By any other name. Part I

Tags

England, King John of England, King Philip II of France, King Phillippe II of France, King Richard III of England, King Stephen, Magna Carta, Pope Innocent III.

In my discussions in the past over the subject of royal names I have come to learn that in each country there are those names that have become taboo. In other words, there are those names that probably will not be used again due to their association with bad monarchs that last carried the name. Today I will look at some examples.

A couple of the names that comes to mind for the Kings and Queens of the UK is John and Stephen. There has only been one each. It seems very doubtful that there will be other kings of the United kingdom by those names. Stephen, who usurped the throne from his cousin, the Empress Matilda, and plunged the country into civil war, was an able soldier but a weak and indecisive administrator who lost Normandy to Matilda. John is famous, or is that infamous, for being forced to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215. John had a poor relationship with the nobles, lost Normandy to Philippe II of France and was excommunicated by the powerful Pope Innocent III.

King Richard III has also been a king who has had poor reputation. He is one of the top suspects for the murder of his nephews, King Edward V and Prince Richard, Duke of York and with the help of William Shakespeare’s play that doesn’t paint him in a positive light, he is still a much maligned king despite the attempts of the Richard III society to redeem him.

 So, no Stephen II or John II or even a Richard IV. Those are the three names that I do not suspect we will see again in the United Kingdom. This will be a short series but I will continue by looking at some other monarchies were certain names may have fallen out of favor.

 

Part II next week!

Advertisements

Naming the Royal Baby

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Elizabeth II, England, King Richard III of England, King Robert III of Sctoland, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince Charles, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen Victoria of Great Britain, The Duchess of Cambridge, The Duke of Cambridge, the prince of Wales

I have been on a few royalty related sites and message boards as people are guessing what the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will name their child. From my research it seems that George is the front-runner for the name of a boy and Elizabeth is the popular guess for the name of a girl. These names are very traditional. If these are the names selected then in time this new royal scion of the House of Windsor would be either King George VII or Queen Elizabeth III depending on the gender of the child.

Will the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge select a traditional name? I have a hunch, and it is only a hunch, that the royal couple will select a name that they like and it that will also be proper and within the bonds of tradition. Yet I think it will be a name that might not be among the kings and queens of Britain from the past. The Duke of Cambridge has demonstrated an independent nature most of his life. He did not even want a royal title until Her Majesty the Queen pointed out to him that without a royal title his wife would be known as Princess William of Wales.

Even the queen herself was a bit of a non-traditionalist when it came to selecting names. Charles and Anne, names more associated with the House of Stuart than the House of Hanover/Coburg/Windsor, was traditional and refreshingly new at the same time since those names had not been used in the royal family for quite some time. Even naming Princes Andrew after the Duke of Edinburgh’s father, Prince Andreas of Greece and Denmark, walked that fine line between tradition and something new.

Another break with tradition that I feel will continue is not naming a child after a living member of the royal family. During the Victorian era, for example, there were many princesses named after Queen Victoria all living at the same time. The future Edward VII was originally named Albert-Edward and his eldest son, The Duke of Clarence, was named Albert-Victor. Edward VII’s brothers, Alfred and Arthur, each had their eldest sons named after them. In our media saturated culture it may be deemed confusing for there to be two or more royal princes and princesses with the same first name. That doesn’t mean this child won’t be named William, Charles, Henry or Philip if it is a boy; or Elizabeth, Catherine or Anne if it is a girl, it just makes it less likely.

Myself, I have many guesses for the name of the child. I would like to see the name George used or either Victoria or Elizabeth for a girl. I am also open to names from the past that have not been used in a while, such as, Richard, Robert, Alexander, Alexandra, Charlotte and Mary.

In a short while all our questions will be answered and I do want to close with saying that what we all can agree on is that the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge be healthy and happy.

Legal Succession: The Children of Henry VII

Tags

4th Earl of Lennox, Arthur Prince of Wales, Battle of Flodden, Edward III of England, Elizabeth of York, Henry VII of England, James V, King Fernando II-V of Aragaon, King of Scots, King Richard III of England, Mary Tudor, Matthew Stewart, Queen Isabel I of Castile

With Henry VII on the throne and married to Elizabeth of York the dynastic struggle between the branches of the Plantagenet family came to an end. Henry VII marked the start of his reign as being the day before defeating Richard III at the battle of Bosworth Field. This enabled him to confiscate the lands of the nobles who fought for Richard III on the grounds of treason. He did spare the lives of some Plantagenet heirs, namely, John de la Pole, 1st Earl of Lincoln, and Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury niece of both Edward IV and Richard III. There were still skirmishes for the throne after Henry VII became king. The Earl of Lincoln was reconciled to Henry VII for a while. However, Lincoln was killed in the Yorkist Battle of Stoke Field on June 16, 1487 the last battle of the War od the Roses.

Although Henry secured himself on the throne succession issues would plague the House of Tudor and the repercussions would be felt in later generations. Henry VII and Elizabeth of York had 8 children, with only 4 of them living until adulthood. These four would play a role in the succession to the throne. The two surviving daughters, Margaret and Mary Tudor, both made dynastic marriages. Margaret first married James IV, King of Scots and they were the parents of James V, King of Scots. This gave the Scottish kings a good claim to the English throne as Margaret and James IV were both descendants of Edward III of England via the Beaufort line which had produced Henry VII’s claim to the English throne. James IV died in 1513 at the Battle of Flodden against the forces of his brother-in-law, Henry VIII. Margaret secondly married Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus. Their daughter, Margaret Douglas, Countess of Lennox, married Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox. They, in turn, had a son, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, who married his cousin Mary, Queen of Scots, the daughter of James V, King of Scots. All of these family ties secured the claims of the House of Stewart (Stuart) to the English throne.

The next daughter, Mary Tudor, also married twice., Her first marriage was to the aged King Louis XII of France which did not last long. Louis died about a year after the marriage and there was no issue. Mary then married Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk. Their eldest daughter, Frances Brandon, Duchess of Suffolk, married Henry Grey, 1st Duke of Suffolk and became the daughter of Lady Jane Grey a claimant to the English throne.

Arthur, the eldest son, was created Prince of Wales in 1489 when he was 3 years of age. When Arthur was 15 he married Infanta Catherine of Aragon, daughter of King Fernando II-V of Aragon & Castile and Queen Isabel I of Castile, the two  monarchs that united Spain. Arthur died in 1502 ans left no issue. Fernando and Isabel wanted Catherine to return to Spain but Henry, not wanting to lose the Spanish dowry, kept her in England.

The next in line was Henry, Duke of York. Henry VII had plotted a career his second son as a priest in the Catholic Church. With the death of Arthur in 1502 Henry became heir to the throne and it became his father’s wish that he should marry, Catherine his brother’s widow. Henry, Duke of York was very reluctant to do so.

In 1509 Henry VII died at the age of 52 and left a sturdy crown and rich coffers to his son, Henry VIII of England. Nest week I will discuss the struggles for an hier and the many marriages of Henry VIII.

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.

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.

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.