Life of Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham.

Tags

2nd Duke of Buckingham, Duke of York, Henry Stafford, House of Plantagenet, House of Stafford, King Edward III of England, King Edward V of England, King Henry VII of England, King Richard III of England, Richard Duke of York, Wars of the Roses

Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, (September 4, 1455 – November 2, 1483) was an English nobleman known as the namesake of Buckingham’s rebellion, a failed but significant collection of uprisings in England and parts of Wales against Richard III of England in October 1483. He is also one of the primary suspects in the disappearance (and presumed murder) of the Princes in the Tower.

Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham

Henry Stafford was the only son of Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford, and Anne Neville (d.1480) was a daughter of Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland, and his second wife Lady Joan Beaufort, the legitimised daughter of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, the third surviving son of King Edward III of England. His first wife, Blanche of Lancaster, was also his third cousin; both were great-great-grandchildren of King Henry III.

Henry Stafford became Earl of Stafford when he was three years old in 1458 upon his father’s death, and was made a ward of King Edward IV of England. He became the 2nd Duke of Buckingham at age 4 in 1460 following the death of his grandfather Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham, at the Battle of Northampton.

Catherine Woodville, Duchess of Buckingham

In February 1466, at age 10, Henry was married to Catherine Woodville, the daughter of Richard Woodville, 1st Earl Rivers, and Jacquetta of Luxembourg, the eldest daughter of Peter I of Luxembourg, Count of Saint-Pol, Conversano and Brienne, and his wife Margaret of Baux. Catherine Woodville was sister of Edward IV’s queen, Elizabeth Woodville.

The Duke of Buckingham and Catherine Woodville had four children:
* Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham (February 3, 1478 – May 17, 1521)
* Elizabeth Stafford, Countess of Sussex (c. 1479 – 11 May 1532)
* Henry Stafford, 3rd Earl of Wiltshire (c. 1479 – April 6, 1523)
* Anne Stafford, Countess of Huntingdon (c. 1483 – 1544)

Upon the death of Edward IV in 1483, the Duke of Buckingham allied himself to the king’s younger brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, helping him succeed to the throne as Richard III in lieu of Edward’s living sons.

Buckingham’s rebellion of 1483

In 1483, a conspiracy arose among a number of disaffected gentry, many of whom had been supporters of Edward IV and the “whole Yorkist establishment”. The conspiracy was nominally led by Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, who was Richard III’s former ally and first cousin once removed.

Richard III, King of England, Lord of Ireland

Although it had begun as a Woodville-Beaufort conspiracy (being “well underway” by the time of the duke’s involvement). Indeed, it has suggested that it was “only the subsequent parliamentary attainder that placed Buckingham at the centre of events”, in order to blame a single disaffected magnate motivated by greed, rather than “the embarrassing truth” that those opposing Richard were actually “overwhelmingly Edwardian loyalists”.

It is possible that they planned to depose Richard III and place Edward V back on the throne, and that when rumours arose that the young King Edward V and his brother, Richard, Duke of York, were dead, Buckingham proposed that Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, should return from exile, take the throne and marry Elizabeth of York, elder sister of the Tower Princes.

However, it has also been pointed out that as this narrative stems from Richard III’s own parliament of 1484, it should probably be treated “with caution”. For his part, Buckingham raised a substantial force from his estates in Wales and the Marches. Henry, Earl of Richmond, in exile in Brittany, enjoyed the support of the Breton treasurer Pierre Landais, who hoped Buckingham’s victory would cement an alliance between Brittany and England.

Henry VII, King of England, Lord of Ireland (Formerly The Earl of Richmond)

As Richard III’s ally, the plausibility of Buckingham being a suspect in the murder of the Princes in the Tower depends on the princes having already been dead by the time the Duke of Buckingham was executed in November 1483. It has been suggested that Buckingham had several potential motives.

As a descendant of Edward III, through two of his sons, John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster and Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester on his father’s side, as well as through John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster through John Beaufort, son of John of Gaunt on his mother’s side, Buckingham may have hoped to accede to the throne himself in due course; alternatively, he may have been acting on behalf of a third party.

Some, notably Paul Murray Kendall, regard Buckingham as the likeliest suspect: his execution, after he had rebelled against Richard III in October 1483, might signify that he and the king had fallen out; Alison Weir takes this as a sign that Richard had murdered the princes without Buckingham’s knowledge and Buckingham had been shocked by it.

A contemporary Portuguese document suggests Buckingham as the guilty party, stating “…and after the passing away of King Edward V in the year of 83, another one of his brothers, the Duke of Gloucester, had in his power the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, the young sons of the said king his brother, and turned them to the Duke of Buckingham, under whose custody the said Princes were starved to death.”

A document dated some decades after the disappearance was found within the archives of the College of Arms in London in 1980; this stated that the murder “be the vise of the Duke of Buckingham”. This led for some historians to suggest that possibly some of Richard’s prominent supporters, including Buckingham and Tyrell, murdered the princes on their own initiative without waiting for Richard’s orders.

It is noted In the document “After the King’s departure Buckingham was in effective command in the capital, and it is known that when the two men met a month later there was an unholy row between them.” This supports theory that a rift between Buckingham and Richard III after the king learned of Buckingham’s involvement in the murders of his nephews.

Buckingham is the only person to be named as responsible in a contemporary chronicle other than Richard himself. However, for two reasons he is unlikely to have acted alone. First of all, if he were guilty of acting without Richard’s orders it is extremely surprising that Richard did not lay the blame for the princes’ murder on Buckingham after Buckingham was disgraced and executed, especially as Richard could potentially have cleared his own name by doing so.

Secondly, it is likely he would have required Richard’s help to gain access to the princes, under close guard in the Tower of London, although Kendall argued as Constable of England, he might have been exempt from this ruling. As a result, although it is extremely possible that he was implicated in the decision to murder them, the hypothesis that he acted without Richard’s knowledge is not widely accepted by historians.

While Jeremy Potter suggested that Richard would have kept silent had Buckingham been guilty because nobody would have believed Richard was not party to the crime, he further notes that “Historians are agreed that Buckingham would never have dared to act without Richard’s complicity, or at least, connivance”. However, Potter also hypothesised that perhaps Buckingham was fantasising about seizing the crown himself at this point and saw the murder of the princes as a first step to achieving this goal.

For his participation in the rebellion against the King, Henry Stanford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham was executed for treason by Richard III on November 2, 1483: he was beheaded in the courtyard between the Blue Boar Inn and the Saracen’s Head Inn (both demolished in the 18th century) in Salisbury market-place. He is believed to have been buried in St Peter’s Church in Britford in Wiltshire.

After the execution of the 2nd Duke of Buckingham, his widow, Catherine Woodville, married Jasper Tudor, second son of Owen Tudor and King Henry V’s widow, Catherine of Valois. After Jasper Tudor’s death on December 21, 1495, Catherine Woodville married Sir Richard Wingfield (d. July 22, 1525). Catherine Woodville died 18 May 1497.

February 18, 1478: Execution of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence.

Tags

Bill of Attainder, Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, Duke of Clarence, George Plantagenet, House of Lancaster, House of York, King Edward IV of England, King Henry VI of England, King Richard III of England, Lord of Ireland, Mary of Burgundy, Wars of the Roses

George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence (October 21, 1449 – February 18, 1478), was a son of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, and Cecily Neville, and the brother of English kings Edward IV and Richard III. He played an important role in the dynastic struggle between rival factions of the Plantagenets known as the Wars of the Roses.

Coat of Arms of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence

George’s father died in 1460. In 1461 his elder brother, Edward, became King of England as Edward IV. In that year George was made Duke of Clarence and invested as a Knight of the Garter, and in 1462 Clarence received the Honour of Richmond, a lifetime grant, but without the peerage title of Earl of Richmond.Despite his youth, he was appointed as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in the same year.

Having been mentioned as a possible husband for Mary of Burgundy, daughter of Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, Clarence came under the influence of his first cousin Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, and in July 1469 was married in Église Notre-Dame de Calais to the earl’s elder daughter Isabel Neville.

Here is a side story to the connection of the House of Burgundy and the House of Plantagenet. In 1454, at the age of 21, Charles the Bold was looking to marry a second time. Charles the Bold’s first wife was Catherine of France (1428 – 13 July 1446) was a French princess and the fourth child and second daughter of Charles VII of France and Marie of Anjou. Catherine fell ill with violent coughing in 1446 and died with what was likely tuberculosis.

Mary, Duchess of Burgundy

For his second marriage, Charles the Bold wanted to marry Margaret of York, daughter of his distant cousin Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York (a sister of Kings Edward IV and Richard III of England), but under terms of the Treaty of Arras of 1435, he was required to marry another French princess. His father, Philippe III the Good of Burgundy, chose Isabella of Bourbon, who was Charles the Bold’s first cousin being the daughter of his father’s sister, Agnes of Burgundy and Charles I, Duke of Bourbon. Agnes of Burgundy and Charles of Bourbon both were very distant cousins of Charles VII of France, the father of Charles the Bold’s first wife, Catherine. Charles the Bold and Isabella of Bourbon were the parents of Mary of Burgundy, potential bride of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence.

Isabella of Bourbon died September 25, 1465, and July 3, 1468 Charles the Bold finally married Margaret of York as his third wife. As Duchess of Burgundy Margaret acted as a protector of the duchy after the death of Charles the Bold in January 1477.

Now back to George, Duke of Clarence…

Though a member of the House of York, he switched sides to support the Lancastrians, before reverting to the Yorkists. Clarence had actively supported his elder brother’s claim to the throne, but when his father-in-law, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, known as “the Kingmaker,” deserted Edward IV to ally with Margaret of Anjou, consort of the deposed King Henry VI, Clarence supported him and was deprived of his office as Lord Lieutenant. Clarence joined Warwick in France, taking his pregnant wife. She gave birth to their first child, a girl, on April 16, 1470, in a ship off Calais. The child died shortly afterwards. Henry VI rewarded Clarence for his loyalty by making him next in line to the throne after his own son, justifying the exclusion of Edward IV either by attainder for his treason against Henry VI or on the grounds of his alleged illegitimacy. After a short time, Clarence realized that his loyalty to his father-in-law was misplaced.

George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence

In 1477 Clarence was again a suitor for the hand of Mary, who had just become Duchess of Burgundy in her own right. Edward IV objected to the match, and Clarence left the court.

The arrest and committal to the Tower of London of one of Clarence’s retainers, an Oxford astronomer named Dr John Stacey, which led to his confession under torture that he had “imagined and compassed” the death of the King, and also implicated Thomas Burdett and Thomas Blake, a chaplain at Stacey’s college (Merton College, Oxford). All three were tried for treason, convicted, and executed.

This was a clear warning to Clarence, which he chose to ignore. He appointed Dr John Goddard to burst into Parliament and regale the House of Commons with Burdett and Stacey’s declarations of innocence that they had made before their deaths. Goddard was a very unwise choice, as he was an ex-Lancastrian who had expounded Henry VI’s claim to the throne. Edward IV summoned Clarence to Windsor, severely upbraided him, accused him of treason, and ordered his immediate arrest and confinement.

Edward IV, King of England and Lord of Ireland

Clarence was imprisoned in the Tower of London and put on trial for treason against his brother Edward IV. Clarence was not present – Edward IV himself prosecuted his brother, and demanded that Parliament pass a Bill of Attainder* against his brother, declaring that he was guilty of “unnatural, loathly treasons” which were aggravated by the fact that Clarence was his brother, who, if anyone did, owed him loyalty and love.

Following his conviction and attainder, he was “privately executed” at the Tower on February 18, 1478, by tradition in the Bowyer Tower, and soon after the event, the unfounded rumor gained ground that he had been drowned in a butt of Malmsey wine.

Richard III biographer Paul Murray Kendall believes that the reason Edward was so harsh with his brother was that he had discovered from Bishop Robert Stillington of Bath and Wells that George had let slip the secret of Edward IV’s marriage precontract with Lady Eleanor Talbot, which would mean that Edward IV’s marriage with Elizabeth Woodville was null and void, making their children illegitimate. Although legend claims Richard III had brought about his brother’s death, the opposite may be true: he tried to prevent it.

* A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial.

This date in History. October 2, 1452: Birth of Richard III, King of England and Lord of Ireland.

Tags

Battle of Bosworth Field, Bishop of Bath Titulus Regis, Duke of York, Edward V of England House of Tudor, House of Anjou, King Edward IV of England, King Henry VII of England, King Richard III of England, Kings and Queens of England, Plantagenet Dynasty, Wars of the Roses

Today is the anniversary of the birth of Richard III, King of England and Lord of Ireland. The focus today of this blog entry is whether or not he was a usurper.

Richard III (October 2, 1452 – August 22, 1485) was King of England and Lord of Ireland from 1483 until his death in 1485. Richard was born on October 2, 1452 at Fotheringhay Castle in Northamptonshire, the eleventh of the twelve children of Richard, Duke of York, and Cecily Neville, and the youngest to survive infancy. Richard III was the last king of the House of York and the last of the Plantagenet dynasty. For those keeping track, the House of Anjou, AKA the Plantagenet Dynasty, ruled England and Ireland for 330 years, 8 months, 3 days beginning with the accession of Henry II on December 19, 1154 and ending with the defeat and death of Richard III on August 22, 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth Field, the last decisive battle of the Wars of the Roses, marking the end of the Middle Ages in England.

When Richard, Duke of York, brother Edward IV died in April 1483, Richard was named Lord Protector of the realm for Edward’s eldest son and successor, the 12-year-old Edward V. Arrangements were made for Edward’s coronation later that year on June 22, 1483.

Richard III, King of England and Lord of Ireland

However, before the king could be crowned, the marriage of King Edward V’s parents, Edward IV and Elisabeth Woodville was declared bigamous and therefore invalid. Therefore, now officially illegitimate, their children were barred from inheriting the throne. On June 25th, an assembly of lords and commoners endorsed a declaration to this effect and proclaimed Richard as the rightful king. He was crowned on July 6, 1483. The young princes, Edward and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, were not seen in public after August and accusations circulated that they had been murdered on Richard’s orders.

When I began studying English Royalty I believed that the claim that Edward IV’s marriage was illegal was the rationalization by Richard III and his party in order for Richard to justify usurping the throne. Was there a basis for such a claim? Indeed there was a basis for his claim and it was taken seriously at the time.

The basis for this claim was the evidence that prior to Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, Edward was already pre-contracted to marry a wealthy widow by the name of Lady Eleanor Butler. Lady Butler had passed away by the time Richard claimed the throne and therefore couldn’t corroborate this claim. Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells, a stalwart supporter of Richard, was the chief witness to the pre-contract of marriage between Edward IV and Lady Butler. According to Roman Catholic Church Law at the time, a pre-contract was a solemn oath to marry in the presence of clerical witnesses and this pre-contract took precedence over any other form of marital arrangement. This contract was legal and binding and therefore had to be legally dismissed for the parties to be free to marry somebody else.

As stated elsewhere in this blog regarding the legality of the succession, no king, at least by this time period, could alter the succession to the crown by decree or declaration. Parliament was firmly the Legislative body of the Kingdom and all laws proposed needed to be passed by Parliament, even changes to the succession. View yesterday’s blog entry on the succession of Queen Mary I where her brother Edward IV tried to bypass his half-sisters but his Will was not approved by Parliament prior to his death, thus making an attempted alteration to the succession illegal.

Therefore in order to legally justify Richard III’s taking of the throne in June of 1483 an Act of Parliament was issued in January 1484 entitled “Titulus Regius (The Title of King)” The Act stated that Edward IV’s marriage had been bigamous and therefore invalid. In the nullification of the marriage it also rendered all the children of the marriage as illegitimate, namely the young King Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York.

An interesting note is that the Titulus Regius did not actually name Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath as the main clerical witness for the claim of the pre-marital contract of Edward IV and Lady Butler. Instead the Titulus Regius named a Burgundian chronicler, Phillipe de Commines, as the main witness to the contract. The source of Phillipe de Commines witnessing the event was written in his memoirs where he said he witnessed the signing of the pre-contract between Edward IV and Lady Butler.

Edward IV, King of England and Lord of Ireland

An another interesting point about the Act making Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville’s children illegitimate is that the taint of illegitimacy did not tarnish the desirability of their daughter Princess Elizabeth of York. In order to heal the rift in the family, and it seems to bolster Richard III’s hold up the throne, he sought the hand of his niece in marriage. Her mother, Queen Elizabeth (formerly Elizabeth Woodville) flatly refused his advances. Even after Richard was deposed the new king, Henry VII, successfully won the hand of Princess Elizabeth of York and United the warring branches of the English Royal Family. Elizabeth of York’s stain of illegitimacy didn’t bother Henry nor prevent her from becoming Queen Consort of England. She really had a better claim to be a Queen Regnant of England but that’s another story.

One of the first acts of Parliament convened by Henry VII after he became king was to repeal Titulus Regius. This restored the legitimacy of the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, and the legitimacy of their children, including Elizabeth of York. Henry honoured his pledge of December 1483 to marry Elizabeth of York. They were third cousins, as both were great-great-grandchildren of John of Gaunt. Henry and Elizabeth were married on 18 January 1486 at Westminster Abbey.

Today the vast majority of historians view the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville as legally valid. That’s not to say the pre-contract between Edward IV and Lady Butler didn’t occur, it vary well may have, there just isn’t enough evidence to determine, either for away, if the pre-contract was made.

Royal Ancestry of Henry VII of England.

Tags

Ancestry, Bosworth Field, Duke of Lancaster, Henry VII of England, Hiuse of Tudor, John of Gaunt, King Richard III of England, Kings and Queens of England, Wars of the Roses

Henry VII was the King of England and Lord of Ireland from his seizure of the crown on August 22, 1485 to his death on April 21, 1509. He was the first monarch of the House of Tudor. Henry VII was born at Pembroke Castle on January 28, 1457 to Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond, and Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond, who died three months before his birth. Henry inherited his father’s title at birth and became the 2nd Earl of Richmond.

Henry VII, King of England, Lord of Ireland

When Henry Tudor won the crown in August 22, 1485 by defeating Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field his right or claim to the throne was tenuous at best and at its worst his claim was nonexistent.

His descent from John of Gaunt gave Henry Tudor a weak claim to the throne. This claim 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’s second wife) John 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.

Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond

With the death of Henry VI and the death of his son, Edward, Prince of Wales, the collateral branch of the House of 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 was 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. As I mentioned many times before, the victors  get to rewrite the rules and this is evident in the rise to the throne of Henry VII.

John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster

Though Henry VII is known to have a thin blood claim to the throne that doesn’t mean he lacked royal blood in his veins or descent from other English kings through various lines. I want add that when I speak of royal blood flowing through the veins of Henry VII I am not speaking just English Royals, I am speaking of royal blood from other royal families throughout Europe.

Therefore in this short series I will examine the royal ancestry of King Henry VII of England, Lord of Ireland.

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!

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.