Was He A Usurper? King Edward IV of England. Part I.

Tags

5th Earl of March, Anne Mortimer, Edmund Mortimer, House of Lancaster, House of York, Joan of Kent, King Edward IV of England and Lord of Ireland, King Henry IV of England, King Henry V of England, King Henry VI of England, King Richard II of England, Usurper, Wars of the Roses

With the usurpation of the throne of England by Henry Bolingbroke as King Henry IV of England and Lord of Ireland this event brought instability to the Monarchy and planted the seeds for further usurpations during the period of the Wars of the Roses.

To get to the reign of King Edward IV of England we need to examine the complex genealogy of the descendants of King Edward III of England and the ancestry of King Edward IV.

The heir presumptive to childless King Richard II of England was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, a great-grandson of King Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence.

Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March

Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, was born at New Forest, Westmeath, one of his family’s Irish estates, on November 6, 1391, the son of Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March, and Eleanor Holland. He had a younger brother, Roger (1393 – c. 1413), and two sisters: Anne Mortimer; and Eleanor, who married Sir Edward de Courtenay (d. 1418), and had no issue.

Edmund Mortimer’s mother was Alianore Holland, born October 13, 1370 in Upholland, Lancashire, as the eldest child of Thomas Holland, 2nd Earl of Kent, and Lady Alice FitzAlan, who herself was the daughter of Richard de Arundel, 10th Earl of Arundel, and his second wife, Eleanor of Lancaster, daughter of Henry, 3rd Earl of Lancaster, grandson of King Henry III.

Alianore Holland’s paternal grandparents were Thomas Holland, 1st Earl of Kent, and Joan of Kent, mother of King Richard II by her third marriage to Edward, the Black Prince. As such, Alianore’s father was a maternal half-brother to King Richard II.

Incidentally, Joan of Kent, was the daughter of Edmund of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Kent (1301-1330), by his wife, Margaret Wake, 3rd Baroness Wake of Liddell. Edmund of Woodstock was the sixth son of King Edward I of England by his second wife, Margaret of France, daughter of King Philippe III of France.

Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March was thus a descendant of King Henry III and King Edward I and a half-great-nephew of Richard II through his mother, and more importantly a direct descendant of King Edward III through his paternal grandmother Philippa of Clarence, the only child of King Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence.

Because King Richard II had no issue, initially Edmund’s father, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March, was heir presumptive during his lifetime, and at his death in Ireland on July 20, 1398 his claim to the throne passed to his eldest son, Edmund, 5th Earl of March.

Thus in terms of male primogeniture, Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March was heir to the throne over and above the House of Lancaster, including the children of Edward III’s third son John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster.

However, on September 30, 1399, when Edmund Mortimer was not yet eight years of age, his fortunes changed entirely. King Richard II was deposed by Henry Bolingbroke, the new Duke of Lancaster, who became King Henry IV and had his own son, the future King Henry V, recognized as heir apparent at his first Parliament.

The King put the young Edmund, 5th Earl of March and his brother Roger into the custody of Sir Hugh Waterton at Windsor and Berkhamsted castles, but they were treated honourably, and for part of the time brought up with the King Henry IV’s own children, John and Philippa.

The White Rose, Symbol of the House of York

Edmund Mortimer’s claim to the throne was the basis of rebellions and plots against Henry IV and his son Henry V, and was later taken up by the House of York in the Wars of the Roses, though Edmund Mortimer himself was an important and loyal vassal of Henry V and Henry VI.

Edmund Mortimer’s sisters, Anne and Eleanor, who were in the care of their mother until her death in 1405, were not well treated by Henry IV, and were described as ‘destitute’ after her death.

On his accession in 1413, King Henry V set Edmund Mortimer at liberty, and on April 8, 1413, the day before the new King’s coronation, Edmund Mortimer and his brother Roger were made Knights of the Bath.

King Henry V was succeeded by his nine-month-old son, King Henry VI, and on December 9, 1422 Edmund Mortimer was appointed to the Regency Council of the regency government, 1422–1437.

On May 9, 1423 he was appointed the King’s lieutenant in Ireland for nine years, but at first exercised his authority through a deputy, Edward Dantsey, Bishop of Meath, and remained in England.

However, after a violent quarrel with the King’s uncle Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and the execution of his kinsman, Sir John Mortimer, Edmund Mortimer was “sent out of the way to Ireland”. He arrived there in the autumn of 1424, and on January 18 or 19, 1425 died of plague at Trim Castle.

Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March left no issue and his nephew, Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, the eldest surviving son of his sister, Anne Mortimer and her husband, Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge, had a better claim to the throne of the English kings of the House of Lancaster.

It was her line of descent which gave the Yorkist dynasty its claim to the throne. Anne was grandmother of kings Edward IV and Richard III.

Her dynastic marriage with Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge, another descendant of King Edward III, increased her family’s claim to the throne of England. That will be addressed in the next entry.

Were They A Usurper? Henry IV of England. Conclusion

Tags

5th Earl of March, Adam of Usk, Edmund Crouchback, John of Gaunt, King Edward III, King Henry IV of England and Lord of Ireland, King Richard II of England and Lord of Ireland, Parliament, Philippa of Clarence, Roger Mortimer, Usurper

One of the initial problems King Henry IV had to face after his usurpation of the throne from King Richard II was to manufacture the illusion that his coming to the throne was lawful and legitimate.

Adam of Usk was a medieval canonist, clergyman and historian of Welsh origin who used pro-Lancastrian propaganda with bias against Richard II to justify why the throne was empty in order to promote Henry as a legitimate ruler. Usk also used the elements of Biblical prophecy and rumour to further that legitimation.

Parliament was still in its early stages of development and this body was not seen as a means to legitimize Henry’s reign. After 1399 there is no clear sign that Henry IV thought that he owed his position to a Parliament that had cooperated in the downfall of King Richard II.

King Henry IV of England and Lord of Ireland

In 1406 Parliament simply recorded the fact that the descent of the crown was now in the hands of the Lancasterian family. This recording of the was fact was not establishing the legitimacy of Henry IV’s reign it was merely establishing where the hereditary succession to the crown now resided.

Despite Henry IV not viewing his crown as coming from Parliament he did try to use that institution to his advantage. The first Parliament called during his reign found it necessary, in the best interests of the Lancastrian party, to tweak the narrative to emphasize that Richard II had renounced the crown of his own free-will. They did so quite effectively through both the Record and Process and the rolls of Parliament, which were to be taken as the official word on the matter.

King Richard II of England surrendering the Crown to Henry Bolingbroke 2nd Duke of Lancaster

However, the nature of kingship in fourteenth and fifteenth century England was viewed as sacred and in the spirit of the divine right of kings it was believed by the vast majority that who sat on the trine was ordained by God himself. This meant that Richard II most probably never ceased to believe that he was the true king and would have fought for his title, shattering the Lancastrian illusion of a voluntary abdication.

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.

The heir presumptive to King Richard II was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence.

Henry IV’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son to survive to adulthood. One way to solve the problem of Henry’s place in the succession was solved by emphasising Henry’s descent in a direct male line, whereas Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March’s descent was through his grandmother, Philippa of Clarence.

Philippa of Clarence the only child of Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence, and Elizabeth de Burgh, 4th Countess of Ulster. As mentioned her father was the third son, but second son to survive infancy, of King Edward III of England and Philippa of Hainault. She was the eldest grandchild of King Edward and Queen Philippa, her namesake.

Henry IV furthered his right to the throne in the direct male line further back in history by not just claiming his descent from John of Gaunt the third surviving son of King Edward III, Henry rather ridiculously claimed the throne as the right heir to King Henry III by direct male descent.

Henry IV claimed that Edmund Crouchback was the elder son of King Henry III and not the younger son of King Henry. He asserted that every monarch from King Edward I was a usurper, and he, as his mother Blanche of Lancaster was a great-granddaughter in the male line from Edmund Crouchback, was the rightful king.

Despite attempts to legitimize his reign through Parliament, propaganda or hereditary descent, Henry IV of England was clearly a usurper.

Were They A Usurper? King Henry IV. Part I.

Tags

1st Earl of Northumberland, Archbishop of Canterbury, Duke Lancaster, Duke of York, Edmund of England, Henry Bolingbroke, Henry Percy, House of Lancaster, John of Gaunt. King Charles VI of France, King Henry IV of England and Lord of Ireland, King Richard II of England and Lord of Ireland, Lords Appellant, Usurper

John of Gaunt, uncle of the King, occupied the role of a valued counsellor of King Richard II and loyal supporter of the Crown. He did not even protest, it seems, when his younger brother Thomas was murdered at Richard’s behest. It may be that he felt he had to maintain this posture of loyalty to protect his son, Henry Bolingbroke, who had also been one of the Lords Appellant who rebelled against the King, from Richard’s wrath.

Henry Bolingbroke experienced an inconsistent relationship with King Richard II than his father, John of Gaunt had. First cousins and childhood playmates, they were admitted together as knights of the Order of the Garter in 1377, but as mentioned, Henry participated in the Lords Appellants’ rebellion against the king in 1387.

After regaining power, Richard did not punish Henry, although he did execute or exile many of the other rebellious barons. In fact, Richard elevated Henry from Earl of Derby to Duke of Hereford.

The relationship between Henry and King Richard II met with a second crisis. In 1398, a remark regarding Richard II’s rule by Thomas de Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk, was interpreted as treason by Henry who reported it to the king.

Henry and Thomas de Mowbray 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, Richard decided to banish Henry from the kingdom (with the approval of Henry’s father, John of Gaunt) to avoid further bloodshed. Mowbray was exiled for life.

King Richard II of England and Lord of Ireland

John of Gaunt died in February 1399. Without explanation, Richard cancelled the legal documents that would have allowed Henry to inherit Gaunt’s land automatically. Instead, Henry would be required to ask for the lands from Richard.

While in exile in France, and 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. In England King Richard II went on a military campaign against Ireland.

In June 1399, Louis I, Duke of Orléans, gained control of the court of the insane Charles VI of France. The policy of rapprochement with the English crown did not suit Louis’s political ambitions, and for this reason he found it opportune to allow Henry Bolingbroke to leave France for England.

With a small group of followers, Henry Bolingbroke and Thomas Arundel, landed at Ravenspur in Yorkshire towards the end of June 1399.

With Arundel now 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 solely to reclaim his rights as Duke of Lancaster,

Men from all over the country soon rallied around him. Meeting with Henry Percy, 1st Earl of Northumberland, who had his own misgivings about the King, and Bolingbroke insisted that his only object was to regain his own patrimony.

Percy took him at his word and declined to interfere. The king had taken most of his household knights and the loyal members of his nobility with him to Ireland, so Bolingbroke experienced little resistance as he moved south.

Keeper of the Realm Edmund, Duke of York, had little choice but to side with Bolingbroke. Meanwhile, King Richard II was delayed in his return from Ireland and did not land in Wales until July 24. The King made his way to Conwy, where on August 12 he met with the Earl of Northumberland for negotiations.

On August 19 Richard surrendered to Henry Bolingbroke at Flint Castle, promising to abdicate if his life were spared. Both men then returned to London, the indignant king riding all the way behind Henry. On arrival, he was imprisoned in the Tower of London on September 1.

Henry was by now fully determined to take the throne, but presenting a rationale for this action proved a dilemma. It was argued that Richard II, through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king.

However, Henry was not next in line to the throne; the heir presumptive was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence.

Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son 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, Philippa of Clarence.

Henry Bolingbroke, Duke Lancaster and later, King Henry IV of England and Lord of Ireland

According to the official record, read by the Archbishop of Canterbury during an assembly of lords and commons at Westminster Hall on Tuesday September 30, King Richard II gave up his crown willingly and ratified his deposition citing as a reason his own unworthiness as a monarch.

On the other hand, the Traison et Mort Chronicle suggests otherwise. It describes a meeting between Richard and Henry that took place one day before the parliament’s session. The king succumbed to blind rage, ordered his own release from the Tower, called his cousin a traitor, demanded to see his wife, and swore revenge, throwing down his bonnet, while Henry refused to do anything without parliamentary approval.

When parliament met to discuss Richard’s fate, John Trevor, Bishop of St Asaph, read thirty-three articles of deposition that were unanimously accepted by lords and commons. On October 1, 1399, Richard II was formally deposed. On October 13, the feast day of Edward the Confessor, Henry Bolingbroke was crowned as King Henry IV of England and Lord of Ireland.

Henry IV’s coronation at Westminster Abbey, may have marked the first time since the Norman Conquest that the monarch made an address in English.

King Henry IV had agreed to let Richard live after his abdication. This all changed when it was revealed that the earls of Huntingdon, Kent, and Salisbury, and Lord Despenser, and possibly also the Earl of Rutland – all now demoted from the ranks they had been given by Richard – were planning to murder the new king and restore Richard in the Epiphany Rising.

Although averted, the plot highlighted the danger of allowing Richard to live. Richard is thought to have been starved to death in captivity in Pontefract Castle on or around February 14, 1400, although there is some question over the date and manner of his death. His body was taken south from Pontefract and displayed in St Paul’s Cathedral on 17 February before burial in King’s Langley Priory on March 6.

Were They A Usurper? King John. Part II.

Tags

Château de Falaise, Duke Arthur I of Brittany, Eleanor of Aquitaine, King John of England and Lord of Ireland, King Philippe II Auguste of France, King Richard I of England, Male Preferred Primogeniture, Treaty of Le Goulet, Usurper

Conquest of Cyprus

In April 1191 Richard left Messina for Acre, but a storm dispersed his large fleet. After some searching, it was discovered that the ship carrying his sister Joan and his new fiancée, Berengaria of Navarre, was anchored on the south coast of Cyprus, along with the wrecks of several other vessels, including the treasure ship. Survivors of the wrecks had been taken prisoner by the island’s ruler, Isaac Komnenos.

Before leaving Cyprus on crusade, Richard married Berengaria, the first-born daughter of King Sancho VI of Navarre. Richard first grew close to her at a tournament held in her native Navarre. The wedding was held in Limassol on May 12, 1191 at the Chapel of St George and was attended by Richard’s sister Joan, whom he had brought from Sicily. The marriage was celebrated with great pomp and splendour, many feasts and entertainments, and public parades and celebrations followed commemorating the event.

When Richard married Berengaria he was still officially betrothed to Alys, and he pushed for the match in order to obtain the Kingdom of Navarre as a fief, as Aquitaine had been for his father. Further, Eleanor championed the match, as Navarre bordered Aquitaine, thereby securing the southern border of her ancestral lands.

Richard took his new wife on crusade with him briefly, though they returned separately. Berengaria had almost as much difficulty in making the journey home as her husband did, and she did not see England until after his death. After his release from German captivity, Richard showed some regret for his earlier conduct, but he was not reunited with his wife. The marriage remained childless.

Death of the King

In March 1199, Richard was in Limousin suppressing a revolt by Viscount Aimar V of Limoges. Although it was Lent, he “devastated the Viscount’s land with fire and sword”. He besieged the tiny, virtually unarmed castle of Châlus-Chabrol. Some chroniclers claimed that this was because a local peasant had uncovered a treasure trove of Roman gold.

On March 26, 1199, Richard was hit in the shoulder by a crossbow bolt, and the wound turned gangrenous. Richard asked to have the crossbowman brought before him; called alternatively Pierre (or Peter) Basile, John Sabroz, Dudo, and Bertrand de Gourdon (from the town of Gourdon) by chroniclers, the man turned out (according to some sources, but not all) to be a boy.

He said Richard had killed his father and two brothers, and that he had killed Richard in revenge. He expected to be executed, but as a final act of mercy Richard forgave him, saying “Live on, and by my bounty behold the light of day”, before he ordered the boy to be freed and sent away with 100 shillings.

Richard died on April 6, 1199 in the arms of his mother, and thus “ended his earthly day.” Because of the nature of Richard’s death, it was later referred to as “the Lion by the Ant was slain”. According to one chronicler, Richard’s last act of chivalry proved fruitless when the infamous mercenary captain Mercadier had the boy flayed alive and hanged as soon as Richard died.

Richard produced no legitimate heirs and acknowledged only one illegitimate son, Philip of Cognac. His French territories, with the exception of Rouen, initially rejected John as a successor, preferring his nephew Arthur. The lack of any direct heirs from Richard was the first step in the dissolution of the Angevin Empire.

A Game of Thrones

After Richard’s death on April 6, 1199 there were two potential claimants to the Angevin throne: John, whose claim rested on being the sole surviving son of Henry II, and young Arthur I of Brittany, who held a claim as the son of John’s elder brother Geoffrey.

Richard appears to have started to recognise John as his heir presumptive in the final years before his death, but the matter was not clear-cut and medieval law gave little guidance as to how the competing claims should be decided.

With Norman law favouring John as the only surviving son of Henry II and Angevin law favouring Arthur as the only son of Henry’s elder son, the matter rapidly became an open conflict.

John immediately claimed the throne of England, but much of the French nobility were resentful at recognising him as their overlord. They preferred Arthur, who declared himself vassal of Philippe II Auguste of France.

John was supported by the bulk of the English and Norman nobility and was crowned at Westminster Abbey, backed by his mother, Eleanor. Arthur was supported by the majority of the Breton, Maine and Anjou nobles and received the support of Philippe II Auguste, who remained committed to breaking up the Angevin territories on the continent.

With Arthur’s army pressing up the Loire Valley towards Angers and Philip’s forces moving down the valley towards Tours, John’s continental empire was in danger of being cut in two.

Philippe II Auguste recognised Arthur’s right to Anjou, Maine, and Poitou. From April 8, Arthur he styled himself as Duke of Brittany, Count of Anjou and Earl of Richmond.

Treaty of Le Goulet

The Treaty of Le Goulet was signed by the kings John of England and Philippe II Auguste of France in May 1200 and meant to settle once and for all the claims the Norman kings of England had as Norman dukes on French lands, including, at least for a time, Brittany.

Under the terms of the treaty, Philippe II Auguste recognised John as King of England as heir of his brother Richard I and thus formally abandoned any support for Arthur. John, meanwhile, recognised Philippe II Auguste as the suzerain of continental possessions of the Angevin Empire.

After the signing of the Treaty of Le Goulet, and feeling offended by Philippe II Auguste, Arthur fled to John, his uncle, and was treated kindly, at least initially. However, he later became suspicious of John and fled back to Angers. Some unidentified source said that in April 1202, Arthur was again betrothed, this time to Marie of France, a daughter of Philippe II Auguste and Agnes of Andechs-Merania.

After his return to France, and with the support of Philippe II Auguste, Arthur embarked on a campaign in Normandy against John in 1202. Poitou revolted in support of Arthur. Arthur, Duke of Brittany besieged his grandmother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, John’s mother, in the Château de Mirebeau.

John marched on Mirebeau, taking Arthur by surprise on July 31, 1202. Arthur was captured by John’s barons on August 1, and imprisoned in the Château de Falaise in Falaise, Normandy.

Imprisonment and disappearance

Arthur was guarded by Hubert de Burgh at the Chateau de Falaise. According to contemporaneous chronicler Ralph of Coggeshall, John ordered two of his servants to blind and castrate the duke. De Burgh could not bring himself to let Arthur be mutilated.

Fearful of John, de Burgh leaked news that Arthur had died of natural causes. This news infuriated Brittany, who suspected that Arthur had been murdered. The following year Arthur was transferred to Rouen, under the charge of William de Braose. Arthur vanished in April 1203, in the background of several military victories by Philippe II Auguste of France against King John.

Arthur’s disappearance gave rise to various stories. One account was that Arthur’s gaolers feared to harm him, and so he was murdered by John directly and his body dumped in the Seine.

William de Braose is also rumoured to have murdered Arthur. After the young man’s disappearance, he rose high in John’s favour receiving new lands and titles in the Welsh Marches. Many years after Arthur’s disappearance, and just prior to a conflict with King John, de Braose’s wife Maud de Braose accused the king of murdering Arthur.

Not only the Bretons, but even Philippe II Auguste were ignorant of what actually happened, and whether Arthur was alive or dead. Whatever his fate, Arthur left no known issue. William promised to direct the attack of Mirebeau on condition he was consulted on the fate of Arthur, but John broke the promise, causing him to leave John along with Aimeri of Thouars and siege Angers.

Nothing is recorded of Arthur after his incarceration in Rouen Castle in 1203, and while his precise fate is unknown, it is generally believed he was killed by John.

Assessment: I do not consider King John a usurper. Male preferred primogeniture was still developing and the fact is the monarch did have the power to name thier successor. King Richard I did at one point proclaim his nephew Arthur as his heir but in later years he changed his mind and supported his brother John as his heir. With Richard naming his brother as his heir John did become the legal King of England upon the death of his brother.

Where They A Usurper? King Stephen. Part III

Tags

Empress Matilda, Geoffrey of Anjou, Henry of Huntingdon, King Henry I of England, King Stephen of England, Robert of Gloucester, Stephen of Blois, The Anarchy, Theobald of Blois, Usurper, Westminster Abbey

From the Emperor’s Desk: I couldn’t find any contemporary portrait of King Stephen that I liked so I’m using shots of King Stephen from the TV mini series “Pillars of the Earth” which I highly recommend!

Relations among King Henry, Empress Matilda, and Geoffrey became increasingly strained during the King’s final years. Matilda and Geoffrey suspected that they lacked genuine support in England. In 1135 they urged Henry to hand over the royal castles in Normandy to Matilda whilst he was still alive, and insisted that the Norman nobility swear immediate allegiance to her, thereby giving the couple a more powerful position after Henry’s death.

Henry angrily declined to do so, probably out of concern that Geoffrey would try to seize power in Normandy. A fresh rebellion broke out amongst the barons in southern Normandy, led by William III, Count of Ponthieu, whereupon Geoffrey and Matilda intervened in support of the rebels.

Henry campaigned throughout the autumn, strengthening the southern frontier, and then travelled to Lyons-la-Forêt in November to enjoy some hunting, still apparently healthy. There he fell ill – according to the chronicler Henry of Huntingdon, he ate too many (“a surfeit of”) lampreys against his physician’s advice – and his condition worsened over the course of a week.

Once the condition appeared terminal, Henry gave confession and summoned Archbishop Hugh of Amiens, who was joined by Robert of Gloucester and other members of the court. In accordance with custom, preparations were made to settle Henry’s outstanding debts and to revoke outstanding sentences of forfeiture.

The King died on December 1, 1135, and his corpse was taken to Rouen accompanied by the barons, where it was embalmed; his entrails were buried locally at the priory of Notre-Dame du Pré, and the preserved body was taken on to England, where it was interred at Reading Abbey.

When news began to spread of Henry I’s death, many of the potential claimants to the throne were not well placed to respond. Geoffrey and Matilda were in Anjou, rather awkwardly supporting the rebels in their campaign against the royal army, which included a number of Matilda’s supporters such as Robert of Gloucester.

Many of these barons had taken an oath to stay in Normandy until the late King was properly buried, which prevented them from returning to England. Stephen’s elder brother Theobald was further south still, in Blois. Stephen, however, was in Boulogne, and when news reached him of Henry’s death he left for England, accompanied by his military household.

Robert of Gloucester had garrisoned the ports of Dover and Canterbury and some accounts suggest that they refused Stephen access when he first arrived. Nonetheless, Stephen probably reached his own estate on the edge of London by December 8 and over the next week he began to seize power in England.

On December 15, Henry of Huntingdon delivered an agreement under which Stephen would grant extensive freedoms and liberties to the church, in exchange for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Papal Legate supporting his succession to the throne. There was the slight problem of the religious oath that Stephen had taken to support the Empress Matilda, but Henry of Huntingdon convincingly argued that the late King Henry had been wrong to insist that his court take the oath.

Furthermore, the late King had only insisted on that oath to protect the stability of the kingdom, and in light of the chaos that might now ensue, Stephen would be justified in ignoring it. Henry of Huntingdon was also able to persuade Hugh Bigod, the late King’s royal steward, to swear that the King had changed his mind about the succession on his deathbed, nominating Stephen instead.

Meanwhile, the Norman nobility gathered at Le Neubourg to discuss declaring Theobald king, probably following the news that Stephen was gathering support in England. The Normans argued that the count, as the more senior grandson of William the Conqueror, had the most valid claim over the kingdom and the duchy, and was certainly preferable to Empress Matilda.

Theobald met with the Norman barons and Robert of Gloucester at Lisieux on December 21. Their discussions were interrupted by the sudden news from England that Stephen’s coronation was to occur the next day.

Theobald then agreed to the Normans’ proposal that he be made king, only to find that his former support immediately ebbed away: the barons were not prepared to support the division of England and Normandy by opposing Stephen, who subsequently financially compensated Theobald, who in return remained in Blois and supported his brother’s succession.

The crowds in London proclaimed Stephen the new monarch, believing that he would grant the city new rights and privileges in return. Henry of Blois delivered the support of the church to Stephen: Stephen was able to advance to Winchester, where Roger, Bishop of Salisbury and Lord Chancellor, instructed the royal treasury to be handed over to Stephen.

Stephen’s coronation was held a week later at Westminster Abbey on December 22.

Assessment: Stephen of Blois was clearly a usurper. King Henry I designated the English throne to his only surviving legitimate child, Empress Matilda. Barrons and other nobles swore an oath of allegiance to the Empress Matilda which they renounced upon the death of King Henry. Ignoring thier oaths, the nobility supported Stephen in the battle for the crown.

Where They A Usurper? King Stephen. Part II

Tags

Henry I of England, Henry of Blois, Holy Roman Emperor Heinrich V, Louis VI of the Franks, Matilda of England, Stephen of Blois, Theobald of Blois, Usurper

Planning the succession, 1125–1134

Henry and Adeliza did not conceive any children, generating prurient speculation as to the possible explanation, and the future of the dynasty appeared at risk. Henry may have begun to look among his nephews for a possible heir.

He may have considered Stephen of Blois as a possible option and, perhaps in preparation for this, he arranged a beneficial marriage for Stephen to a wealthy heiress, Matilda.

Theobald of Blois, his close ally, may have also felt that he was in favour with Henry. William Clito, who was King Louis VI’s preferred choice, remained opposed to Henry and was therefore unsuitable. Henry may have also considered his own illegitimate son, Robert of Gloucester, as a possible candidate, but English tradition and custom would have looked unfavourably on this.

Henry’s plans shifted when the Empress Matilda’s husband, the Holy Roman Emperor Heinrich V died in 1125. The King recalled his daughter to England the next year and declared that, should he die without a male heir, she was to be his rightful successor.

The Anglo-Norman barons were gathered together at Westminster at Christmas 1126, where they swore to recognise Matilda and any future legitimate heir she might have. Putting forward a woman as a potential heir in this way was unusual: opposition to Matilda continued to exist within the English court, and Louis was vehemently opposed to her candidacy.

Medieval chroniclers’ accounts of this oath vary on the points of detail. William of Malmesbury described that those present recognised Matilda as the legitimate heir on the basis of her paternal and maternal royal descent; John of Worcester described the inheritance of England as being conditional on Matilda having a legitimate male heir; the Anglo-Saxon chronicle suggested that an oath was given concerning the inheritance of both England and Normandy; neither Orderic nor Henry of Huntingdon recorded the event at all.

Some chronicler accounts may have been influenced by Stephen’s acquisition of the throne in 1135 and the later events of the Anarchy.

Fresh conflict broke out in 1127, when the childless Charles I, Count of Flanders, was murdered, creating a local succession crisis. Backed by King Louis VI, William Clito was chosen by the Flemings to become their new ruler.

This development potentially threatened Normandy, and Henry began to finance a proxy war in Flanders, promoting the claims of William Clito’s Flemish rivals. In an effort to disrupt the French alliance with William, Henry mounted an attack into France in 1128, forcing Louis VI to cut his aid to William Clito.

William Clito died unexpectedly in July, removing the last major challenger to Henry’s rule and bringing the war in Flanders to a halt. Without William Clito the baronial opposition in Normandy lacked a leader. A fresh peace was made with France, and Henry was finally able to release the remaining prisoners from the revolt of 1123, including Waleran of Meulan, who was rehabilitated into the royal court.

Meanwhile, Henry rebuilt his alliance with Fulk of Anjou, this time by marrying Matilda to Fulk’s eldest son, Geoffrey. The pair were betrothed in 1127 and married the following year. It is unknown whether Henry intended Geoffrey to have any future claim on England or Normandy, and he was probably keeping his son-in-law’s status deliberately uncertain.

Similarly, although Matilda was granted a number of Normandy castles as part of her dowry, it was not specified when the couple would actually take possession of them. Fulk left Anjou for Jerusalem in 1129, declaring Geoffrey the Count of Anjou and Maine.

The marriage proved difficult, as the couple did not particularly like each other and the disputed castles proved a point of contention, resulting in Matilda returning to Normandy later that year. Henry appears to have blamed Geoffrey for the separation, but in 1131 the couple were reconciled. Much to the pleasure and relief of Henry, Matilda then gave birth to a sequence of two sons, Henry and Geoffrey, in 1133 and 1134.

We’re They A Usurper? King Stephen. Part I.

Tags

Amaury de Montfort, Empress Matilda, Fulk of Anjou, King Henry I of England, King Stephen of England, The White Ship, Usurper, William Adelin, William Clito

From the Emperor’s Desk: The succession of King Stephen of England will take several entries to tell the complete history.

Henry I of England’s succession plans were thrown into chaos by the sinking of the White Ship on November 25, 1120. Henry had left the port of Barfleur for England in the early evening, leaving his eldest son and heir, William Adelin, and many of the younger members of the court to follow on that night in a separate vessel, the White Ship.

William and his party had remained drinking on the shore until after dark, confident that in a fast ship and on the still sea the delay would have no real effect. Consequently, it was the middle of the night when the drunken helmsman rammed the ship into a rock in the bay.

The crew and passengers could not lever the ship off the rock, or prevent the ship from filling with water.

Henry I, King of the English

William Adelin got into a small boat and could have escaped but turned back to try to rescue his half-sister, Matilda, when he heard her cries for help. His boat was swamped by others trying to save themselves, and William drowned along with them.

According to Orderic Vitalis, Berold (Beroldus or Berout), a butcher from Rouen, was the sole survivor of the shipwreck by clinging to the rock. The chronicler further wrote that when Thomas FitzStephen came to the surface after the sinking and learned that William Adelin had not survived, he let himself drown rather than face the king.

Henry of Huntingdon, speaking of the disaster, wrote that William, “instead of wearing embroidered robes…floated naked in the waves, and instead of ascending a lofty throne…found his grave at the bottom of the sea.” William’s wife, Matilda, was on another ship at the time of the wreck.

When the ship sank, as many as 300 people were killed, with only one survivor, a butcher from Rouen. Henry’s court was initially too scared to report William’s death to the King. When he was finally told, he collapsed with grief.

The disaster left Henry with no legitimate son, his various nephews now the closest possible male heirs. Henry announced he would take a new wife, Adeliza of Louvain, opening up the prospect of a new royal son, and the two were married at Windsor Castle in January 1121.

Henry appears to have chosen her because she was attractive and came from a prestigious noble line. Adeliza seems to have been fond of Henry and joined him in his travels, probably to maximise the chances of her conceiving a child.

The White Ship disaster initiated fresh conflict in Wales, where the drowning of Richard, 1st Earl of Chester, encouraged a rebellion led by Maredudd ap Bleddyn. Henry intervened in North Wales that summer with an army and, although he was hit by a Welsh arrow, the campaign reaffirmed royal power across the region.

Henry’s alliance with Anjou – which had been based on his son William marrying Fulk’s daughter Matilda – began to disintegrate. Fulk returned from the Levant and demanded that Henry return Matilda and her dowry, a range of estates and fortifications in Maine.

Matilda left for Anjou, but Henry argued that the dowry had in fact originally belonged to him before it came into the possession of Fulk, and so declined to hand the estates back to Anjou.

Fulk married his daughter Sibylla to William Clito, and granted them Maine. Once again, conflict broke out, as Amaury de Montfort allied himself with Fulk and led a revolt along the Norman-Anjou border in 1123. Amaury was joined by several other Norman barons, headed by Waleran de Beaumont, one of the sons of Henry’s old ally, Robert of Meulan.

Were They A Usurper? King Henry I.

Tags

Duke of Normandy, King Henri I of the Franks, King Henry I of England, King of the English, King Robért II of the Franks, King’s Council, Porphyrogeniture, Primogeniture, Ranulf Flambard, Robert Curthose, Siege of Mantes, The New Forrest, The Rebellion, Usurper, Walter Tirel, Westminster Abbey, William Rufus, William the Conqueror

From the Emperor’s Desk: When making out my list of English/British monarchs that may have been a usurper I overlooked King Henry I.

The succession of Henry I as King of the English is an interesting case. When his father, William I the Conqueror, became King he dissolved the Witan and replaced it with the King’s Council but also he held the authority to name his own successor.

In 1087, William I the Conqueror died of wounds suffered from a riding accident during a siege of Mantes. At his death he reportedly wanted to disinherit his eldest son Robert Curthose, but was persuaded to divide the Norman dominions between his two eldest sons.

To Robert he granted the Duchy of Normandy and to William Rufus he granted the Kingdom of England. The youngest son Henry was given money to buy land.

Robert II, Duke of Normandy

Of the two elder sons Robert was considered to be much weaker of the royal brothers and was generally preferred by the nobles who held lands on both sides of the English Channel since they could more easily circumvent his authority.

At the time of their father’s death the two brothers made an agreement to be each other’s heir. However, this peace lasted less than a year when barons joined with Robert to displace William Rufus in the Rebellion of 1088. It was not a success, in part because Robert never showed up to support the English rebels.

Robert took as his close adviser Ranulf Flambard, who had been previously a close adviser to his father. Flambard later became an astute but much-disliked financial adviser to William Rufus until the latter’s death in 1100.

In 1096, Robert formed an army and left for the Holy Land on the First Crusade. At the time of his departure he was reportedly so poor that he often had to stay in bed for lack of clothes. To raise money for the crusade he mortgaged his duchy to his brother William Rufus for the sum of 10,000 marks.

Background on Henry

Henry was probably born in England in 1068, in either the summer or the last weeks of the year, possibly in the town of Selby in Yorkshire. His father’s invasion of England had created an Anglo-Norman ruling class, many with estates on both sides of the English Channel.

These Anglo-Norman barons typically had close links to the Kingdom of France, which was then a loose collection of counties and smaller polities, under only the nominal control of the king. Henry’s mother, Matilda of Flanders, was the granddaughter of King Robért II of the Franks, and she probably named Henry after her uncle, King Henri I of the Franks.

Henry physically he resembled his older brothers Robert Curthose, Richard and William Rufus, being, as historian David Carpenter describes, “short, stocky and barrel-chested,” with black hair.

Henry I, King of the English

As a result of their age differences and Richard’s early death, Henry would have probably seen relatively little of his older brothers. He probably knew his sister Adela well, as the two were close in age.

There is little documentary evidence for his early years; historians Warren Hollister and Kathleen Thompson suggest he was brought up predominantly in England, while Judith Green argues he was initially brought up in the Duchy.

He was probably educated by the Church, possibly by Bishop Osmund, the King’s chancellor, at Salisbury Cathedral; it is uncertain if this indicated an intent by his parents for Henry to become a member of the clergy.

It is also uncertain how far Henry’s education extended, but he was probably able to read Latin and had some background in the liberal arts. He was given military training by an instructor called Robert Achard, and Henry was knighted by his father on May 24, 1086.

Death of William II

On the afternoon of August 2, 1100, King William Rufus went hunting in the New Forest, accompanied by a team of huntsmen and a number of the Norman nobility, including his brother Henry. An arrow, possibly shot by the baron Walter Tirel, hit and killed William Rufus.

Numerous conspiracy theories have been put forward suggesting that the King was killed deliberately; most modern historians reject these, as hunting was a risky activity, and such accidents were common. Chaos broke out, and Tirel fled the scene for France, either because he had shot the fatal arrow, or because he had been incorrectly accused and feared that he would be made a scapegoat for the King’s death.

Henry rode to Winchester, where an argument ensued as to who now had the best claim to the throne. William of Breteuil championed the rights of Robert, who was still abroad, returning from the Crusade, and to whom Henry and the barons had given homage in previous years.

Henry argued that, unlike Robert, he had been born to a reigning king and queen, thereby giving him a claim under the right of porphyrogeniture.

Let me explain the difference between porphyrogeniture and primogeniture.

Porphyrogeniture is the principle of royal succession in which the first son born after his father’s accession to the throne has the first claim, even if he has older brothers who were born before the father’s accession to the crown.

Primogeniture is the state of being the firstborn of the children of the same parents, and it is also the principle that the eldest child has an exclusive right of inheritance.

Tempers flared, but Henry, supported by Henry de Beaumont and Robert of Meulan, held sway and persuaded the barons to follow him. He occupied Winchester Castle and seized the royal treasury.

Henry was hastily crowned king in Westminster Abbey on August 5 by Maurice, the bishop of London, as Anselm, the archbishop of Canterbury, had been exiled by William Rufus, and Thomas, the archbishop of York, was in the north of England at Ripon. In accordance with English tradition and in a bid to legitimise his rule, Henry issued a coronation charter laying out various commitments.

The new king presented himself as having restored order to a trouble-torn country. He announced that he would abandon William Rufus’s policies towards the Church, which had been seen as oppressive by the clergy; he promised to prevent royal abuses of the barons’ property rights, and assured a return to the gentler customs of Edward the Confessor; he asserted that he would “establish a firm peace” across England and ordered “that this peace shall henceforth be kept”.

When William II died on August 2, 1100, Robert was on his return journey from the Crusade and was about to marry a wealthy young bride to raise funds to buy back his duchy.

Upon his return, Robert—urged by Flambard and several Anglo-Norman barons—claimed the English crown, on the basis of the short-lived agreement of 1087, and in 1101 led an invasion to oust his brother Henry.

Robert landed at Portsmouth with his army, but the lack of popular support among the English (Anselm, the archbishop of Canterbury, was decidedly against him and the Charter of Liberties issued at Henry’s coronation was well liked) as well as Robert’s own mishandling of the invasion tactics enabled Henry to resist the invasion.

Robert was forced by diplomacy to renounce his claim to the English throne in the Treaty of Alton. It is said that Robert was a brilliant field commander but a terrible strategist in the First Crusade.

Assessment

The succession of Henry Beauclerc onto the English throne creates some interesting challenges.

When his father William I the Conqueror became King he abolished the Witan who previously had the right to elect the next King. As we have seen William the Conqueror named his successor to both Normandy and England.

Robert Curthose received the Duchy of Normandy and William Rufus received England. William Rufus never married and therefore never had direct heirs. He also never officially named his successor, although Robert and William did make an agreement to be each other’s heir. As mentioned, this agreement lasted less than a year when barons joined with Robert to displace William Rufus in the Rebellion of 1088.

Therefore, when William Rufus was killed in the hunting accident in the New Forrest legal succession was up in the air. Robert claimed the throne by right of Primogeniture while Henry claimed the throne by right of Porphyrogeniture.

Both Princes had a legal claim to the throne but without a clear heir being named by William Rufus and no law regarding which Prince was the lawful heir, the crown was truly up for grabs.

I believe Henry realized this dilemma and took advantage of Robert’s absence from the Kingdom and seized the crown for himself.

It is easy to think of Henry as a usurper because in our modern sense of hereditary succession based on Primogeniture, Henry, as the younger brother would mean Robert Curthose had the better claim.

However, I think it’s important to realize that at this moment in history the laws governing the succession to the throne were somewhat not clearly defined and the concept of Male Preferred Primogeniture was still in its infancy.

I don’t believe, therefore, that Henry was a usurper given the state of the laws governing the succession at the time. Henry had as much of a valid claim as his brother and was simply in the right place at the right time and took the crown making him the legal successor.

Where They A Usurper?: A New Series

Tags

Hereditary Succession, King Edward IV, King Henry IV, King Henry VII, King John, King Richard III, King Stephen of England, King William III, Lady Jane Grey, The Witan, The Witenagemot, Usurper, William the Conqueror

One aspect of the British Monarchy is hereditary succession. However, that is not the only rule governing the succession to the crown. There are laws controlling who can legally inherit the throne.

I often will see people claim that some descendant of either a King of England or a scion of the royal family is the rightful monarch of England or the United Kingdom due to hereditary succession. These claims mistakenly believe that hereditary descent is the main issue controlling the succession to the crown.

His Majesty, the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In the beginning of the monarchy, in the times of the Anglo-Saxon period prior to the Norman Conquest, the throne was elective. Succession was governed by the Witan.

The Witan (lit. ’wise men’) was the king’s council in Anglo-Saxon England from before the seventh century until the 11th century. It was composed of the leading magnates, both ecclesiastic and secular, and meetings of the council were sometimes called the Witenagemot.

Its primary function was to advise the king on subjects such as promulgation of laws, judicial judgments, approval of charters transferring land, settlement of disputes, election of archbishops and bishops and other matters of major national importance. The witan also had to elect and approve the appointment of a new king. Its membership was composed of the most important noblemen, including ealdormen, thegns, and senior clergy.

After the Witan was abolished by William the Conqueror succession was at first in the hands of the sovereign but eventually evolved into hereditary succession. Even when the succession became hereditary laws governing the succession also evolved.

Crown of St Edward

This leads me to the next series I will examine. Where they a usurper? There were monarchs of England that may not have actually held the throne legally and were therefore usurpers to the crown.

Below are listed 9 people that claimed the throne and I will examine whether or not they were legally on the throne or were they a usurper?

William I the Conqueror, King of the English and Duke of Normandy

Stephen, King of the English, Count of Blois

John, King of England and Lord of Ireland

Henry IV, King of England and Lord of Ireland

Edward IV, King of England and Lord of Ireland

Richard III, King of England and Lord of Ireland

Henry VII, King of England and Lord of Ireland

Lady Jane Grey

William III, King of England, Scotland and Ireland

Pretenders to the French Throne. Part II: The End of a Dynasty

Tags

French pretenders, House of Bourbon, July Revolution, King Charles X of France and Navarre, King Louis Philippe I of the French, King Louis XV of France and Navarre, Lieutenant général du royaume, Regent, Usurper

King Louis XV had ten legitimate children, but there were only two sons, only one of whom survived to adulthood, Louis, Dauphin of France. This did not help dispel the concerns about the future of the dynasty; should his male line fail, the succession would be disputed by a possible war of succession between the descendants of Felipe V of Spain and the House of Orléans descended from Philippe I, Duke of Orléans, the younger brother of King Louis XIV.

The Dauphin Louis predeceased his father but left behind three sons, Louis Augusté, Duke of Berry, Louis Stanislas, Count of Provence and Charles Philippe, Count of Artois. The Duke of Berry succeeded his grandfather as King Louis XVI.

King Charles X of France and Navarre

Louis XVI would be the only French king to be executed, during the French Revolution. For the first time, the Capetian monarchy had been overthrown. The monarchy would be restored under his younger brother, Louis Stanislaus, Count of Provence, who took the name Louis XVIII in consideration of the dynastic seniority of his nephew, Louis, from 1793 to 1795 (the child never actually reigned but is counted as King Louis XVII).

Louis XVIII died childless and was succeeded by his younger brother, Charles Philippe, Count of Artois, as King Charles X. Louis XVIII is the last King of France to die while still being King.

Compelled by what he felt to be a growing, manipulative radicalism in the elected government, Charles felt that his primary duty was the guarantee of order and happiness in France and its people; not in political bipartisanship and the self-interpreted rights of implacable political enemies. He issued the Four Ordinances of Saint-Cloud, which were intended to quell the people of France.

However, the ordinances had the opposite effect of angering the French citizens. In Paris, a committee of the liberal opposition had drawn up and signed a petition in which, they asked for the ordonnances to be withdrawn; more surprising was their criticism “not of the King, but his ministers” – thereby disproving Charles X’s conviction that his liberal opponents were enemies of his dynasty.

Charles X considered the ordonnances vital to the safety and dignity of the French throne. Thus, he did not withdraw the ordonnances. This precipitated the July Revolution.

Louis Philippe I, King of the French

The July Revolution resulted in King Charles X of France and Navarre (1824-1830) being deposed. He unsuccessfully tried to abdicate the throne in favor of his eldest son, Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême whom the Legitimist faction call King Louis XIX of France and Navarre. His tenure on the French throne was brief and never officially recognized. 30 minutes later Louis XIX abdicated his claim to the throne to his nephew Henri of Artois, Comte de Chambord.

The Comte de Chambord claimed the throne of France as Henri V until the Chamber of Deputies proclaimed his distant cousin, Louis Philippe, Duke of Orléans as King of the French on August 9, 1830. The Legitimist faction view Louis Philippe as a usurper to the French throne and rightly so.

The National Assembly had at first named Louis Philippe, Lieutenant général du royaume, and he was to act as regent for the young King Henri V in the same role as his ancestor, Philippe II, Duke of Orléans played as regent to the young King Louis XV.

The National Assembly also gave him the responsibility to proclaim to the Chamber of Deputies his desire to have his cousin, Henri V, Count of Chambord, mount the French throne.

Louis Philippe failed to do this in an attempt to seize the throne for himself. This hesitation gave the Chamber of Deputies time to consider Louis Philippe in the role of king due to his liberal policies and his popularity with the general public.

Despite Louis Philippe being regent for the young Henri V, the Chamber of Deputies proclaimed Louis Philippe as the new French king, displacing the senior branch of the House of Bourbon. This coup which displaced the senior Bourbons was in direct violation of the Fundamental Laws of Succession to the French Crown.