Henry IV of England and his claim to the English Throne

Tags

agnatic primogeniture, Henry Bolingbroke, Henry IV of England and Lord of Ireland, House of Lancaster, Salic Law, Usurper

From The Emperor’s Desk: in my recent post I discussed how Henry Bolingbroke became King Henry IV of England. Historians consider him a usurper and although he did have a strong hereditary claim to the throne his assumption of the crown was more of a right by conquest than him being the legal heir to King Richard II.

When Richard II was forced to abdicate the throne on September 29, 1399, Henry was next in line to the throne according to Edward III’s entailment of 1376. That entailment clearly reflects the operation of agnatic primogeniture, also known as the Salic law. At this time, it was by no means a settled custom for the daughter of a king to supersede the brothers of that king in the line of succession to the throne.

Indeed, it was not an established belief that women could inherit the throne at all by right: the only previous instance of succession passing through a woman had been that which involved the Empress Matilda, and this had involved protracted civil war, with the other protagonist being the son of Matilda’s father’s sister (not his brother). Yet, the heir of the royal estate according to common law (by which the houses and tenancies of common people like peasants and tradesmen passed) was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, who descended from the daughter of Edward III’s third son (second to survive to adulthood), Lionel of Antwerp. Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s fourth son and the third to survive to adulthood. The problem was solved by emphasising Henry’s descent in a direct male line, whereas March’s descent was through his grandmother.

The official account of events claims that Richard II voluntarily agreed to resign his crown to Henry on September 29. The country had rallied behind Henry and supported his claim in parliament. However, the question of the succession never went away. The problem lay in the fact that Henry was only the most prominent male heir, but not the most senior in terms of agnatic descent from Edward III.

Although he was heir to the throne according to Edward III’s entail to the crown of 1376, Dr. Ian Mortimer has pointed out in his 2008 biography of Henry IV that this entail had probably been supplanted by an entail made by Richard II in 1399 (see Ian Mortimer, The Fears of Henry IV, appendix two, pp. 366–9). Henry thus had to overcome the superior claim of the Mortimers in order to maintain his inheritance.

This difficulty compounded when the Mortimer claim was merged with the Yorkist claim in the person of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York. The Duke of York was the heir-generalof Edward III, and the heir presumptive (due to agnatic descent, the same principle by which Henry IV claimed the throne in 1399) of Henry’s grandson Henry VI (since Henry IV’s other sons did not have male heirs, and the legitimated Beauforts were excluded from the throne). The House of Lancaster was finally deposed by Edward IV, son of Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York, during the Wars of the Roses.

Henry avoided the problem of Mortimer having a superior claim by ignoring his own descent from Edward III. He claimed the throne as the right heir to King Henry III by claiming that Edmund Crouchback was the elder and not the younger son of King Henry. He asserted that every monarch from Edward I was a usurper, and he, as his mother Blanche of Lancaster was a great-granddaughter of Edmund, was the rightful king. Henry also claimed to be King of France, but Henry III had no hereditary claim to that throne.

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.

Was Lady Jane Grey a legitimate Queen of England and Ireland?

Tags

Catherine of Aragon, Felipe II of Spain, King Henry VIII of England, Lady Jane Grey, Queen Mary I of England, Roman Catholic Church, Third Succession Act, Treason Act, Usurper, Wyatt’s Rebellion

When reading the lists of the Kings and Queens of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom, there can be discrepancies regarding the reign of Lady Jane Grey; some will list her as a legitimate Queen of England and some will not.

The question I am examining is whether or not Lady Jane Grey can be considered a legitimate Queen of England and Ireland or should she be considered a usurper? The issue at hand is there is no authoritative body to judge either the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Jane’s 9 day reign. Therefore it is open to interpretation and historians have been debating this for many, many years.

I am just another voice in this chorus of historians debating this issue. I will state my case in this post to why I don’t believe that Jane Grey was the legal successor to King Edward VI.

Lady Jane Grey

My basic foundational premise is that England was and is a Kingdom ruled by laws and it is upon the interpretation of the laws and statutes in effect at the time of Edward VI’s death which forms my opinion on the legitimacy of Janes position as Queen.

When Edward VI died on July 6, 1553 at the age of 15 the Third Act of Succession was still the law of the land, and so was the 1547 Act of Treason. This means that both Mary and Elizabeth were still the legal heirs to their brother Edward.

The motive for Edward VI’s attempt at altering the succession was that the king’s death and the succession of his Catholic half-sister Mary would jeopardise the English Reformation, and Edward’s Council and officers had many reasons to fear it. Edward himself opposed Mary’s succession, not only on religious grounds but also on those of legitimacy and male inheritance, which also applied to his sister Elizabeth. Edward VI composed a draft document, headed “My devise for the succession”, in which he undertook to change the succession, most probably inspired by his father Henry VIII’s precedent. The provisions to alter the succession directly contravened Henry VIII’s Third Succession Act of 1543 and have been described as bizarre and illogical.

In early June of 1553 Edward VI personally supervised the drafting of a clean version of his devise (his Will altering the succession) by lawyers, to which he lent his signature “in six several places.” Then, on June 15, he summoned high ranking judges to his sickbed, commanding them on their allegiance “with sharp words and angry countenance” to prepare his devise as Letters Patent and announced that he would have these passed in Parliament.

However, before his Letters Patent could be passed by Parliament and receive the Royal assent, Edward died. Edward’s failure to have his Letters Patent passed by an Act of Parliament meant that The Treason Act, which made it high treason to change the line of succession to the throne, and the Third Act of Succession, we’re still the law of the land. Of course as king, Edward VI could have had both the Third Act of Succession and the Treason Act replaced with new laws, but since he died prior to accomplishing that requirement that means his sister Mary was the legal Queen per the terms of the Third Succession Act.

Let me restate what these two acts were. The Third Succession Act of King Henry VIII’s reign, passed by the Parliament of England in July 1543, returned his daughters Mary and Elizabeth to the line of the succession behind their half-brother Edward.

Edward VI, of England and Ireland

The Act was formally titled the Succession to the Crown Act 35 Hen. 8 c.1, and is also known as the Act of Succession 1543. The royal assent was given to this bill in the spring of 1544 at the conclusion of the 1543/1544 Parliament, but until 1793 acts were usually backdated to the beginning of the session of Parliament in which they were passed. (The Act is also often dated 1544.)

The Treason Act 1547 made it high treason to interrupt the line of succession to the throne established by the Act of Succession. Edward VI meant to bypass this Act in his “Devise for the Succession”, issued as Letters Patent on June 21, 1553, in which he named Lady Jane Grey as his successor. Prevailing over Lady Jane Grey, Mary ascended the throne under the terms of the Third Succession Act.

There is an interesting issue that the Third Act of Succession and the Treason Act 1547 did restore Mary and Elizabeth’s succession right but they did not restore their legitimacy.

The Third Succession Act superseded the First Succession Act (1533) and the Second Succession Act (1536), whose effects had been to declare bastards Henry’s daughters Mary and Elizabeth, and to remove them from succession to the throne. This new act returned both Mary and Elizabeth to the line of succession behind Edward, any potential children of Edward, and any potential children of Henry by his then wife, Catherine Parr, or any future wife Henry might have.

Mary I, Queen of England and Ireland

With the 1536 Act, Mary and Elizabeth, who had both been declared illegitimate and incapable to inherit, expressly remained illegitimate in the 1543/44 Act; they were only capacitated to succeed to the Crown (with several provisos, such as they could not marry without the Privy Council’s approval). This meant that the place in the succession of Mary and Elizabeth remained doubtful. Henry’s actual will (1547) simply confirmed their position as outlined in the 1543/44 statute.

Therefore Mary and Elizabeth’s right to accede to the throne is accepted by most as fact, but actually, this could be disputed. Under English law at this time, only legitimate children could inherit the throne. Mary had been declared illegitimate by her father Henry VIII after he proclaimed his marriage to Mary’s mother, Katherine of Aragon, invalid. Likewise, Elizabeth Tudor, half-sister to Edward and Mary, had also been declared illegitimate after Henry VIII declared that his marriage to her mother, Anne Boleyn, had also been invalid.

However, this all seems like a moot point in 1553. For after Mary entered London and Jane was arrested, Parliament declared Mary the rightful successor and denounced and revoked Jane’s proclamation as Queen of England and labeled her position as that of a usurper. In my view this Act of Parliament along with the fact that Edward never legalized his Letters Patent through an Act of Parliament is enough reason to view Jane as not the legitimate successor to Edward VI but as a usurper…albeit a puppet or pawn of those using her.

Also the question of Mary’s legitimacy is another moot point as evidenced by her Spanish marriage.

At age 37, Mary turned her attention to finding a husband and producing an heir, which would prevent the Protestant Elizabeth (still next-in-line under the terms of Henry VIII’s will and the Act of Succession of 1544) from succeeding to the throne. Edward Courtenay and Reginald Pole were both mentioned as prospective suitors, but her cousin, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V suggested she marry his only son, Prince Felipe of Spain.

Felipe II, King of Spain

Lord Chancellor Gardiner and the House of Commons unsuccessfully petitioned her to consider marrying an Englishman, fearing that England would be relegated to a dependency of the Habsburgs. The marriage was unpopular with the English; Gardiner and his allies opposed it on the basis of patriotism, while Protestants were motivated by a fear of Catholicism. When Mary insisted on marrying Felipe, insurrections broke out. Thomas Wyatt the younger led a force from Kent to depose Mary in favour of Elizabeth, as part of a wider conspiracy now known as Wyatt’s rebellion, which also involved the Duke of Suffolk, the father of Lady Jane. This rebellion sealed the fate of Lady Jane and her husband.

Mary declared publicly that she would summon Parliament to discuss the marriage, and if Parliament decided that the marriage was not to the advantage of the kingdom, she would refrain from pursuing it. After The Act for the Marriage of Queen Mary to Felipe of Spain or Queen Mary’s Marriage Act (1 Mar. Sess. 3 c. 2) was passed by the Parliament of England in April 1554, their wedding at Winchester Cathedral on July 25, 1554 took place just two days after their first meeting. Felipe could not speak English, and so they spoke in a mixture of Spanish, French, and Latin.

My point in stating the history of her marriage suggests that the Spanish Government, along with Emperor Charles V and Felipe of Spain, did not view her as illegitimate. Indeed, being a strongly Catholic country all involved would not have sanctioned such a union if Mary carried the taint of illegitimacy. Further, now enthroned as Queen this did place the Catholic Church back in power in England and according to the Church Mary was legitimate as the legal offspring of King Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon and never recognized their divorce and Mary being a bastard.

Jane Grey is seen as a tragic figure and she certainly was. “The traitor-heroine of the Reformation”, as historian Albert Pollard called her, was only 16 or 17 years old at the time of her execution. During and in the aftermath of the Marian persecutions, Jane became viewed as a Protestant martyr for centuries, featuring prominently in the several editions of the Book of Martyrs (Actes and Monuments of these Latter and Perillous Dayes) by John Foxe.

Incidentally, There is no proven contemporary portrait of Lady Jane Grey that survives.

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.”