Ask the British History Geek

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
41

First, my own clarifications of my last post:

(1) DRY is correct in saying that Henry of Bolingbroke was the 1st Lancastrian king, that was an error on my part.

(2) Richard the 2nd’s going too far is relative. By today’s standards seizing a man’s property is less punative than executing him. To the nobles of England at the time this was not so. Many of Richard’s enemies went to the block. The problem for the nobles was that when a lord was killed, they felt that his family should retain the family estates. By stealing the Duchy of Lancaster Richard was putting his hands on the inheritances of all landowners.

(3) I have oversimplified the “next in line to the throne” business. Royal primogeniture ( eldest son inherits the kingdom ) was not as well established then as it is now. All sons descended through the male line had claims to the throne. This, of course, caused a lot of bloodshed. The right of the firstborn was seen as a stronger claim, but not the only 1. Also, since the House of York took its claim of seniority through the female line, technically under primogeniture they were not entitled to the throne. They had the claim, through the female line, to the rights of Lionel, Duke of Clairence, as well as the claim, through the male line, of Edmund, Duke of York. But they not the “rightful heirs”. Henry of Bolingbroke had a claim that was arguably superior and he was popular, but he won the throne by deposing Richard the 3rd.

Hello DRY,

Thanks for the input.
It is my understanding that although Edward did wear black armor he was 1st called “the Black Prince” by Shakespeare. Unfortunatly I can not find a cite. I would be interested if you could find a contemperary cite that disproves my belief. I hope we can agree that the name sounds cool.

I would be glad to exchange reading lists. I will post mine as soon as I am caught up with my answers. Unfortunately my library did not survive my move to Pittsburgh so I only have what I have collected more recently. This can be frustrating when I am looking for a cite.

Here is a quote regarding the term “The War of the Roses”:

I love Ross’ comment. As a professor I am sure that he appreciated the irony of the fact that “pedant” used to mean a male schoolteacher.

42

Quite correct. A nobleman could lose is property to the crown if convicted of treason (“attainted”), but other than that, propety generally passed to the surviving family members (Exception: certain grants were made by the king of farming of crown lands. These reverted to the crown upon the grantee’s death).

Richard II’s action in confiscating the Duchy of Lancaster’s estates was extremely irregular. John of Gaunt died in good standing, while his heir, Henry of Bolingbroke, had been banished for a period of five (?) years a year or two before Gaunt’s death, but had NOT been attainted of treason.

I have to dispute the above–meaning no disrespect of course.

It’s true that primogeniture wasn’t as well established as now, but I do believe that Richard II, before departing for Ireland (where he was when Henry broke his banishment and returned to England to usurp the crown), had declared Roger of Mortimer (in the Clarence line) to be his heir. It could be argued that Richard had no right to decide the succession per se, but I put it forward that in the belief of many, if not most, the Yorkist/Clarence line WAS the rightful one.
It’s my understanding that, even at the time, transmission through the female line was permissible (note that Henry II’s claim was through his mother, Matilda).

Henry IV was successful in large part because he was a grown adult and skilled soldier, he had the nobles on his side and Richard II in his custody. He was also popular with the commons. Everything Richard II was not.

Ironically, when Henry V went to try to claim the throne of France, France tried to deny his claim based on the Salic law (no transmission through the female line). The English scoffed at this notion, pointing out that the Salic law was based in…I think it was Germany. However, it should be noted that if the Salic law were held not to apply in Englad as well as France, then *** Henry V was not lawful king of England ***!
**
[/QUOTE]

2sense–thanks for the welcome. This is a topic I’m pretty darned familiar with, but I was still hoping you wouldn’t take my barging into your thread the wrong way. And yes, I’ll have to dig out my reading list as well, but beforewarned–it’s LONG.

Re the Black Prince. I’m fairly certain that the name “Black Prince” derives from the armor. I’m slightly less sure that the term didn’t derive from Shakespeare, but I tend to doubt it for two reasons:

  1. Except for Henry V, all references to the Black Prince in Shakespeare (aside from one that was meant to refer to the devil) were in the Henry VI trilogy, a very obscure play (interesting tidbit–it was Henry VI part 2 where Shakespeare wrote “The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers.” Win some bets with people–I’ve stumped A LOT of attorneys AND Shakespeare buffs with that.)

  2. Shakespeare got most of his history from Hall and Holinshed (I believe it was those two). Some factual errors that he made were derived from those sources, and I’d bet that it was quite possible that he got the “Black Prince” reference from one of them.

I’d like to address some of the Shakespearean errors in another post, as this one is already quite long.

43

I recall that one of the reasons that Henry VII’s claim to the crown was pretty shaky was that he had an illegitimate ancestor not too far back in the line. Am I remembering correctly?

BTW, many years ago I did some research on the Richard III question, and my conclusion was that the princes were murdered by orders from Henry VII. He does seem to have the best reason to want them gone.

Scotti

44

Scotti,

I just e-mailed you about this. Check your e-mail and let me know what you think.

Henry’s legal claim to the throne was laughable–the Princes in the Tower, George of Clarence’s son, every other member of the House of York AND Buckingham’s heirs all had better claims. Henry VII’s father was descended from Henry V’s wife, but was not (I believe) Plantagenet stock. Henry VII’s mother WAS an offspring of Royalty, she was a Beaufort, descended from John of Gaunt.

However, Henry VII’s lineage was bastardized on BOTH his mother’s and father’s side. He had no legal claim to speak of. What he did have, is a military victory over the reigning king.

45

Henry’s grandfather was a Welsh squire named Owen Tudor ( Owain ap Maredudd Tudur ), who was once a body servant to King Henry the 5th. After King Henry’s death his widow, Catherine of Valois ( the Royal House of France ), secretly married Owen Tudor. Their sons were Edmund and Jasper, who lived as penniless courtiers in the court of their half-brother King Henry the 6th. In 1452 CE that changed. King Henry created them earls with precedence over all other earls in the kingdom. As the King had no sons at this point it is speculated that perhaps he intended for Edmund to be his heir. King Henry would have been understandably reluctant to acknowledge the Yorkish claims. Edmund, now Earl of Richmond, was married to Margaret Beaufort. Margaret Beaufort was the great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt, and as such a Lancastrian. The original Beaufort was also named John and when his father married his mother he was legitimized and created Earl of Somerset. Margaret’s father had become the Duke of Somerset so she was highborn indeed. It is true that originally she was married to the Duke of Suffolk, but since she was only 8 years old when it was decided that she should marry Edmund Tudor, so her first marriage was dissolved. Perhaps King Henry the 6th intended for the couple to rule as co-regents, but then a son and heir was born to him and the plan, if it ever existed was forgotten. But Earl Edmund remained a great lord, and more importantly, a Lancastrian. Their son was Henry Tudor. I am aware of no illegitimacy on his father’s side of the family. He was certainly no bastard and in his veins flowed the blood of the kings of England and France.

His claims to the throne:

(1) Due to bloodshed of the War, he was the last Lancastrian heir. His great-great-great grandfather had been King of England. His grandmother had been Queen of England.

(2) Right of conquest, he had killed the previous king in battle and taken the throne.

(3) Through marriage to Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward the 4th, he assumed the rights of the House of York.

(4) Divine Right - He was coronated in Westminster Abbey. ( although the previous king had this right as well and it had not stopped Henry from overthrowing him )

All in all, his claims were pretty weak. I feel that the 1st claim is the reason that he became king. If a Lancastrian with a superior pedigree had existed, Henry Tudor would have just been a follower.

46

2sense–I may be mistaken, but I believe it was Edmund (or John) BEAUFORT (of Somerset) and not Edmund Tudor, who was Henry VI’s possible heir.

The Beauforts were illegitimate children of John of Gaunt. Richard, who did listen at times to John of Gaunt and may have respected him the most out of his uncles, legitimized the Beauforts as a favor to John of Gaunt. Henry IV, when he took power, confirmed the legitimacy, but specifically excluded them from the succession (there is a question of whether he could do this). Henry VI, if I remember right, was rumored to be considering the Beauforts, not the Tudors, as alternate heirs to the Yorkists (a big reason for the actual outbreak in the fighting was personal animosity between Richard of York and Edmund of Beaufort. They may have each wanted to be “heir presumptive.”)

I also understood that Edmund and Jasper Tudor were illegitimate. (You may want to check on this). Owen Tudor and Katherine had a relationship and lived together, but I don’t believe their marriage was recognized in England, so the two sons would have been considered illegitimate (I don’t believe the English would have allowed the widow of the great and famous warrior king Henry V to have married a mere ** welsh squire **.
**
[/QUOTE]

47

You may be correct about the validity of Owen Tudor and Catherine Valois’ marriage. Her son certainly wouldn’t have allowed the union if he had known they intended it. But, since he created the son’s as earls, I would think that they would need to have been legitimate or legitimatized.
Unfortunately, my best source, William Steward, is pro-Tudor. Margaret Beaufort in particular seems to be a heroine of his.

You are correct in stating that it was Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset who clashed with Richard, Duke of York. John Beaufort was Edmumd’s younger brother. As to Edmund’s chances of being named heir, they seemed dim. He was very unpopular both because he was blamed for losing the War in France ( not an unreasonable view ) and because he was seen as controlling King Henry the 6th ( whom everyone knew was an imbecile ) and thus responsible for the governmental mistakes.
The Duke of York also hated Edmund because the Duke of Somerset refused to allow the government to repay a large war loan to York.
So while the Duke of Somerset certainly hoped to become king, the court party might have been preparing another candidate. I am unsure of what the true situation was.

48

Alright, what is the deal with the Bayeaux tapestry?

Who made it ? How long did it take and what is so gosh amighty important about it?

49

Bayeaux tapestry (I can get this one, partly).
Nuns.
Couple of years.
Nice historical document of the lead up to and the Battle of Hastings, with captions.
Do I win anything?

50

Why do English royal geneologies always list Edward V as a “King”? He was never crowned, never reigned, never ruled. true, he was the Heir, but several heirs died before being crowned, and are not listed as “King”. I believe the “Black Prince” was even crowned ( while his father was still alave), but as he died 1st, is not listed as “King”. I personally think it is too blacken the name of RIII, even more as then; “Well, HE killed a “King”, also”.

There can be little doubt that the killer of the “Princes” was Henry VI. The big “smoking gun” is that he did not proclaim their Death for YEARS after he took over, and this was during a time where his reign was shaky, and he could have used some good ammo vs the Yorkists, etc. If he had drug out some several years dead bodies, and showed them to the people, noting that he just got there, it would have been proof. Or, even if he had announced that the Princes were missing, and presumed Dead- at the hands of RIII, of course. I believe he found them alive, and kept them so, as insurance, so he could trot them out as puppets if the people would not accept his claim to the throne. After a while he realized that it did not make any difference, so he had them killed. Note, also, when he posted an early list of RIII “crimes”, he did nOT accuse RIII of killing the Princes, altho he accused RIII of everything else.

51

Amen, brother Daniel-

Makes perfect sense to me! (In reference to Richard III, that is, for some reason I can’t get the quote feature to work on this computer)

Scotti

52

Amen, brother Daniel-

Makes perfect sense to me! (In reference to Richard III, that is, for some reason I can’t get the quote feature to work on this computer)

Scotti

53

First no quotes, now double posts.

Do you suppose my computer is punishing me for posting while I am supposed to be working?

Scotti

54

Shirley Ujest:

The Tapestry is important because it is visual. The chronicles and other records of the time are written. The Tapestry provides a reference with pictures. In this way it is much more unique. Of course, all records from that timeperiod are rare and therefore important. I have never seen it before, but that Battle of Hastings site that mattk linked to shows images that have to be the Bayeaux Tapestry. The post with the link is mattk’s third on this thread, about 1/4 of the way down the page. Just follow the link and scroll down. The links you see in the text take you to pictures of the events described.

M.K.:

You win my gratitude.

Danielinthewolvesden:

Why Edward the 5th?
I would say propaganda had a lot to do with it. Because the Tudors Dynasty was theoretically based on the union of Lancaster and York, it would have been useful in showing that Henry the 7th did not overthrow a rightful Yorkish king. The next Edward to be crowned was a Tudor, the son of Henry the 8th. I would imagine that the numeration was not final until then.
Also, the geneologies that I recall seeing have noted that Edward was never crowned.

Why not Henry the 7th?
This question was covered pretty well by the thread that ruadh linked to. 1 of my reasons for suspecting Richard the 3rd was not though. While King Richard was still on the throne, the Dowager Queen Elizabeth ( wife of Edward the 4th ) promised to support Henry Tudor on the condition that he marry her daughter. What motive could she have if her sons were still alive?
Also, I note that the quote from the Croyland Chronicle within the quote about the name “The Wars of the Roses” comes from 1486 CE, only the 2nd year of Henry Tudor’s reign. My understanding is that it was widely believed that the lads were dead, thus adding to Richard the 3rd’s difficulties.

55

It’s true that Edmund Beaufort was unpopular with the common people, but he had allies within the court party–the King, the Queen, the Earl of Suffolk. Of course, I’m not sure exactly how and who the “heir presumptive” is gets determined, whether it’s done by the king, parliament, or someone else. (By the way, in 1451 or so, the speaker of the commons, Thomas Younge, was thrown into prison for suggesting that Richard of York be designated heir presumptive)

As I recall, the only candidates for heir presumptive (before the birth of Edward, Prince of Wales) that historians seem to have seriously discussed, are the Dukes of Somerset and York. I’m curious if you have a cite for this (absence of one doesn’t necessarily mean you are wrong, of course).

It seems to me that if Henry VI had groomed one of the Tudors to be a possible heir, one step in doing so would have been to raise their title from “Earl of Richmond” (or whatever) to “Duke of Richmond”. As I understand, “Earl” was a title for nobility, “Duke” was a title for royalty. It is of course possible that Henry VI was going to make this change, but hadn’t yet done it.

Your reasons for rivalry between Somerset and York are dead on. They were possible rivals for the throne, and, in addition, they were rivals for military command in France (York was regent there, at one point, Somerset was given an independent military command, which was unusual and could be construed as a slap in the face and/or lack of trust on the part of Henry, towards York). Subsequently, Somerset succeeded York as regent, and performed poorly, fueling the fire on the part of York and the common people (though the war in France was a losing battle).

Finally, York was indeed bitter about the failure of the government to repay war loans (often the regent would pay out of pocket and be reimbursed). But I believe that Somerset did not withhold York’s funds, so much as he received them himself: Somerset was advanced military expenses for his anticipated campaigns in France and/or was given preference on funds that York felt should have been given to him (with some justice, it can be added).

56

Daniel,
First of all this thread, more than any other (along with some stuff in real life), is probably what’s killing me in the Dueling Quotes thread, though I do hope to make a reappearance there (the Shakespeare quotes take work, most of this English history stuff I know off the top of my head).

Anyway, you have a valid point re the Tudors blackening Richard’s name, but I don’t believe this is why Edward V “counted”. I’m not sure of the exact reason, but my guess is that Edward V was considered king upon his father’s death, though he was never in fact, crowned. I believe that most of the other heirs that you may be thinking of predeceased the kings that they stood to inherit the crown from.

Also, I do NOT believe the “Black Prince” was ever crowned. If memory serves, NO king has ever let an heir be crowned (Henry II’s son, the “Young Henry”, who predeceased his father, MIGHT have been an exception. I think a ceremony was performed officially designating him as heir, but I don’t think he was offically considered a second king). Generally, heirs crowned during the present king’s lifetime was a Continental (European) tradition–it was not common in England. King Stephen (who preceded Henry II) tried to get his son Eustace (who predeceased his father–anyone see a pattern here?) crowned during Stephen’s lifetime, but either the Archbishop of Canterbury or the pope himself put the kibosh on that.

57

Responding to this paragraph separately because my previous post was long…

It pains me to dispute this, because, as Scotticher can attest, I’m a pretty big Richard III supporter. But it’s my opinion that any of Richard III, Henry VII or the Duke of Buckingham could have done it.

You are absolutely correct in that Henry VII was silent on the murder of the princes until years later. One bit of propoganda published shortly after he was crowned accused Richard III of a great number of things, including “shedding of infants blood”. NO specific mention was made of the princes until years later, when James Tyrrell was executed (incidentally, even that confession looks suspicious, as Tyrrell was originally arrested and convicted of something different, when he confessed to murdering the princes). You correctly point out that Richard III was accused by Henry VII of virtually every evil imaginable.

Actually, some of Henry’s actions (specifically, his failure to mention the princes) indicate that he may not have been aware of their fate. (Otherwise, as you point out, it makes sense to blame Richard, even if Henry himself had decided to put them to death). This is really tricky though, see below.

However, you are almost certainly incorrect (no offense) in stating that Henry VII had found the princes alive, he would have kept them alive but in prison. He almost certainly would have put them to death.

To explain: Richard III was crowned king after an act called Titulus Regius was passed. This act declared the children of Edward IV to be bastards, since it was alleged that Edward IV had already entered into a marriage contract before he married Elizabeth Woodville.

When Henry defeated Richard at Bosworth, he had promised to marry Elizabeth, Edward IV’s daughter. In order to do so and make their offspring legitimate, Henry VII repealed Titulus Regius and ordered all copies burnt (it was considered treason to even keep a copy). This “unbastardized” Elizabeth, but also *** legitimized the princes as well***. They would then be the rightful heirs to the throne, and Henry would have been in mortal danger even leaving them alive (historical precedent: Henry IV killed Richard II after usurping the crown, Edward IV usurped Henry VI’s crown but left him alive. Edward was then overthrown briefly, reconquered the kingdom, and promptly assassinated Henry to preempt him from again being used as the focus of a rebellion).

There is *** no way *** Henry would have left the princes alive after repealing Titulus Regius, because, far from them being puppets, their presence would have been an open invitation to rebel. In fact, Henry (who was not stupid) probably knew the princes were dead before the act was repealed.

It also should be noted that the first pretender to threaten Henry: Lambert Simnel (around 1487) pretended to be the Duke of Clarence, Edward. Henry had the real Duke of Clarence, who was in his custody, shown. However, the second pretender, Perkin Warbeck (1491 or so) claimed to be the younger of the two princes in the tower. No prisoner was displayed by Henry in response to him.

58

Good points by 2sense here, but I wanted to point out that Elizabeth Woodville’s behavior has *** also*** been used to defend the idea that Richard did NOT have the princes killed, and that Elizabeth may have known this (possibly pointing the finger at the Duke of Buckingham).

Richard, before he was overthrown, had asked Elizabeth and her daughers to come out of sanctuary. Elizabeth had agreed to do so in exchange for Richard’s public promise that she and her daughters would be honorably treated, and that her son from a different marriage, the Earl of Dorset, would be pardoned. Richard agreed to the conditions and the Woodvilles came out of sanctuary. Dorset tried to come back to England, but the Tudors, who he had been staying with in Burgundy and France, “persuaded” him not to (ie, the captured him trying to leave).

It has been argued that there’s no way Elizabeth would have agreed to come out of sanctuary, or trusted Richard’s word, which she apparently did, if she knew her sons were dead and Richard responsible.

Why she would have agreed to support Henry Tudor is speculative: she could have known her sons were dead but Richard wasn’t responsible. She could have known her sons had no chance to rule but saw her daughter as queen to Tudor the best of a bad bargain. She could have hoped that her sons, if they were alive, could have benefitted from a war between Richard III and Henry Tudor. Unfortunately, we’ll never know. But Elizabeth Woodville’s behavior has been pointed to as evidence both for and against Richard III being the murderer.

As to the fate of the princes in the tower, I’m not sure that it was “widely rumored” that they were dead, but certainly there were rumors. I know it was rumored in France (where they hated Richard because he’d been openly anti French) but how widespread the rumors were in England, I’m not entirely sure.

My compliments to 2sense again for his cogent discussions.