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.

Henry VIII

Tags

Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth I of England, Emily Blunt, Helena Bonham Carter, King Henry VIII of England, Mary Tudor, Ray Winstone, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, Tudor

I am in a Tudor mood. So for the next few Wednesdays I will be reviewing Tudor related movies.

The movie I want to review today is Henry VIII. It was not a theatrical movie it was two-part British television serial produced principally by Granada Television for ITV in 2003. The movie chronicles the life of Henry VIII of England from the collapse of his first marriage to his death following a stroke in 1547 and depicts his other marriages. In some ways this seems more like a remake of the 1970s BBC production of the Six Wives of Henry VIII.

The movie and subsequent DVD are divided into two parts. The fist part deals mainly with the ending of Henry’s marriage to Infanta Catherine of Aragon and his marriage to Anne Bolyn. The second part encompasses Henry’s other 4 marriages and for that reason the second part seems a little crammed and rushed. I would have liked to have seen the movie done in three parts with each part addressing two of the six marriages.

The main star of the movie is veteran British actor Ray Winstone as King Henry VIII and Helena Bonham Carter (herself the queen of period pieces) as the ill-fated Anne Boleyn. Part two stars Emily Blunt as Catherine Howard another of Henry VIII’s ill-fated queens. Actually, her pleas not to be executed are pretty heart wrenching.

I have read that there was controversy surrounding the casting and performance of Ray Winstone as the king. He is noted for playing many tough guy roles and people who are thugs and that his portrayal of the king was anything buy kingly and aristocratic. I can have empathy for the critics on that point. Henry does not come across as particularly regal or aristocratic. However, that doesn’t really bother me too much even though I do acknowledge that point of view. What Ray does provide for the role is sense of power, authority and ruthlessness along with strength and selfish ambition. These are all qualities I can envision Henry VIII having.

I do enjoy the series even though it is a bit uneven. Part one being the better of the two if only for the presence Helena Bonham Carter and the chemistry between her and Ray.Carter does a great job of bringing Anne Boleyn to life. She is depicted not only as a person who was grabbing power for herself she is also depicted as a victim of a system that literally killed if one did not produce results. As I mentioned above part two just seems too rushed for my tastes. I do think that Emily Blunt does a very good job depicting the young Catherine Howard but since she seems to be only window dressing around which the plot unfolds she is not given the opportunity to flesh out her character. If they had devoted more time to that marriage I think Emily Blunt would have shined even more.

Despite of those flaws I mentioned I do enjoy the two part movie a great deal. Henry VIII is a great study. I would not say I admire him because I think he was a blood thirsty tyrant in many ways. He is a good study on the abuse of power and the role of monarchy in the 16th century. I will close this review with my disclaimer. Do not get your history lesson from a movie. Let a movie give you the sense of how things looked and felt during the time period, let it come alive through costumes and setting and let the movie be a spring board to searching out and understanding the real events. Sorry, don’t mean to sound too preachy.

Here is a list from wikipedia on the historical inaccuracies of the film.

Anne Boleyn was not brought to court to wait on Queen Catherine on Henry’s instructions. She had been in the service of his sister for several years before she transferred to his wife. He courted her sister for several years before he became fixated on her. In the film Mary Boleyn is pregnant by the King and Anne is engaged to be married (see below) when he first meets her.

Mary Boleyn is depicted as being pregnant but unmarried. In reality she had been married for over a year to William Carey before her affair with the king began and so would not have needed Wolsey to arrange a marriage to “render her respectable”.

Anne’s father Thomas Boleyn is portrayed as being given the title Earl of Essex. In reality, the Earldom he was given was Wiltshire, not Essex. (Wiltshire was ironically the home county of Anne’s successor Jane Seymour.)

The relationship between Henry Percy and Anne Boleyn was, in real life, a secret affair as Percy was already betrothed. He would not have appeared before the King to ask for his blessing to marry Anne as the series portrays.

The Duke of Norfolk is portrayed as a young man when in fact he would have been middle aged by the times of the events in the show. As is the Duke of Buckingham, who was not in fact in his late fifties at the time of his execution, he was in his late thirties to early forties.

Anne Boleyn is seen wearing a lace headdress in numerous shots. In reality she would have been the only woman to expose her hair which would have been considered immodest, but which she did to maintain an illusion of chastity. Likewise for Catherine of Aragon, who famously only ever wore English or Spanish-styled gable hoods; her hair would never have been exposed as it is the show.

Mary Tudor was not present with her mother on her deathbed as the show implies. In truth Mary and Catherine were separated shortly before Henry and Anne were married and never saw each other again.
Ambassador Mendoza is shown urging Catherine of Aragon on her deathbed to encourage her nephew, the powerful Emperor Charles of Spain, to lead an invasion against Henry, which she steadfastly refuses to do. In reality Ambassador Mendoza had returned to Spain long before and was replaced by the wily Eustace Chapuys, who did in fact visit Catherine of Aragon just before she died.

Henry’s son Edward was not present by his father side when he died, nor was his last wife Catherine Parr.

Joss Akland plays a dying King Henry VII of England at the start of the film. Henry VII is depicted as being a very old man in that scene when in fact Henry VII was only 52 when he died.