The Princes in the Tower: 7 arguments that suggest it was Richard wot done it

The fate of the Princes in the Tower will probably never be definitively answered

Richard III and the fate of the princes in the tower.  It’s a debate that is unlikely to be resolved to satisfaction.

Hard evidence does not exist.  We don’t even know for a fact that Edward V and his brother Richard were murdered – let alone at whose hand they met their fate.

But it isn’t true that we know nothing.  And what we do have – circumstantial thought it may be – strongly suggests the blame must be laid at Richard’s door.

Here are just seven reasons why.

1. You don’t need to rely on Tudor sources to conclude that Richard’s probably guilty

“Richard’s reputation has been blackened by Tudor propaganda.”  It’s a statement we often hear in this debate and is a relatively superficial analysis.   It prevents each source being assessed for its individual merit.  But it ain’t an argument I’m gonna win with one article.

As luck would have it, I don’t need to.  The evidence that points to Richard’s guilt can be found in accounts contemporaneous to his reign.  Thanks to the writings of Dominic Mancini and the 3rd continuation of the Croyland Chronicle we have a relatively robust understanding of the chain of events in 1483. 

Mancini was an Italian visiting London.  He had access to a source close to the Princes and was aware of what information was being put about the capital.  We would be unwise to take every word he writes as fact.  But the chain of events can be verified by other sources, even though none could have read Mancini’s work.  His account lingered in a French library until it was discovered in 1934.

Croyland was almost certainly a state official, though not part of Richard’s inner-circle. Technically it was written in the first few months of Henry VII’s reign.  However, it was written too early to be ‘infected’ by ‘Tudor propaganda’.  Crucially, it contains information that Henry VII would not have wanted preserved.  To dismiss it as a ‘Tudor spin’ would be absurd.

2. Richard killed the Princes most loyal supporters before declaring himself King

Richard’s army of modern-day supporters often argue that Richard’s claim to the crown – based on the supposed illegitimacy of the princes – was widely accepted by the ‘three estates’ of the realm.  But surely the fact that Richard had just killed everyone that opposed him and had armies stationed outside London had something to do with that?

Without following due legal process, Richard had William Hastings, a close supporter of Edward IV murdered.  He killed – without trial – the Princes’ uncle, Earl Rivers and their half-brother Richard Grey.  The message was clear.  Resistance to Richard would be met with fatal force.

Richard declared his nephews illegitimate. But did people really believe him?

3. The illegitimacy of the Princes was not accepted

Ricardians also argue that Richard had no motive to have the Princes killed.  He had declared them illegitimate and thus they were no threat to him.  But Croyland is clear that plots were forming to free them.  Clearly, the story hadn’t stuck.  Besides, Richard had made them illegitimate by Act of Parliament.  Parliament could simply reverse that decision.

4. Richard had the Princes in a high-security prison

Mancini tells us that “all the attendants who had waited upon the King [Edward V] were debarred access to him.  He and his brother were withdrawn into the inner departments of the Tower proper, and day by day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars and windows, till at length they ceased to appear altogether.” 

While the Tower of London was a royal residence and not just a prison, the boys were kept to a designated area.  After a certain point they were not permitted to roam

5. Richard dismissed all the Princes’ attendants and had them guarded by loyal men

Croyland tells us that the Princes were put in the custody of ‘certain persons appointed to that purpose.’  They would have been men Richard trusted greatly.

Occasionally people speculate that these men were bribed by another.  But what could they have offered?  What could possibly outweigh the benefits to be had from service to the King?  And surely these men knew that if they let something happen to the Princes on anyone’s orders but Richard’s they would answer for it with their heads.

6. Richard never accused anyone else of killing the Princes

Richard had the boys in a high security prison.  Could anyone – even Buckingham – really have gained access?  If they had, Richard would have known about it straight away.  Would he really have kept quiet?  After all, it would have been a stroke of luck.  He could make it clear the boys were dead and pin the murder on someone else.  It’s telling that he never did.

7. Richard did not ‘produce’ the boys when doing so would have saved his reign

Some argue that the Princes were never killed at all.  I would love to believe that, but it seems unlikely.

In 1485, Richard III faced a great threat from a strange and unlikely coalition.  The remnants of Lancaster teamed up with the keenest supporters of Edward IV to topple Richard.  If Richard had been able to prove that the boys were still alive, it would have split his opposition down the middle. It might even have united all Yorkist support under him.

But he didn’t.  Because they were almost certainly dead.

The Tower of London was a royal residence, not just a prison. But Richard had the boys confined to inner apartments where they could not be seen

*

Everything I’ve said here is circumstantial.  It’s not categorical proof and I accept that.  Maybe it wouldn’t stand up in court.  But we’re not lawyers.  This isn’t a trial.  As Alison Weir says, historians don’t convict beyond all reasonable doubt.  They look at the evidence we have and conclude what is most likely to have happened.

So much passion surrounds this debate and it is largely counter-productive.  I have no partisan bias against Richard.  If new evidence comes to light I would do my best to review it with an open mind.

What puzzles me is that multitudes of Royal History Geeks feel the need to explain away the chain of events that I have outlined above.  That Richard ordered the death of the Princes is not the only interpretation of the events of 1483.  But surely it is the most likely?  I worry that a pre-conceived idea of Richard’s character prevents people from accepting evidence for what it is.  This is a dangerous way of doing history.  We know so little about the hearts and minds of the people we study.

Henry VII is a king I really admire.  I believe he made important shifts in the structures of government which helped pave the way for Parliamentary democracy (which is not to suggest that Henry was in any way a democrat himself).  I also think that there is evidence to suggest his character was considerably less blood thirsty than kings that came before or after him.

But I must accept that overwhelming circumstantial evidence suggests that he framed and judicially murdered Edward, Earl of Warwick.  The young man had spent much of his life in prison and was probably what we would today consider a vulnerable adult.  Whatever Henry’s dynastic reasons for his actions, this was a terrible crime.

Nevertheless, this doesn’t take away from Henry’s achievements as king.  Nor does Edward IV’s murder of the old, virtuous and mentally unstable Henry VI diminish his legacy.  He showed great skill in managing the nobility and restored order to England.  It does make them both three-dimensional characters that need to be studied and analysed.  Admired and respected, but never worshipped and revered.

By taking the same approach with Richard, we have a chance to truly redeem his reputation.  To rescue him from both his status as unreconstructed monster and revered cult figure.  He can finally emerge as the bearer of the broken humanity we all share and the wielder of skills and qualities that deserve to be remembered.

While we’re talking about the Tower of London, we must remember that our wonderful Royal palaces and historical landmarks have taken a real hit during the lockdown. Let’s make sure we get visiting as soon as we’re allowed, to show them our support. Keep an eye on the Historic Royal Palaces website as I’m sure they’ll let us know when doors are open again.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/edward-v/" rel="category tag">Edward V</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vi/" rel="category tag">Henry VI</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vii/" rel="category tag">Henry VII</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/lancaster/" rel="category tag">Lancaster</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/plantagenet/" rel="category tag">Plantagenet</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/princes-in-the-tower/" rel="category tag">Princes in the Tower</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/richard-iii/" rel="category tag">Richard III</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/wars-of-the-roses/" rel="category tag">Wars of the Roses</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/york/" rel="category tag">York</a> 14 Comments

6 things to remember when debating York vs Lancaster

Being a Royal History Geek has its challenges.  Our animated interest in the affairs of yesteryear can raise more than the occasional eyebrow among our friends and family.  The Wars of the Roses, however, is one topic that people not quite as super-cool as us know a little bit about.  Or at least, they think they do. 

It’s not uncommon for the debate around who had the better claim to the throne – York or Lancaster – to come up in the mainstream media, at school or university and even down the pub.

So, next time you find yourself debating the age-old question, here’s six facts it’s worth remembering.

1. The Lancastrians were the senior heirs male of Edward III

Through John of Gaunt, Lancastrians were the heirs-male to Edward III

Richard II had the undisputed right to succeed Edward III in 1377.  But once you get rid of him, the Lancastrian kings were the senior heirs male to Edward III.  That means their line passed father to son to grandson, great-grandson etc in much the same way that the surname tends to.  If you believed people in the 14th and 15th century preferred male-only succession, Lancaster are the clear winners

2. York were the senior heirs general of Edward III

Through Lionel of Antwerp, the Yorks were the heirs-general to Edward III

The house of York descended from Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel of Antwerp.  But the line passed through daughters twice before getting to Richard, Duke of York.  If you believed that 14th/15th century folk were open to women inheriting the crown – or transmit their claim to their sons – then York come out on top.

3. Edward I may have permitted succession through the female line

Edward I may have gathered his family to read out the line of succession

Although details are a bit sketchy, it looks as if Edward I (1272-1307) was open to female succession.  He seems to have told his family that the crown should pass first to his sons and their descendants, thereafter to his daughters and their descendants.  This is good news for the Yorkist claim.

4. Edward III entailed succession through the male only line

Edward III imitated the trend of landowners and entailed the crown in the male line

In about 1377, Edward III left a document suggesting that descent should only be in the male-line.  This is a coup for the Lancastrians.  It specifically names the Duke of Lancaster and his son before the Mortimers (ancestors of the Yorks).  But even more importantly, it ties into a wider trend.  In the late 1300s, landowners were trying to entail their estates to male-heir only.   Edward III’s decision to do the same with the crown may have been indicative of attitudes at the time.

5. Richard II may have nominated Mortimer as his heir

Richard II created confusion around who is heir was

According to the Eulogium Historium, Richard II recognised Mortimer as his heir in the parliament of 1385 or 1386.  Mortimer was the grandson of Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward III.  If true, this is good news for Yorkists.  Richard, Duke of York, was Mortimer’s grandson.  But historians debate whether it really happened.  The official record doesn’t mention it. 

6. No one cared about any of this in 1460 or 1461

28,000 men lost their lives at the battle of Towton

No one really cared whether the Duke of York or Henry VI had the best hereditary claim from Edward III.  Not even Richard himself really.  Lancaster were the established dynasty.  Henry VI was an anointed King and the son of a great man, Henry V.  The nobility was reluctant to remove Henry, despite his disastrous reign. 

It was ultimately the gentry that deserted Lancaster and backed Edward IV at the battle of Towton in 1461.  None of them did so because of the ’superiority’ of the Yorkist claim.  They, even more than the nobility, needed stability to return to England.  They knew that Henry VI was effectively out the picture.  Their choice was a full-blooded Plantagenet like Edward of York or a French woman who had gained a reputation for savagery.

28,000 men lost their life at Towton.  Not a single one did so to defend constitutional purity.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/edward-iv/" rel="category tag">Edward IV</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vi/" rel="category tag">Henry VI</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/lancaster/" rel="category tag">Lancaster</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/plantagenet/" rel="category tag">Plantagenet</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/richard-ii/" rel="category tag">Richard II</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/wars-of-the-roses/" rel="category tag">Wars of the Roses</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/york/" rel="category tag">York</a> 1 Comment

Lockdown must-reads #6: The Hollow Crown by Dan Jones

Let’s be honest: lockdown sucks!  But it does mean there’s more time for reading.  Over the next couple of weeks, I will review 10 books which all Royal History Geeks should add to their reading list.

For many years ‘The Wars of the Roses’ were confined to a paragraph or two in the introduction to Tudor history books.   We, the readers, had to endure just a few lines about random battles, murderous uncles and cooky Plantagenet cousins.  If we did, we knew we’d be treated to tales of religious reform, six wives and female succession.

But we didn’t know what we were missing.  Under the skilful craftmanship of Dan Jones, this series of bloody conflicts finally take their place in the spotlight.

The 370-page publication spans a 45-year time period and touches on the reigns on five kings.  But despite the breadth of the topic, Jones paints a vivid and detailed picture of the breakdown of England’s political system and the lust for power that followed it.

The book begins with the marriage of Henry VI’s parents.  By beginning the narrative here rather than an earlier point in history, Jones is implicitly nailing his colours to the mast.  Committed to the Tudor perspective that the conflicts have their origins in the downfall of Richard II?   You’re going to disappointed.  Sympathetic to the Whig notion that Edward III doomed his descendants to disaster?   Look away now.  Like recent scholarship, Jones roots the cause of conflict squarely in the ineffectual kingship of the last Lancastrian ruler.

As Henry grows, his inability to perform even the most basic facet of Kingship becomes increasingly obvious.  For the best part of two decades the political establishments attempts to create a mechanism for governing England without a functioning monarch.  But in the run up to 1450 it all came crumbling down 

The 1450s is a decade of battles, high politics and low humanity.  With vivid storytelling the author brings them to life.  Characters like Margaret of Anjou, Richard of York and a succession of Somerset Dukes become real to us.  Jones correctly notes that it is not until York puts his hand on the throne and claims the crown in 1460, that the Wars of the Roses can truly be called a dynastic conflict. 

The book bounces through the early years of Yorkist rule under Edward IV.  Like most accounts of the era, it focuses on his unpopular marriage to Elizabeth Wydeville, which in turn leads to a rebellion by Warwick and the second phases of the wars.  The rest of Edward’s reign is centred on the fallout with his brother, Clarence.  Eventually we follow the dramatic events of Edwards’s death, the brief succession of his son and Gloucester’s usurpation of the throne as Richard III.  The author does well not to dwell on the fate of the princes in the tower.  As Alison Weir has demonstrated, that topic requires a book of its own.  (But let’s be honest, we all now Richard did it.)

In events familiar to Royal History Geeks, Henry VII ultimately wins the crown at Bosworth field.  He holds the throne for almost 25 years and is succeeded by his son.  But it is years before he is free from the threats of pretenders.

Like its predecessor, ‘The Plantagenets’, the book is ambitious in its scale.  As a result, it cannot focus on any of either Edward IV or Henry VII’s reign in detail.  But it does provide a cohesive overview that is essential for anyone looking to study either king in greater depth. 

The book is lively and well crafted.  Some of the sentences are almost poetic.  It’s clear from the first few pages that Jones has grown as a writer since 2012’s ‘The Plantagenets’.  (This may sound a little patronising.  Let me be clear: I would give my right arm to be able to write a book as good as the Plantagenets.)

But perhaps the greatest achievement of this book is the way it makes ‘recent’ and innovative scholarship accessible.  In the last three decades, historians such as John Watts and Christine Carpenter have boldly attempted to reconstruct the Kingship of Henry VI.  They drive home its fundamental inadequacy from its inception.  Jones’s work is the first attempt I have come across to draw on this scholarship and present it in the popular genre. 

Since the discovery of Richard III’s remains, interest in the Wars of the Roses has reached fever pitch.  Source material is scant and scholarship is complicated.  But through well-written and beautifully crafted accounts like this, the public can access the latest thinking, correct misconceptions that arise from fiction and get a grip on one of England’s most intriguing sagas.  Dan Jones sets the standard.  If only more would rise to it.

The Hollow Crown – The Wars of the Roses and the Rise of the Tudors, is available from Amazon.

However, please consider supporting your local book seller.  If you are based in the UK, search for your local book seller at the Book Seller Associations website.

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/book-review/" rel="category tag">Book review</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/edward-iv/" rel="category tag">Edward IV</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/elizabeth-of-york/" rel="category tag">Elizabeth of York</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/elizabeth-woodville/" rel="category tag">Elizabeth Woodville</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vi/" rel="category tag">Henry VI</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vii/" rel="category tag">Henry VII</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/lancaster/" rel="category tag">Lancaster</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/plantagenet/" rel="category tag">Plantagenet</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/richard-ii/" rel="category tag">Richard II</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/tudor/" rel="category tag">Tudor</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/wars-of-the-roses/" rel="category tag">Wars of the Roses</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/york/" rel="category tag">York</a> 1 Comment

WATCH: York vs Lancaster – who had the better claim to the throne?

During a series of bloody battles, the Royal houses of Lancaster and York fought for the throne of England. The conflicts are known to us as the Wars of the Roses.

Both houses descended from Edward III. But who had the best claim to the throne?

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/edward-iv/" rel="category tag">Edward IV</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-iv/" rel="category tag">Henry IV</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vi/" rel="category tag">Henry VI</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/lancaster/" rel="category tag">Lancaster</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/richard-ii/" rel="category tag">Richard II</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/wars-of-the-roses/" rel="category tag">Wars of the Roses</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/york/" rel="category tag">York</a> 1 Comment

Friends, rivals, enemies? The relationship between Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville

 

With the ‘White Princess’ currently broadcasting in America it’s important to take a more balanced look at the relationship between the so called ‘Red Queen’ and ‘White Queen.’

Being UK based I haven’t actually seen the ‘White Princess’ so I’m basing any comments on the book and what American friends have reported.

Sorry about the length and quality.  Am working on my skills!

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/digalittledeeper/" rel="category tag">#DigALittleDeeper</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/beaufort/" rel="category tag">Beaufort</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/edward-iv/" rel="category tag">Edward IV</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/elizabeth-woodville/" rel="category tag">Elizabeth Woodville</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vii/" rel="category tag">Henry VII</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/lancaster/" rel="category tag">Lancaster</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/margaret-beaufort/" rel="category tag">Margaret Beaufort</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/plantagenet/" rel="category tag">Plantagenet</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/princes-in-the-tower/" rel="category tag">Princes in the Tower</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/richard-iii/" rel="category tag">Richard III</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/wars-of-the-roses/" rel="category tag">Wars of the Roses</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/york/" rel="category tag">York</a> 2 Comments

Was Margaret Beaufort’s final marriage ever more than a business arrangement?

This is the last video on Margaret Beaufort’s marriages – but NOT the last video in the Margaret Beaufort min-series.

Let me know what you think…

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/beaufort/" rel="category tag">Beaufort</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vi/" rel="category tag">Henry VI</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vii/" rel="category tag">Henry VII</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/lancaster/" rel="category tag">Lancaster</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/margaret-beaufort/" rel="category tag">Margaret Beaufort</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/tudor/" rel="category tag">Tudor</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/wars-of-the-roses/" rel="category tag">Wars of the Roses</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/york/" rel="category tag">York</a> 2 Comments

How did Margaret Beaufort feel about her marriage to Henry Stafford?

We’re continuing to ask questions about Margaret’s marriages – this time to Henry Stafford.

Is it me, or do I look particularly cute in this vid 😉

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/beaufort/" rel="category tag">Beaufort</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vi/" rel="category tag">Henry VI</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vii/" rel="category tag">Henry VII</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/lancaster/" rel="category tag">Lancaster</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/margaret-beaufort/" rel="category tag">Margaret Beaufort</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/plantagenet/" rel="category tag">Plantagenet</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/tudor/" rel="category tag">Tudor</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/wars-of-the-roses/" rel="category tag">Wars of the Roses</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/york/" rel="category tag">York</a> Leave a comment

Did Margaret Beaufort ever love Edmund Tudor?

I promised you a mini-series on Margaret Beaufort.  And a mini-series on Margaret Beaufort you will get.

Here’s my mutterings on her first (proper) marriage.

What think you all?

NB: I make two mistakes in this video – one I didn’t realise until I uploaded it.  Can you spot it?

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/beaufort/" rel="category tag">Beaufort</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vi/" rel="category tag">Henry VI</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vii/" rel="category tag">Henry VII</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/margaret-beaufort/" rel="category tag">Margaret Beaufort</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/plantagenet/" rel="category tag">Plantagenet</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/tudor/" rel="category tag">Tudor</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/wars-of-the-roses/" rel="category tag">Wars of the Roses</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/york/" rel="category tag">York</a> Leave a comment

Why Lancaster DID have a better claim than York – at least according to Edward III

Loyal readers will know that I’m something of a ‘Wars of the Roses’ fan.  I mean, obviously I’m not actually a fan of any war – but you get what I mean.

Some argue the wars ended in 1471, others in 1485.  In reality they are still bring fought today – just on social media rather than the battle field.

Or, to be less dramatic, it is fair to say that the debate around which Royal House – York or Lancaster – had the best claim to the throne is still hotly debated.

Choosing the Red and White Roses.jpgThe Wars of the Roses saw the houses of York and Lancaster fight for the throne
between 1455 and 1470

The argument – with respect to my fellow geeks – is not always at the most sophisticated level.  A slightly flippant summary would go along the lines of ‘I’m a Tudor geek so Lancaster had the best claim’ to be retaliated with ‘York had the moral high ground because I fancy Max Irons.’

Up until recently, my more moderate view was that ‘York probably had the best claim’ while accepting it wasn’t a black and white issue.  I even created some quite hilarious memes to that effect.  But there’s a reason I decided to pick up my virtual biro and pen this post.  That’s right super cool readers…following a bit more research, I have changed my mind.

Let’s have a quick recap. In 1399, Henry Bolinbroke deposed his cousin Richard II and established the house of Lancaster on the throne of England.

Henry IV – as Bolinbroke became – was the eldest boy of John of Gaunt – third son of Edward III.

The Lancastrian crown then passed safely down the dynasty for three generations until in the late 1450s people got fed up with the well meaning but weak Henry VI who was probably mentally ill.  He was challenged for the throne by his distant cousin Richard, Duke of York – a descendant of Edmund of Langley, Edward III’s fourth surviving son.

On the face of it therefore, York’s claim seems pretty weak; Langley was certainly the younger brother to Gaunt.  But here’s the snag.  Richard was also descended from Philippa of Clarence, the daughter of Lionel of Antwerp – Edward III’s second son.  So, if you accept that women can transmit their claim to the throne to their male descendants, York really did have a claim worth taking seriously.

Richard, Duke of York claimed the throne as a descendant of Lionel of Antwerp,
Edward III’s second son

By the end of the end of the 15th century, descent through the female line was broadly accepted as a legal basis for succession.  Henry VII loosely claimed the throne through his mother, Margaret Beaufort and his son had a far greater claim through descent from Elizabeth of York.  Perhaps because my interest in history began in the Tudor era, I have always been tempted to read this mindset into earlier generations and this might be why I had always assumed York’s claim was slightly superior, despite recognising it was complicated.

However, the more I’ve researched the politics, law and conventions of the 14th century, the more I’ve begun to question my thinking.  I’ve discovered that- while Salic law, which prohibits women from inheriting the throne was never formally introduced – the trend toward male-only inheritance was gaining currency.  Many nobles were entailing their estates so that only sons could inherit.

It would seem that the great Edward III has similar sentiments.  Disaster struck the Royal House when Edward the Prince of Wales (known to history as the ‘Black Prince’) died prematurely leaving one surviving son behind.  In a world of high mortality, the succession was far from secure.

To the political classes it was unclear whether the next heir after Prince Richard (the future Richard II) was Roger Mortimer, son of Philippa of Clarence (the heir general) or John of Gaunt and his son (the heirs male).

Essentially, because the Duke of York inherited the Mortimer claim via his mother, it is this question that legitimised the Wars of the Roses.  But, little did I realise until recently, it is actually one that Edward III had decided to answer.  In 1376 he created a document that made clear his intent to entail the throne through the male line.  Should Richard II’s line fail, his intent was that the crown should pass to Lancaster.

Early modern half-figure portrait of Edward III in his royal garb.

The mighty Edward III wanted his throne to pass only
through the male line

Legally, the only thing that could really override this would be if Richard had nominated a successor – but he appeared to leave the question open, possibly for political leverage.  However he did ultimately name Henry as his successor by the handing over of the ring – admittedly under some duress.  When Parliament accepted Henry IV’s sovereignty in 1399 it was probably not because of the size of his army – and indeed there is much to suggest that his ‘coup’ was relatively bloodless – and more to do with the fact that,  once a case could be made to dispose Richard, a Lancastrian succession was legally appropriate.

That said, there were those in the reign of Henry IV who always believed the Mortimer claim to be superior – although usually because they had something to gain from thinking like that.   I accept this is not a closed conversation.

But what you can’t do, is start applying attitude changes retrospectively.  By the 1460s, people were more open to female succession in the 1460s.  To an extent, even Lancastrians had to be.   Henry VI’s unimpressive efforts in reproduction were leaving Margaret Beaufort as one of the talked about candidates for the crown.  But you can’t wind the clock back and uproot a dynasty and this is why no one took York’s claims particularly seriously until he made them good on the battle field.  When changes in attitude take place and the rules of succession evolve, it is generally accepted that these apply only to future generations.

Lady Margaret Christ's College Library.jpg

In her youth, Margaret Beaufort was talked about by some Lancastrians as the
potential heir to the throne

I’ve had blogged previously about why Edward IV must be deemed a usurper; this post reinforces my views.  The House of York did not have a superior claim to the throne than Lancaster; instead they did what other usurping dynasties before them had done – they allowed might to make right and came up with a justification to rubber stamp it.  Lancaster had done the same in 1399 by attempting to claim senior descendants from Henry III.  It just so happens that York’s claims had a little more credibility to back up their military antics.

Check out RoyalHistoryGeeks on facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/beaufort/" rel="category tag">Beaufort</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/edward-iv/" rel="category tag">Edward IV</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/elizabeth-of-york/" rel="category tag">Elizabeth of York</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-iv/" rel="category tag">Henry IV</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vi/" rel="category tag">Henry VI</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/lancaster/" rel="category tag">Lancaster</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/margaret-beaufort/" rel="category tag">Margaret Beaufort</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/plantagenet/" rel="category tag">Plantagenet</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/richard-ii/" rel="category tag">Richard II</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/wars-of-the-roses/" rel="category tag">Wars of the Roses</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/york/" rel="category tag">York</a> 6 Comments

In defence of Henry VI

Image result for Henry VI

Been thinking lately about good King Henry.  No not that one.  Nor that one.  Not even that one.

I speak not of Henry VIII, who transformed England perhaps more than any other ruler.  Nor do I dwell on his father, who founded the infamous Tudor dynasty.  I do not even mean the fifth Harry, who took England to its 100 year war zenith at the battle of Agincourt.

Instead, I’ve been pondering the reign of Henry VI – the man whose reign was seen as so disastrous that it led to the Wars of the Roses and ultimately, the downfall of Lancaster and the rise of York.  He was weak.  Easily led.  He had no desire for glory in war.  He lacked ruthlessness.  He was far too trusting; particularly when it came to unscrupulous advisers.

All this is accurate.  He had none of the qualities necessary for successful medieval Kingship.

But something bothers me about how history judges him.  No sympathy has emerged and few rarely speak up for his good qualities.  He was a man of genuine religious conviction.  He was compassionate.  He invested in education.  He forgave people that wronged him.  He was not promiscuous.  He took care of his maternal half-brothers.  He was a lover of peace.

None of this, I agree, would have endeared him to contemporaries.  But shouldn’t the 21st century observer be pouring praise on these virtues?  After all, the behaviour of Catherine Howard made her a totally unsuitable Tudor Queen; but the modern reader has sympathy with her, recognising that she was essentially an abused teenage girl, forced into marriage with an obese man in his 50s.  Why isn’t Henry VI given the same generosity?

It has come to my attention of late that the Wars of the Roses are still being fought – albeit by history fans on Twitter.  Great!  But it surprises me that so many side with Edward IV at the expense of poor Henry.

Don’t get me wrong – as I’ve said above, I understand why contemporaries would have seen Edward as the better King.  But shouldn’t we judge differently?  Shouldn’t we be quick to acknowledge that virtuous, faithful, peaceful Henry is a better offering than adulterous, gluttonous and war ready Edward – even if we have to sadly acknowledge that the latter probably makes you a better ruler of 15th century England?

But we don’t.  Part of me can’t shake the feeling that this has all been distorted by the fact that so many history fans have a crush on Max Irons…

Anyway, for this blogger at least, Henry VI deserves a reprieve.  He may have been one of the most unsuited heads to ever wear a crown – but he’s one of the finest characters in the annals of history.

Okay Yorkists (and other geeks) – do your worst.  Tell me where I’m going wrong!  I want to hear what you think!

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/quickfirethoughts/" rel="category tag">#QuickFireThoughts</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/catherine-howard/" rel="category tag">Catherine Howard</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/edward-iv/" rel="category tag">Edward IV</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-v/" rel="category tag">Henry V</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vi/" rel="category tag">Henry VI</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vii/" rel="category tag">Henry VII</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-viii/" rel="category tag">Henry VIII</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/lancaster/" rel="category tag">Lancaster</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/wars-of-the-roses/" rel="category tag">Wars of the Roses</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/york/" rel="category tag">York</a> 9 Comments