longer.blue

Richard Duke of York: New Information for modern Yorkists extracted from the forthcoming book 1399: The Lancastrian Conquest by Malcolm S F Johnston Here is a quick essay. Richard Duke of York’s claim to the throne based primarily on his father’s descent, not his mother’s, and on what grounds he disputed the house of Lancaster’s right to rule. ------------------------------------- 1) Richard Duke of York and the male entail. Richard Duke of York’s claim to the throne as set out in 1460 is well-known and it is assumed that it was based on his mother’s descent from Lionel of Antwerp, but it was also made, perhaps primarily made, by virtue of his being Duke of York, i.e. his descent from Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York. How could that be? If you have read around the downfall of Richard II and Henry IV’s takeover, you will probably have come across the ‘male entail’ idea by which historians give Henry IV legitimacy as successor to the throne because his father, John of Gaunt, was Edward III’s third son and Richard II had ne heirs ‘of his body’. These historians have misunderstood what would have been meant by male entail, had this idea been operative because it doesn’t legitimise Henry IV, it excludes him. Male entail passes an inheritance in a living line. The death of Gaunt cut Henry IV off from the living line to Edward III. When Gaunt died, male entail would have passed the inheritance to Edmund of Langley, Edward III’s fourth son, 1st Duke of York, as the closest living male to Edward III. There is evidence that there was some kind of process in 1399 whereby the succession of Edmund of Langley was proposed, but rejected. This evidence also has his eldest son (Rutland) proposed, then rejected, and his second son (Conisburgh) proposed, then rejected. All rejected because Henry IV had his own idea as to who would sit on the throne. The house of York was a contender for the throne, given that Henry had removed Richard II, at the very start of the Lancastrian ascendency. Richard Duke of York was thinking more of his Yorkist descent than his Mortimer descent when he made his claim in 1460. His Mortimer ancestry was useful and it gave him an appropriate lineage on his mother’s side, but the central pillar, a pillar on which he could have relied even if he had no royal lineage on his mother’s side, was that of his father’s descent, which was manifested in Richard’s title: 3rd Duke of York. I should point out that Richard Duke of York’s claim to parliament of 1460 does not mention his mother or Lionel specifically. N.B. ‘male entail’ is the dramatic device used to kick off Downton Abbey ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Richard Duke of York and the Lancastrian Myth. You read in post 2 how male entail would have made Edmund of Langley king of England in 1399 had it been in operation. Henry IV was never going to allow this so an alternative legitimacy was cooked up which excluded the Yorks. This was the Lancastrian Myth. Historians don’t like it. It makes them uncomfortable and they pass it by as quickly as they can. They admit it existed but maintain that it was dismissed by Adam of Usk.I can tell you with absolute certainty that Adam of Usk only dismissed it in the sense that it was wrong, not that Henry did not use it. There is a significant body of evidence which proves that the Lancastrian Myth was used by Henry IV to legitimise his rule. The Lancastrian Myth: Henry III should have made Edmund Crouchback (earl of Lancaster) his heir – Edmund I – instead of Edward – Edward I. According to the myth, Edmund was the first born but denied his birthright due to his deformity. According to the myth, Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, the Black Prince and Richard II were all from a usurping line of kings. Henry IV was England’s true king. As I said before, there is a significant body of evidence for the existence of this myth, no matter how crazy it appears. A nice piece of evidence which comes some 60 years after it was first used, which shows how long it endured, comes from Richard Duke of York’s claim in 1460: Richard Duke of York’s petition to parliament ‘11: It is not to be forgotten that the most noble and worthy prince, Henry III, king of England, had issue and lawfully fathered Edward his first-born son, born at Westminster on the fifteenth of the calends of July, on the vigil of St Mark and Marcellian [17 June] 1239, and Edmund his second son, who was born on St Marcellus's day [16 January] 1245’, Parliament roll, Oct 1460, item 11. Richard Duke of York insists above that Henry III’s first-born was Edward. and the reason he did so was because he was addressing the Lancastrian Myth Parliamentary jurists eventually responded to the various points at issue, notably this one: ‘It is to be brought against the title (claim to the throne) of the said duke (York), that at the time when King Henry IV took upon him the crown of England, he said that he entered upon and took upon him the crown as rightful heir of King Henry III, and not as a conqueror,’ ibid, item 17. The jurists answered York in terms of the Lancastrian Myth - in the above, Henry IV was the rightful heir of Henry III. This shows that the Lancastrian Myth was still held to be the foundation of Lancastrian legitimacy in 1460. Richard Duke of York saw it this way: as Duke of York, he was the legitimate beneficiary of the crown by ‘male entail’ and the house of Lancaster's claim, not based on male entail but on the Lancastrian Myth, had never been legitimate. The info comes from my forthcoming book ‘1399: The Lancastrian Conflict’ which is to be published in January 2027.