the conclave of Cardinals will convene in the Vatican to elect the next Pope.

Legal Succession: Henry VI & Edward IV: Part Four.

Tags

Anne Neville, Battle of Tewkesbury, Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, Duke of York, Edward prince of Wales, George Neville, George of Clarence, King Edward IV of England, King Henry VI of England, Kings and Queens of England, Montagu Neville, Richard Neville, The Earl of Warwick, the prince of Wales, Tower of London

With Edward IV now the legal King of England and Henry VI arrested and sitting in the Tower of London one may think that the Wars of the Roses was over, but such was not the case. In history Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, friend and ally of King Edward IV, was known as the kingmaker. He was truly the most powerful man in England.

In the last post on this subject I mentioned that Warwick wanted Edward to marry a foreign princess in an effort to secure a powerfully ally to support Edward’s claim to the throne. The king did not abide by Warkwick’s wishes and instead married Elizabeth Woodville. This created great tensions between the two powerful men. The king also refused a match between his brother, George, Duke of Clarence, and Isabel Neville, The Earl of Warwick’s daughter. Warwick’s brother, George Neville, archbishop of York, was dismissed as Chancellor of England and this was the final blow that pushed the Earl of Warwick to the Lancastrian side. When a plot to confront the king with Warwick’s troops was uncovered by Edward IV, Warwick fled to France.

While in France King Louis XI reconciled Queen Margaret, who had been living in France since her husband was deposed, with Warwick and the two began plotting to restore Henry VI to the throne. George, Duke of Clarence, brother of Edward IV, also supported Warwick in replacing his brother with Henry VI. An agreement was reached that Margaret’s son, Edward, The Prince of Wales, would now marry Anne Neville, the Earl of Warwick’s daughter.

A diversion was created in the north of England which drew the king North while the forces of Warwick and Clarence arrived in the south of England. Lead by Montagu Neville, the Earl of Warwick’s other brother, who brought his forces down from the north and with the forces of Warwick and Clarence coming from the south, Edward IV was surrounded. On October 2, 1470 King Edward IV fled to the Netherlands and Henry VI was restored to the throne. Parliament legalized this restoration by placing an Attainder on Edward IV’s lands and titles and created George, Duke of Clarence, Duke of York.

With years spent in captivity Henry VI was in no shape to rule so Warwick and the new Duke of York were the true powers behind the throne. However, in a rapid turn of events international politics came into play which placed the exiled Edward IV in a position to regain his throne. Another part of the tension between Warwick and Edward IV surrounded the conflicts between France and Burgundy. Warwick wanted to place his support with France while Edward IV supported Burgundy. When war between Burgundy and France began early in 1471 Duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy placed troops at Edward IV’s disposal to help him regain the throne.

The forces of Edward IV and the Earl of Warwick met at the Battle of Barnet on April 14, 1471. The Duke of Clarence & York defected back to his brother’s side. The forces of Edward IV were triumphant and as the Earl of Warwick was escaping the battlefield he was dismounted from his horse and killed. His brother Montagu was also killed in the battle. It took one more battle, the Battle of Tewkesbury, on May 4, 1471 to restore Edward IV to the throne. At the Battle of Tewkesbury the Lancastrian forces were led by Queen Margaret and Edward, Prince of Wales. The Lancastrian forces were defeated and the Prince of Wales was killed in the battle (the only Prince of Wales to have died in battle).

Edward IV was restored to the throne. Henry VI was returned to the Tower of London and on the morning prior to the re-crowning of Edward IV, Henry VI was found dead. There has been a great deal of speculation of how Henry died. It was said he died as a result of the news of the death of his son, Edward, Prince of Wales at the Battle of Tewkesbury. It has also been believed that Edward IV ordered the death of Henry VI and that his brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later King Richard III) actually committed the murder himself.

So what does this say about the legality of the throne? The times of the Wars of the Roses were a time of civil unrest and a wrestling for power. Technically, the restoration of Henry VI was by right of conquest, although this conquest was not conducted by him, it was merely conducted in his name. At this point Henry VI was just a puppet whose strings were pulled by others.

With Edward IV restored to the throne the legal line by male prefered primogeniture was also restored. The House of Lancaster was decimated and defeated although factions from other genealogical lines would one day rise up once more. But from his restoration until his death Edward IV was soundly on the throne.

61st anniversary of the accession to the throne

Tags

King George III, King George VI, Louis XIV of France, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Victoria, Sobhuza II of Swaziland, the Queen Mother

Ooops! I jumped the gun by posting this yesterday. I was supposed to post this today!!

Today marks the 61st anniversary of the accession to the throne for Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Her father, King George VI, died at the age of 56 in 1952 on this date.  For those of us interested in Royalty this is a day we may honor and celebrate. For the Queen it is the day her father died so I can understand her not wanting to celebrate this day.

On an another interesting note, she is closing in on being Britain’s longest-serving monarch. She surpassed King George III who reigned 59 years. His granddaughter, Queen Victoria, the present queen’s great-great grandmother, still holds the record at 63 years, 216 days.

Here are some interesting facts (courtesy of Wikipedia)

• 11 September 2015, she would surpass Queen Victoria as the longest-reigning monarch in British and Commonwealth history (as well as the longest-reigning female monarch in world history). At that point she would be 89 years,143 days old.
• 6 February 2022, she would celebrate her Platinum Jubilee, marking 70 years on the throne. At that point she would be 95 years, 291 days old.
• 27 May 2024, she would surpass 72 years held by Louis XIV of France as the longest reigning monarch in European history. At that point she would be 98 years, 36 days old.
• 19 October 2034, she would surpass Sobhuza II of Swaziland as the longest verifiably reigning monarch in history. At that point she would be 108 years, 181 days old and would have reigned for 82 years.

I do not think her majesty will live to be 108 (but you never know). However, it does seem plausible that she could break Louis XIV’s record. At age 86 she is still in good health. Although everyone points to the fact that her mother, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, lived to be 101 (5 months shy of reaching 102) that is no guarantee that her daughter will live as long. But we can hope!

Legal Succession: Henry VI & Edward IV: Part Three.

Tags

16th Earl of Warwick, Duke of York, Elizabeth Woodville, Jacquetta of Luxembourg, King Henry VI, Legal Succession: Henry VI & Edward IV: Part Three., Richard Neville

The 1460 Act of Accord tried to bring peace between the factions of the Houses of York and Lancaster. There was no peace. In fact things were rapidly coming to a boil. While the 1460 Act of Accord was being worked out the Lancastrians were arming for another battle. Queen Margaret, wife of King Henry VI, tried to gather the support of King James III of Scotland while Edmund, Earl of Rutland, second son of Richard, Duke of York, gathered forces at Sandal Castle, a stronghold of the Yorkists.

A larger Lancastrian army met the army of the House of York at the Battle of Wakefield on December 30, 1460. The army of the House of York was decimated in the battle. Richard Plantagenet, heir to the throne was, killed during the battle. One source estimates that 2,500 Yorkists were killed while only 200 Lancastrians were killed in the battle. Although the House of York was soundly defeated this did not end the War od the Roses nor did it remove the threat to the throne for King Henry VI. Richard, Duke of York left his Dukedom and his claim to the throne to his eldest son, Edward.

The new rival claimant, Edward, Duke of York was 6′ 4″ tall and cut an imposing figure.* He also still had a powerful ally in his cousin, Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick. As noted previously that Warwick’s ambition was not to place Richard, Duke of York on the throne, but to retain Henry VI on the throne. In reality The Earl of Warwick wanted to be the power behind the throne. Unable to defeat the powerful Queen Margaret’s influence over the king the Earl now had a change of heart. Thinking he could rule behind the new Duke of York he began to plot in placing him on the throne.

Although Edward inherited the superior blood claim to the throne from his father, the Earl of Warwick wanted Edward to marry a foreign princess in order to gather support for his grab at the throne in the name of military assistance if it were to be needed. Edward was not going to be the puppet Warwick wanted. Edward married Elizabeth Woodville a widow whose first husband, Sir John Grey of Groby, supported the Lancastrian side. # Elizabeth was the daughter of Richard Woodville, 1st Earl Rivers and Jacquetta of Luxembourg. Another Lancastrian connection for Elizabeth Woodville was through her mother,  Jacquetta of Luxembourg, whose first husband was John of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford, third son of King Henry IV of England and his first wife Mary de Bohun. By disobeying his wishes and marrying someone so close to the Lancastrian side it is surprising that the Earl of Warwick continued to support Edward.

The Earl of Warwick found his moment to strike when King Henry VI and Queen Margaret were in Northern England. With the remaining troops of the House of York Warwick took London and had Edward declared King of England as Edward IV. Later than year at the Battle of Townton solidly defeated the Lancastrian army solidifying Edward’s hold on the throne. From 1461 to 1465 King Hnery VI was kept hidden by his loyal factions in the boarder towns of Northern England until he was captured by King Edward IV and was imprisoned in the Tower of London.

Was Edawrd IV a usurper? I throw my hands up in the air at this point! It truly is a legal mess. Although the Lancastrian line did usurp the throne to begin with in 1399 and Edward did have a superior blood claim to the throne based on male preffered primogeniture, Henry VI was the legal king. I tend to view Edward not as a usurper technically because he did have the superior claim to the throne. His father was made the legal hier to the throne of Henry VI and it is a claim he inherited upon his father’s death. In my view Edward restored the rightful genealogical line to the throne by right of conquest.

Ah, but our story is far from over and Henry VI will be heard from again!

* King Edward IV at 6′ 4″  (1.93 m), makes him the tallest among all English, Scottish and British monarchs to date.

# Sir John Grey of Groby was also a great-great-grandfather of Lady Jane Gery a claimant to the English throne.

Bones identified as belonging to Richard III

Tags

Bones identified as belonging to Richard III, Buckingham Palace, Duke of Gloucester, Elizabeth II, England, Henry VII of England, King Richard III of England, Kings and Queens of England, Leicester Cathedral, Plantaganet, Prince Richard, Tudor

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882

The bones found in Leicester are “Beyond reasonable doubt” belonged to King Richard III of England. Richard was killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 durring the final conflict of the War of the Roses when the  last Plantaganet king was deposed by the Tudor dynasty.

DNA tests have confirmed the bones do belong to him. He will be reburried next year at Leicester Cathedral. Speculating who will represent the Birtish Royal Family it seem likely that the current Duke of Gloucester, Prince Richard, will represent the Queen at the ceremony. Prior to becomeing King, Richard III was also Duke of Gloucester.  The current Duke of Gloucester is also patron of The Richard III Society, an organization which has sought to correct the misunderstandings and reputation of the once controversial king.