September 30, 1399: Henry Bolingbroke is declared King of England and Lord of Ireland as Henry IV.

Tags

Duke of Lancaster, Earl of Richmond, Henry Bolingbroke, Henry IV, Henry Tudor, Joan of Kent, John of Gaunt, Katherine Swynford, King Richard II of England, Lords Appellant, Usurper

Henry IV (April 1367 – 20 March 1413) was King of England from 1399 to 1413. He asserted the claim of his grandfather King Edward III, a maternal grandson of Philippe IV of France, to the Kingdom of France. Henry was the first English ruler since the Norman Conquest, over three hundred years prior, whose mother tongue was English rather than French. He was known as Henry Bolingbroke before ascending to the throne.

Family Connections

Henry was the son of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and his first wife Blanche. Gaunt was the third son of King Edward III. Blanche was the daughter of the wealthy royal politician and nobleman Henry of Grosmont, Duke of Lancaster.

Henry of Grosmont was the only son of Henry, 3rd Earl of Lancaster (c. 1281–1345); who in turn was the younger brother and heir of Thomas, 2nd Earl of Lancaster (c. 1278–1322). They were sons of Edmund Crouchback, 1st Earl of Lancaster (1245–1296); the second son of King Henry III (ruled 1216–1272) and younger brother of King Edward I of England (ruled 1272–1307). Henry of Grosmont was thus a first cousin once removed of King Edward II and a second cousin of King Edward III (ruled 1327–1377). His mother was Maud de Chaworth (1282–1322). On his paternal grandmother’s side, Henry of Grosmont was also the great-great-grandson of Louis VIII of France.

Henry Bolingbroke’s elder sisters were Philippa, Queen of Portugal, as the wife of King João I of Portugal, and Elizabeth of Lancaster, Duchess of Exeter.

Elizabeth of Lancaster was the third wife of John Holland, 1st Duke of Exeter, the third son of Thomas Holland by his wife Joan of Kent, “The Fair Maid of Kent”. Joan was the daughter of Edmund of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Kent, a son of King Edward I (1272–1307), and Thomas would be made Earl of Kent, in what is considered a new creation, as husband of Joan, in whom the former Earldom was vested as eventual heiress of Edmund of Woodstock. Joan later married Edward, the Black Prince, the eldest son and heir apparent of her first cousin King Edward III, by whom she had a son, King Richard II, who was thus a half-brother of John Holland.

Henry Bolingbroke’s younger half-sister, the daughter of his father’s second wife, Constance of Castile, was Katherine, Queen of Castile, the wife of King Enrique IV of Castile. The later King’s of Spain descend from this union and therefore, technically speaking, they had a better hereditary claim to the English throne than the Tudor monarchs.

Henry Bolingbroke also had four natural half-siblings born of Katherine Swynford, originally his sisters’ governess, then his father’s longstanding mistress and later third wife. These illegitimate children were given the surname Beaufort from their birthplace at the Château de Beaufort in Champagne, France.

Henry’s relationship with his stepmother, Katherine Swynford, was a positive one, but his relationship with the Beauforts varied. In youth he seems to have been close to all of them, but rivalries with Henry and Thomas Beaufort proved problematic after 1406. Although the Beauforts were later legitimized they were legitimized without succession rights. Despite that sticky technicality it was from this line descended Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who became King Henry VII of England in 1485.

Ralph Neville, 4th Baron Neville, married Henry’s half-sister Joan Beaufort. Neville remained one of his strongest supporters, and so did his eldest half-brother John Beaufort, even though Henry revoked Richard II’s grant to John of a marquessate. Thomas Swynford, a son from Katherine’s first marriage, was another loyal companion. Thomas was Constable of Pontefract Castle, where Richard II is said to have died. Henry’s half-sister Joan was the mother of Cecily Neville. Cecily married Richard, 3rd Duke of York, and had several offspring, including Edward IV and Richard III, making Joan the grandmother of two Yorkist kings of England.

Accession to the Throne

Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt enjoyed a position of considerable influence during much of the reign of his own nephew, King Richard II. Henry Bolingbroke was involved in the revolt of the Lords Appellant against Richard in 1388.

In 1398, a remark by Thomas de Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk, regarding Richard II’s rule was interpreted as treason by Henry Bolingbroke and he reported it to the king. The two dukes agreed to undergo a duel of honour (called by Richard II) at Gosford Green near Caludon Castle, Mowbray’s home in Coventry. Yet before the duel could take place, King Richard II decided to banish Henry from the kingdom (with the approval of Henry’s father, John of Gaunt) to avoid further bloodshed. Mowbray himself was exiled for life.

John of Gaunt died in February 1399 and without explanation, Richard II cancelled the legal documents that would have allowed Henry to inherit John of Gaunt’s land and titles utomatically. Instead, Henry would be required to ask for the lands and titles directly from Richard. After some hesitation, Henry met the exiled Thomas Arundel, former archbishop of Canterbury, who had lost his position because of his involvement with the Lords Appellant.

Henry and Arundel returned to England while Richard was on a military campaign in Ireland. With Arundel as his advisor, Henry began a military campaign, confiscating land from those who opposed him and ordering his soldiers to destroy much of Cheshire. Henry initially announced that his intention was to reclaim his rights as Duke of Lancaster, though he quickly gained enough power and support to have himself declared King Henry IV of England, Lord of Ireland on September 30, 1399. Henry had King Richard II imprisoned (who died in prison under mysterious circumstances) and bypassed Richard’s 7-year-old heir-presumptive, Edmund de Mortimer, 5th Earl of March.

Henry’s coronation, on 13 October 1399 at Westminster Abbey, may have marked the first time since the Norman Conquest when the monarch made an address in English.

Henry procured an Act of Parliament to ordain that the Duchy of Lancaster would remain in the personal possession of the reigning monarch. The barony of Halton was vested in that dukedom. This is why the present monarch, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is also the Duke of Lancaster.

On this date in History. October 13, 1399: Coronation of King Henry IV of England and Lord of Ireland.

Tags

Archbishop of Canterbury, coronation, Duke of Lancaster, Henry IV, Henry IV of England, John of Gaunt, Kings and Queens of England, Lords of Ireland, Richard II of England, Usurper

October 13, 1399 coronation of Henry IV and Lord of Ireland

Henry was the son of John of Gaunt (the fourth son of Edward III) and Blanche of Lancaster. John enjoyed a position of considerable influence during much of the reign of his nephew, King Richard II, whom Henry eventually deposed.

Henry IV founded the Lancaster branch of the House of Plantagenet. He was the first King of England since the Norman Conquest whose mother tongue was English rather than French. This also marked the first time since the Norman Conquest when the monarch made an address in English.

Coronation of Henry IV

Another interesting bit of information is that the coronation of Henry IV was conducted by Roger Walden, Archbishop of Canterbury. On November 8, 1397 Walden was chosen Archbishop of Canterbury in succession to Thomas Arundel who had been banished from the realm by King Richard II.

On October 13, 1399 he presided over the coronation of Henry IV. However, on October 19, six days later, Walden lost this position when the new king Henry IV restored Arundel to his previous position as Archbishop of Canterbury, and after a short imprisonment he passed into retirement, being, as he himself says, “in the dust and under feet of men.”

Abdication and what to call a former Monarch: Part II.

Tags

Anne of Bohemia, Duke of Aquitaine, Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, Kingdom of Bohemia, Kingdom of England, Parliament, Richard II of England, The Black Prince

In my last blog entry I said that I would discuss the oddity of the downgrading of Edward VIII and his titles for this next blog entry. I have slightly changed plans. I will speak of Edward VIII’s downgrading in my last post of this series. Prior to that I want to discuss other abdications to show just how unique was the abdication and reduction of the Titles of King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom.

I’d like to begin with King Richard II of England, for example, who was forced to abdicate after power was seized by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, while Richard was abroad. Today is also the anniversary of the birth of Richard II, January 6, 1367.

There were two crises that brought Richard down. Today we focus on the first crisis.

Richard II, King of England and Duke of Aquitaine.

Richard II (January 6, 1367 – c. February 14, 1400), also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard, a son of Edward the Black Prince, was born in Bordeaux during the reign of his grandfather, Edward III. Richard was not the heir of father as he had an older brother, Edward of Angoulême. Edward died at the age of five in 1370, leaving his three-year-old brother, Richard of Bordeaux, as the new second in line to the throne. After the Black Prince’s death in 1376, Richard became heir apparent to his grandfather Edward III and succeeded the following year. Richard’s advancement through the order of succession ahead of any Royal uncles confirms that the principle of primogeniture was firmly established at that time.

Since Richard II was a minor, his first years as king found governmental responsibilities were in the hands of a series of councils. The majority of the aristocracy preferred this system rather than a regency led by the king’s uncle, John of Gaunt. Despite John of Gaunt not being in power he remained highly influential. England then faced various problems, including an ongoing war against France (which was not going well for the English), border conflicts with Scotland, and economic difficulties related to the Black Death.

Richard II, King of England and Duke of Aquitaine.

A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants’ Revolt in 1381, It is only with the Peasants’ Revolt that Richard starts to emerge clearly in the historical annals. One of his first significant acts after the rebellion was to marry Anne of Bohemia, daughter of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV, King of Bohemia and his wife Elisabeth of Pomerania, on January 20, 1382. The marriage had diplomatic significance. With the division within Europe caused by the Western Schism, Bohemia and the Holy Roman Empire were seen as potential allies against France in the ongoing Hundred Years’ War. Despite these incentives the marriage was not popular in England. Furthermore, the marriage was childless. Anne died from plague in 1394, greatly mourned by her husband.

Michael de la Pole had been instrumental in the marriage negotiation for the king and this raised the king’s confidence in him which lead to de la Pole gradually becoming more involved at court and in government. This all occurred as Richard came of age. Another member of the close circle around the king was Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, who in this period emerged as the king’s favourite. Richard’s close friendship to de Vere was also disagreeable to the political establishment. This displeasure was exacerbated by the earl’s elevation to the new title of Duke of Ireland in 1386. The chronicler Thomas Walsingham suspected the relationship between the king and de Vere was of a homosexual nature, due to a resentment Walsingham had toward the king.

Tensions came to a head over the approach to the war in France. While the court party, (closest advisers to the king) preferred negotiations, John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Buckingham, (uncles of the king) urged a large-scale campaign to protect English possession. Richard’s course of action was to choose a so-called crusade led by Henry le Despenser, Bishop of Norwich, which failed miserably. In response to this setback, Richard turned his attention instead towards France’s ally, Scotland. In 1385, the king himself led a punitive expedition to the north, which also ended in complete failure. Because of these military failures, the relationship between Richard and his uncle John of Gaunt deteriorated further. In response to the tensions John of Gaunt left England to pursue his claim to the throne of Castile in 1386 amid rumours of a plot against his person. With John of Gaunt gone, the unofficial leadership of the growing dissent against the king and his courtiers passed to Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Buckingham – who had by now been created Duke of Gloucester.

John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster

In 1386 The threat of a French invasion did not subside, but instead grew stronger. At the Parliament which convened in October that year, Michael de la Pole – then Chancellor of England  – requested taxation of an unprecedented level for the defence of the Kingdom. Parliament responded by refusing to consider any request until de la Pole was removed from office. Unbeknownst to Richard, Parliament was working with the support of the Duke of Gloucester and Arundel. The king famously responded with defiance that he would not dismiss as much as a scullion from his kitchen at parliament’s request. It was when the king was threatened with deposition that he was forced to give in and let de la Pole go. Afterward a commission was set up to review and control royal finances for a year.

Richard was deeply perturbed by this affront to his royal prerogative, and from February to November 1387 went on a “gyration” (tour) of the country to muster support for his causes. By installing de Vere as Justice of Chester, he began the work of creating a loyal military power base in Cheshire. Richard also secured a legal ruling from Chief Justice Robert Tresilian that Parliament’s conduct had been unlawful and treasonable.

On his return to London, the king was confronted by the Duke of Gloucester, Arundel and Thomas de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, who brought an appeal of treason against de la Pole, de Vere, Tresilian, and two other loyalists: the mayor of London, Nicholas Brembre, and Alexander Neville, the Archbishop of York. Richard stalled the negotiations to gain time, as he was expecting de Vere to arrive from Cheshire with military reinforcements. The three earls then joined forces with Henry Bolingbroke, Earl of Derby (John of Gaunt’s son, later King Henry IV), and Thomas de Mowbray, Earl of Nottingham – this group known to history as the Lords Appellant. On December 20, 1387 they intercepted de Vere at Radcot Bridge, where he and his forces were routed and he was obliged to flee the country.

Henry Bolingbroke, Earl of Derby (John of Gaunt’s son, later King Henry IV)

Richard now had no choice but to comply with the appellants’ demands; Brembre and Tresilian were condemned and executed, while de Vere and de la Pole – who had by now also left the country, were sentenced to death in absentia at the Merciless Parliament in February 1388. The proceedings went further, and a number of Richard’s chamber knights were also executed, among these Burley. The appellants had now succeeded completely in breaking up the circle of favourites around the king and thus reducing his power.

Coat of Arm of King Richard II of England, Duke of Aquitaine.

James I, King of Scots: Part Two.

Tags

Catherine ofValois, Charles VI of France, Duke of Albany, Henry IV, Henry IV of England, Henry V of England, James I of Scotland, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, Murdoch of Albany, Robert Duke of Albany

King in captivity

James, now the uncrowned King of Scots, began what proved to be his 18-year period as a hostage while at the same time Robert, Duke of Albany transitioned from his position of lieutenant to that of Governor of Scotland, wielding immense power and was king in all but name. The Duke of Albany confiscated James’s lands and placed them under his own control. This deprived the young king of any income. The Duke of Albany also confiscated the regalia (the Honors of Scotland).

James was held in Windsor Castle and although technically a prisoner Henry IV treated the young James well, provided him with a good education. With James now a regular member of the Court of Henry IV he was ideally placed to observe Henry’s methods of kingship. Despite being a prisoner of the English king, and with his uncle ruling Scotland, James was kept abreast of the events and news within Scotland as he received personal visits from his nobles coupled with letters to individuals to maintain his visibility in his kingdom.

Henry IV died on March 30, 1413 and his son, Henry V, became King of England and Lord of Ireland and the policies and treatment of James changed immediately. The King of Scots became not just a prisoner in theory, he became a prisoner in reality as James’s comparative freedom was halted and Henry V moved him to the Tower of London along with the other Scottish prisoners.

Ironically, one of these prisoners being held at the same time was James’s cousin, Murdoch Stewart, the Duke of Albany’s son, who had been captured in 1402 at the Battle of Homildon Hill. Initially the cousins were held apart but from 1413 until Murdoch’s release in 1415 they were together in the Tower and at Windsor Castle.

James’s value to Henry became apparent in 1420 when he accompanied the English king to France where his presence was used against the Scots fighting on the Dauphinist side. Following the English success at the siege of Melun, a town southeast of Paris, the contingent of Scots were hanged for treason against their kings. These events changed James’s standing at Henry V’s court and his condition improved greatly; he ceased to be regarded as a hostage and more of a guest.

James attended Catherine of Valois’s coronation on February 23, 1421 and was honoured by being seated immediately on the queen’s left at the coronation banquet. Catherine of Valois was the wife of Henry V and the daughter of King Charles VI of France and his wife Isabeau of Bavaria. In March, Henry began a circuit of the important towns in England as a show of strength and it was during this tour that James was knighted on Saint George’s day. By July, the two kings were back campaigning in France where James, evidently approving of Henry’s methods of kingship, seemed content in supporting the English king’s claim for the French crown.

Henry appointed the Duke of Bedford and James as the joint commanders of the siege of Dreux on July 18, 1421 and on August 20, they received the surrender of the garrison. Henry died of dysentery on August 31, 1422 and in September James was part of the escort taking the English king’s body back to London. Henry V was succeeded on the English throne by his 9 month old son who became Henry VI.

Next: The King’s Marriage.

James I, King of Scots: Part One.

Tags

Archibald Douglas, Duke of Albany, Earl of Douglas, Henry IV, Henry IV of England, James I of Scotland, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, Robert III of Scotland, Robert of Albany, The Earl of March

King James I of Scotland has an interesting and tragic history. I recently wrote about his father, Robert III of Scotland, and I have decided to do a small series on this tragic Scottish king. This will come in at least three sections, if not more.


James I, King of Scotland (late July 1394 – February 21,1437), was the the youngest of three sons to King Robert III and his wife Annabella Drummond. James was born in Dunfermline Abbey and was not suspected to become Kingof Scots but by the time he was eight both of his elder brothers were dead. The eldest, Robert, had died in infancy and his second brother, David, Duke of Rothesay, died suspiciously in Falkland Palace while being detained by his paternal uncle, Robert, Duke of Albany. Although the Duke of Albany was exonerated by parliament, the vast majority of scholars do believe that the Duke of Albany did have an active hand in the death of his nephew the Duke of Rothesay.

The issues that put the life of young Prince James in peril stems from a complex struggle for power amongst the various branches of the House of Stuart after it had only recently mounted the Scottish throne and faced threats from England. King Robert III was unpopular at this time and apposed by his brother the Duke of Albany. Along with the Duke of Albany, the other key noble opposing King Robert III was Archibald, 4th Earl of Douglas. The Earl of Douglas was the eldest legitimate son of Archibald Douglas, 3rd Earl of Douglas and Joanna de Moravia of Bothwell, he was born either at Threave Castle or at Bothwell Castle c.1372 and was known as the Master of Douglas until his accession to the Earldom. Prior to 1390 he had married the Princess Margaret of Carrick, a daughter of King Robert III of Scotland.

In 1399 the Earl of Douglas, along with the Duke of Albany and Albany’s son Murdoch, justiciar North of the Forth, and the bishops Walter of St Andrews and Gilbert of Aberdeen, met at Falkland Castle because the general council criticised Robert III’s governance for the failure to pacify the Gaelic areas in west and north. The outcome of this meeting was that King Robert III was forced to surrender power. He did not surrender power to Douglas or to Albany, but instead to his son and heir the Duke Rothesay. This release of power was to last for a period of three years. Many Scottish nobles supported Douglas and Albany rather than Rothesay. This also motivated Albany to get rid of the Duke of Rothesay. With the Nobles support of Douglas and Albany is considered the source of the reasoning why the two were exonerated so willingly by the Scottish Parliament for the death of the Duke of Rothesay.

Removing Douglas and Albany from the equation created a source of the friction between and the rest of the Scottish Royal house and the nobility because Douglas and Albany were considered to be the only fit antidote to George Dunbar, Earl of March and his renewed hostility with Robert III and the Duke of Rothesay. These hostilities would also involve Henry IV and his English troops.

The conflict between Earl of March and the Duke of Rothesay occurred when the Rothesay married decided to marry Mary Douglas, daughter of the Earl of Douglas rather than remarrying Elizabeth Dunbar as previously agreed. In consequence of this slight upon his family’s honour, the Earl of March renounced his allegiance to Robert III and retired into England, placing himself under the protection of King Henry IV. In 1401 he made a wasteful inroad into Scotland, and in June 1402 he was victorious against a small Scottish force at the Battle of Nesbit Moor. At the subsequent Battle of Homildon Hill he again fought on the English side.

With the death of the Duke of Rothesay fears for James’s safety grew through the winter of 1405–1406 and plans were made to send him to France to keep him out of reach of both the Duke of Albany (the Earl of Douglas died in 1400) along with the Earl of March and his garrisons. In February 1406 James was accompanying nobles close to his father when they clashed with supporters of the Earl of March, forcing the prince to take refuge in the castle of the Bass Rock, a small islet in the Firth of Forth. He remained there until mid-March when he boarded a vessel bound for France, but on March 22 while off the English coast, pirates captured the ship and delivered James to Henry IV of England. The ailing Robert III died on April 4, 1406 and the 12-year-old James, now the uncrowned King of Scots, was a prisoner of the English king.


Part II: Captivity in England.

Death of King Robert III of Scotland.

Tags

David II of Scotland, Duke of Albany, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Henry IV, Henry IV of England, House of Stuart, James I of Scotland, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, Robert III of Scotland, Robert the Bruce

On this date in History. April 4, 1406. Death of King Robert III of Scotland.

Robert III (c.1337/40 – April 4, 1406), born John Stewart, was King of Scots from 1390 to his death. He was known primarily as John, Earl of Carrick before ascending the throne. He was the eldest son of Robert II and Elizabeth Mure and was legitimated with the marriage of his parents in 1347.

In 1368 David II, King of Scots created John Earl of Carrick. His father became king Robert II in 1371 after the unexpected death of the childless King David II. Robert II’s claim to the throne of Scotland was as the nephew of David II and also as a grand son of Robert I (Robert the Bruce). Robert II was the son of the son of Walter Stewart, 6th High Steward of Scotland and of Marjorie Bruce, daughter of the Scottish king Robert the Bruce by his first wife Isabella of Mar. This made Robert II the first Scottish king of the House of Stewart (Stuart)*

John Stewart, Earl of Carrick was influential in the government of the kingdom but became progressively more impatient at his father’s longevity. The Earl of CarrickRobert II died at Dundonald Castle in Ayrshire on April 19, 1390 and was buried at Scone on April 25. The Earl of Carrick was 53 years old when he ascended the Scottish throne.

In May 1390 the Scottish Parliament granted John permission to change his regnal name to Robert III probably in part to maintain the link back to Robert I but also to disassociate himself from unpopular King John Balliol.

In 1367 Robert III, then Earl of Carrick, married Annabella Drummond the daughter of Sir John Drummond, 11th Thane of Lennox and Mary Montifex, daughter of Sir William Montifex. They had seven children. The heir to the throne was David Stewart (24 October 1378 – 26 March 1402). He was the first Duke of Rothesay from 1398. He was named after his great-great-uncle, David II of Scotland, and also held the titles of Earl of Atholl (1398–1402) and Earl of Carrick (1390–1402).

In late February 1402, while travelling officially to St Andrews, David was arrested just outside the city at Strathtyrum in a sting operation which had been arranged by Robert Stewart, Duke of Albany (c. 1340 – 3 September 1420), the younger brother of Robert III, King of Scots a ruthless politician. The Duke of Albany, at that time in complicit alliance with Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas. (David’s father-in-law, the highly influential third Earl, had died two years before, in 1400.) concocted the pretext for David’s arrest was that his lieutenancy had expired. He was initially held captive in St Andrews Castle, and soon afterwards taken to Falkland Palace, Albany’s residence in Fife. At Falkland David remained a prisoner and shortly died there, reputedly of starvation. A few weeks later, in May 1402, a public enquiry into the circumstances of David’s death exonerated Albany of all blame.

Following David, the Duke of Rothesay’s death, and with the restoration of the lieutenancy to Albany and the Scottish defeat at the battle of Humbleton, Robert III experienced almost total exclusion from political authority and was limited to his lands in the west.

By October 28, 1405 Robert III had returned to Dundonald Castle in Ayrshire. With the king’s health failing, it was decided in the winter of 1405–6 to send the young prince James, now heir to the throne after his brothers death, to France out of the reach of the Duke of Albany. On March 22, 1406 the ship was taken by English pirates off Flamborough Head, who delivered James to King Henry IV of England. Robert III had moved to Rothesay Castle where, after hearing of his son’s captivity, died on April 4, 1406, and was buried in Paisley Abbey, which had been founded by the Stewarts.

James Stewart, succeeded Robert III as James I, King of Scots (although at that time remaining uncrowned and in captivity in England) while the Duke of Albany secured himself as de facto ruler of Scotland.

* Stewart was the original spelling for the name of the Royal House. It was after the reign of Mary I, Queen of Scots and her time in France did the spelling of the Royal House change to Stuart, the French form of the name.

Why the Queen cannot give the throne to the Duke of Cambridge

Tags

Act of Settlement 1701, Edward VI, Elizabeth II, Henry IV, Kingdom of England, Louis XIV of France, Parliament, Prince Charles, Prince William of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge

St. Edward’s Crown

Elizabeth II, Queen of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Frequently on social media I will see posts by people that think the Queen should give the throne to the Duke of Cambridge, bypassing the Prince of Wales. These people generally are not fans of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall. The truth is the Queen has absolutely no power to give the crown to anyone.

She cannot legally bypass the Prince of Wales and give the crown to the Duke of Cambridge. The succession to the throne is regulated by Parliament through its laws and statutes and this authority to control the succession has been in the hands of Parliament for centuries. Therefore, it would take an Act of Parliament to remove the Prince of Wales from his rightful place in the order of the succession. There are no plans to do so, nor is there any reason or need to alter the succession.

Here is a brief history of the power to control the succession.

Even during the reigns of the Anglo-Saxon kings the power to regulate or name your successor was not in the hands of the monarch. That power was in the hands of the Witenagemot (Witan) a council of elders. At the time the English kingship was elective and semi-hereditary. The Witenagemot had the power to name and elect the king and they limited their choices to princes within the House of Wessex. The Witenagemot didn’t follow succession based on male primogeniture, they would often select a brother of the pervious King especially if the king left children too young to reign.

In 1066 when William I “the Conqueror” became king he abolished the Witenagemot and  became the first English king to hold the power and right to name his successor. Although at this time the king did hold this power, the will of the king was not always followed. Case in point was Henry I of England (1100-1134) who named his only surviving child, his daughter, the Empress Matilda, as his successor. Empress Matilda was the widow of Holy Roman Emperor Heinrich V. However, despite the Barons swearing an oath to uphold the succession of the Empress Matilda, this oath was ignored upon King Henry’s death allowing the King’s nephew, Count Stephen of Blois, to usurp the throne, plunging England into many years of civil war.

Eventually the crown evolved into the male preferred primogeniture that remained the law of the Kingdom up until recently. Also, concurrent with the settling into the tradition of male preferred primogeniture, came the rise of Parliament which also tried to influence the crown in matters of succession. When Henry IV (1399-1412) usurped the crown from Richard II (1377-1399) he had his kingship sanctioned by Parliament to give his reign legal status.

Even when monarchs such as Henry VIII (1509-1547) and his son Edward VI (1547-1553) tried to alter the succession they were unable to assert their will without Parliamentary approval. Henry VIII did succeed in making his daughters Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate and removing them from their place in the succession. However, Henry VIII’s last queen, Catherine Parr helped reconcile Henry with his daughters. In 1543, an Act of Parliament put them back in the line of succession after Edward. The same act allowed Henry to determine further succession to the throne in his will.

One of Henry’s desires was to exclude the descendants of the union of his sister Margaret and King James IV of Scotland. Henry VIII’s successor, Edward VI, tried to bypass his sisters Mary and Elizabeth and give the throne to his cousin, Lady Jane Grey, desiring to maintain the Protestant faith which Mary would certainly (and did) return the English Church to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

Elizabeth I, Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland.

Parliament did not sanction altering the succession that Edward VI attempted. This was another reason Lady Jane is considered a usurper. However, had the attempted usurpation by Lady Jane Grey, lead by her Father-in-Law John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland, been successful and thereby solidifying Lady Jane’s position as the first Queen Regnant of England, it is very plausible Parliament would have sanctioned her reign by passing it’s own statute or legalizing the Will of King Edward VI.

James I-VI, King of England, Scotland and Ireland.

Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) was the last monarch who had power to name her successor given the fact that she left no issue. This was a power she refused to use as she did not name her successor, although historians debate whether or not she did name her distant cousin, King James VI of Scotland, as her successor. However, during the reign of Elizabeth I concerns were once again raised about who would succeed the childless queen. Although Margaret’s (Henry VIII’s sister) line had been excluded from the English succession, in the last decade of her reign it was clear to all that James VI of Scotland, great-grandson of James IV and Margaret, was the only generally acceptable heir. In the end Henry VIII’s will was bipassed.

Another succession crisis, called the Exclusion Crisis, which ran from 1679 through 1681 in the reign of King Charles II when three Exclusion Bills sought to exclude the King’s brother and heir presumptive, James, Duke of York, from the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland because he was Roman Catholic. None became law. Two new parties, Tories and Whigs, formed as a result. The Tories were opposed to this exclusion while the “Country Party”, who were soon to be called the Whigs, supported it. The matter of James’s exclusion was not decided in Parliament during Charles’s reign, representing the last time a monarch asserted his power of controlling the succession.

After two failed attempts to pass the Bill, Charles succeeded in labelling the Whigs as subversives. Louis XIV of France offered financial support to Charles, allowing him to dissolve the 1681 Oxford Parliament. It was not called again during his reign, depriving the Whigs of their main goal. This crisis between Crown and Parliament almost caused another English Civil War.

James II-VII, King of England, Scotland and Ireland

The Duke of York became King James II-VII of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1685 and the tension between Crown and Parliament reached a head when he was deposed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. It was the abandonment of the throne by James II-VII in 1688 which lead to the Convention Parliament calling William III of Orange and Princess Mary, daughter of the deposed king, to rule jointly as king and queen.

This act was legalized when William III called for the election of a new Parliament which passed the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act of 1689. Also, With the Passing of the Act of Settlement in 1701, which regulated the throne to the Protestant descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover. With this Act Parliament then held held the complete power to regulate the succession to the crown and it’s a power they’veThe most held ever since.

William II-III, King of England, Scotland, Ireland and Stadholder of the Netherlands.

Although France isn’t England, even the great powerful Louis XIV of France and Navarre (1643-1715), an absolute monarch, was unable to alter the succession to the French throne when he wanted to give succession rights to his legitimized children after the Princes of the Blood. This demonstrates how difficult it is for a monarch to alter the succession to the crown.

The most recent example of Parliament altering the succession was when Male preferred primogeniture ended when Parliament (and all members of the Commonwealth) passed the Crown Act of 2013 which left the succession to the Crown to the eldest child of the Sovereign regardless of gender.

I hope this short history lesson demonstrates why the Queen cannot alter the succession to the crown by giving the throne to the Duke of Cambridge bypassing the Prince of Wales.

Legal Succession: Henry VII part 2

Tags

Battle of Bosworth Field, Duke of Lancaster, Earl of Richmond, England, Henry IV, Henry Tudor, Henry VII of England, House of Lancaster, House of York, John of Gaunt, Kings and Queens of England, Richard II, War of the Roses

As we saw in the last installment Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, had a tenuous claim to the English throne. As descendents of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster (son of Edward III) via a third marriage which later legitimized his children, Henry Tudor’s line once had succession rights but those rights were then legally removed. As I mentioned before, the victors  get to rewrite the rules and this is evident in the rise to the throne of Henry VII.

With the death of Henry VI and the death of his son, Edward, Prince of Wales, the collateral branch of the Plantagenet, known as the House of Lancaster had come to an end. However, there were other descendants of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster to take up the Lancastrian claims. The Beaufort House, from John of Gaunt’s third marriage, were given the title Duke of Somerset and after the extinction of the male line only the female line remained, represented by Lady Margaret Beaufort and her son Henry Tudor. The year after the Battle of Tewkesbury Lady Margaret married Lord Stanley, who had been a devoted supported of King Edward IV. Stanley did not support Richard III and instrumental in putting Henry Tudor on the throne.

It was the defeat of Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field in August of 1485 that placed the new Tudor Dynasty on the throne. Ever since Henry IV usurped the throne from Richard II in 1399 the legality of all the subsequent kings has been a pretty messy situation. Although Henry had a slim blood claim to the throne his legal standing was even weaker given that his line had lost its succession rights. Therefore, his succession to the throne was more of a conquest than a usurpation.

One of the things the new Henry VII did was to unite the warring factions while also strengthening his position on the throne. To do that he desired to marry Elizabeth of York, daughter of King Edward IV. This would unite both the houses of York and Lancaster. However there was some resistance to that. Those that were against the union claimed that Richard III’s Act of Parliament, Titulus Regius, that had declared the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville invalid and the children illegitimate still stood as law. Henry VII disagreed with that position and had the act repealed. When he was crowned Henry VII took the throne not as a conqueror but as a legitimate descendant of John of Gaunt.

Henry and Elizabeth married on January 18, 1486. Their first son, Arthur, born on September 20, 1486 had a strong blood and legal claim to the throne. He was a descendant of the now legal King Henry VII of England and he was a multiple descendant of Edward III and heir to both the houses of York and Lancaster.

As we shall see in the next section of this series Arthur never lived to become king and the throne passed to his brother who became King Henry VIII of England. Although the succession of Henry VII and his marriage to Elizabeth of York ended the Dynastic Wars struggles for the throne would also plague the Tudor Dynasty.

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.