longer.blue

The Lancastrian Myth (chapter 17 in 1399: The Lancastrian Conquest). Reference to this myth in the literature is brief and quickly discounted, so it currently plays no part in shaping our understanding of how Henry IV sought to back up his successful powerplay with a legitimate claim to the throne. Commentators prefer to see his legitimacy in terms of the ‘male entail’ tradition, which I dismissed in an earlier post as it excluded Henry from succession as a legitimate heir. Henry IV claimed legitimacy in terms of the Lancastrian Myth, not male entail. The Lancastrian Myth: Edmund Crouchback was the first-born son of Henry III, not Edward – the future Edward I. Henry denied his first-born son Edmund the crown, as he was deformed, and bequeathed the crown to Edward. Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, (the Black Prince) and Richard II derived from a usurping line. Henry IV was England’s true king. The above is a myth and not true, I want to make that clear. It is ludicrous, crazy even, but just because it is ludicrous and crazy does not mean that Henry didn’t use it to justify his kingship. The opinion of historians: They admit its existence but it makes them uncomfortable so they set it aside and move on, usually by saying that it was dismissed by Adam of Usk, but this he did not do. I should know, as I have published an edition of his chronicles. Historians write as if Usk’s direct reference to the myth is the only source outside the words of Henry’s oral claim made on 30th September. There are more. List of sources referring to the Lancastrian Myth: Henry’s claim Adam of Usk Arundel’s sermon after Henry’s claim from Renunciation and deposition appendix to Parliament Roll. The well-known ‘boy/man’ address – the ‘man’ is from the line of David, the line usurped by the Hasmoneans. Euologium (Malmesbury) – direct reference, twice. Jean Creton – reports another sermon by Arundel which does not appear in the Renunciation and Deposition giving only the Bible reference – this biblical reference refers to the story of Isaac, Esau and Jacob, i.e Jacobs usurpation of Esau’s birthright ( Esau=Edmund Crouchback). This is persuasive evidence as Creton did not know the significance of the biblical allusion. References in Froissart Gower Capgrave Richard Duke of York’s claim to parliament in 1460. Based on the evidence, which is weighty, it is clear that Henry’s appeal to the Lancastrian Myth was not dismissed by Adam of Usk and his panel of learned doctors, before 30th September 1399. It is also clear that this bizarre myth was understood 60 years later as the foundation stone of Lancastrian legitimacy (Richard Duke of York), had existed in the interim years (Capgrave), had been used by the court poet to celebrate Henry’s triumph (Gower) and had been incorporated into a Lancastrian tradition that circulated on the continent (Froissart). So where does that leave us? Shall we continue to discount the importance of the Lancastrian Myth, or shall we admit that there is a body of evidence which supports the idea that, despite all its crazy ludicrousness, it was the keystone of Henry’s legitimacy, despite the Myth not being true? The Myth was, politically-speaking, very astute, as it automatically made any other claim based on descent redundant as Henry was the last man standing of the Lancastrian line going back to Edmund Crouchback. This reframing of what legitimate decent meant put Edmund of Langley and the 5th earl of March right out of the picture. If it was true that Henry used this myth - and I say it was - imagine what that means – Henry’s takeover was much more of a rupture than we thought. How radical. How novel. How innovative. Richard II was the usurper, not Henry.