Legal Succession: Henry VII part 2

Tags

Battle of Bosworth Field, Duke of Lancaster, Earl of Richmond, England, Henry IV, Henry Tudor, Henry VII of England, House of Lancaster, House of York, John of Gaunt, Kings and Queens of England, Richard II, War of the Roses

As we saw in the last installment Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, had a tenuous claim to the English throne. As descendents of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster (son of Edward III) via a third marriage which later legitimized his children, Henry Tudor’s line once had succession rights but those rights were then legally removed. As I mentioned before, the victors  get to rewrite the rules and this is evident in the rise to the throne of Henry VII.

With the death of Henry VI and the death of his son, Edward, Prince of Wales, the collateral branch of the Plantagenet, known as the House of Lancaster had come to an end. However, there were other descendants of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster to take up the Lancastrian claims. The Beaufort House, from John of Gaunt’s third marriage, were given the title Duke of Somerset and after the extinction of the male line only the female line remained, represented by Lady Margaret Beaufort and her son Henry Tudor. The year after the Battle of Tewkesbury Lady Margaret married Lord Stanley, who had been a devoted supported of King Edward IV. Stanley did not support Richard III and instrumental in putting Henry Tudor on the throne.

It was the defeat of Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field in August of 1485 that placed the new Tudor Dynasty on the throne. Ever since Henry IV usurped the throne from Richard II in 1399 the legality of all the subsequent kings has been a pretty messy situation. Although Henry had a slim blood claim to the throne his legal standing was even weaker given that his line had lost its succession rights. Therefore, his succession to the throne was more of a conquest than a usurpation.

One of the things the new Henry VII did was to unite the warring factions while also strengthening his position on the throne. To do that he desired to marry Elizabeth of York, daughter of King Edward IV. This would unite both the houses of York and Lancaster. However there was some resistance to that. Those that were against the union claimed that Richard III’s Act of Parliament, Titulus Regius, that had declared the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville invalid and the children illegitimate still stood as law. Henry VII disagreed with that position and had the act repealed. When he was crowned Henry VII took the throne not as a conqueror but as a legitimate descendant of John of Gaunt.

Henry and Elizabeth married on January 18, 1486. Their first son, Arthur, born on September 20, 1486 had a strong blood and legal claim to the throne. He was a descendant of the now legal King Henry VII of England and he was a multiple descendant of Edward III and heir to both the houses of York and Lancaster.

As we shall see in the next section of this series Arthur never lived to become king and the throne passed to his brother who became King Henry VIII of England. Although the succession of Henry VII and his marriage to Elizabeth of York ended the Dynastic Wars struggles for the throne would also plague the Tudor Dynasty.

Legal Succession: Henry VII Part One.

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Constance of Castile, Duke of Lancaster, Henry III of Castile, Henry IV, Henry VII of England, King Richard III of England, Kings and Queens of England, Letters Patent 1397, Pope Eugene IV, War of the Roses

This is the Legal succession issue which inspired me to do this series. It is complex so I will divide it into a couple of blog entries.

Many know that Richard III was killed at Bosworth Field on August 22 1485 in the last battle of the War of the Roses and that the victor on the field of battle, Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, a scion of the House of Lancaster, mounted the English throne to become King Henry VII. The question I ask is, did Henry VII have any legal claims to the throne? Was he a usurper or did he obtain the crown by conquest? My assertion is that his blood claim to the throne was weak, there were many ahead of him in the order of succession, therefore that he obtained the throne by right of conquest.

First of all I would like to examine his blood claim to the throne of England. His claim to the throne begins with his descent from King Edward III via his son, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. As we have already seen The House of Lancaster came to power when Henry IV usurped the throne from Richard II in 1399. Henry IV was the son of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and his first wife, Blanch of Lancaster. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, married a second time, Constance of Castile, daughter of King Pedro the Cruel of Castile. John of Gaunt and Constance of Castile had one daughter, Catherine, who married her cousin, King Enrique III of Castile. From this union descends the Kings and Queens of Spain.

The descent from John of Gaunt which gave Henry Tudor a weak claim to the throne was through John of Gaunt’s third union with Katherine Swynford née (de) Roet. Initially Katherine was the governess to Gaunt’s daughters, Philippa and Elizabeth. After the death of Gaunt’s first wife, Blanch, John and Katherine entered into a romantic relationship which produced 4 children, all illegitimate being born out-of-wedlock. However, two years after the death of Constance of Castile, John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford legally married at Lincoln cathedral 1393.

Subsequent Letters Patent in 1397 by Richard II and a Papal Bull issued by the Pope Eugene IV legitimized the adult children of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford with full rights to the throne. However, an Act of Parliament in the reign of Henry IV confirmed their legitimacy but barred the children from having rights to the throne. Later historians would argue whether or not the barring of the children of this union from the English throne was legal or not. This Act of Parliament did weaken the claims of Henry Tudor.

I will stop here and continue this series next week.