The Wars of the Roses/Richard, Duke of York/The claims to the throne of Lancaster and York

KING RICHARD II,[SON OF THE BLACK PRINCE , THE FIRST

SON OF KING EDWARD III, WHO DIED DURING THE

REIGN OF EDWARD III

THEREFORE RICHARD II WAS SUCCESSOR

OF KING EDWARD III], WHO DECLARED ROGER MORTIMER

HIS HEIR PRESUMPTIVE.

ROGER MORTIMER WAS THE SON OF RICHARD II’S FIRST

COUSIN PHILIPPA,

THE DAUGHTER OF THE SECOND SON OF KING EDWARD III,

LIONEL OF ANTWERP

AND THEREFORE NEXT IN LINE TO THE SUCCESSION TO

THE THRONE, AS LONG AS RICHARD II WAS CHILDLESS.

ROGER MORTIMER HAD TWO CHILDREN, EDMUND, 4TH EARL OF

MARCH AND ANNE MORTIMER, WHO MARRIED RICHARD CONISBURGH,

SON OF EDMUND OF LANGLEY, DUKE OF YORK [FOURTH SON

OF EDWARD III]

AFTER HIS DEATH, ROGER MORTIMER PASSED HIS HEIR

PRESUMPTIVE RIGHT TO HIS SON EDMUND, 5TH EARL

OF MARCH, WHO PASSED THIS RIGHT TO HIS NEPHEW

RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK,  SON OF HIS SISTER

ANNE MORTIMER.

WHEN RICHARD II WAS USURPED BY HIS COUSIN

HENRY BOLINGBROKE [LATER KING HENRY IV, SON OF JOHN

OF GAUNT, THE THIRD SON OF KING EDWARD III AND

THEREFORE WITH A LESSER RIGHT TO THE THRONE

THAN EDMUND MORTIMER],

EDMUND, THE SON OF THE LATE ROGER MORTIMER,

BEING THE RIGHTFUL SUCCESSOR, WAS OVERLOOKED.

ROGER MORTIMER’S SON AND DAUGHTER, EDMUND AND

ANNE MORTIMER

RICHARD OF YORK, CLAIMANT TO THE ENGLISH THRONE

AND ONE OF THE MAIN LEADERS OF THE WAR OF ROSES

[WAR BETWEEN THE HOUSES OF LANCASTER AND YORK,

BOTH DESCENDANTS OF KING EDWARD III]

[HISTORICAL IMAGE]

MARGARET OF ANJOU, QUEEN OF ENGLAND

MARGARET OF ANJOU, QUEEN OF ENGLAND

[HISTORICAL IMAGE]

INTRODUCTION

Dear Readers,

Recently I wrote about the Wars of Roses, with respect to the role

of Margaret of Anjou, wife of King Henry VI and her great adversary,

Richard, Duke of York.

”English history/The Wars of the Roses/Margaret of Anjou and

Richard, Duke of York, two major players

”THE CLAIMS OF LANCASTER AND YORK”

About the York claim the author writes

”Richard Duke of York, as the main member of the house of York trying to claim the throne, was the son of Anne Mortimer and her husband Richard earl of Cambridge (who’s elder brother was duke of York) Anne Mortimer is descended from the Mortimer line, which means she’s descends from the daughter of John of Gaunt’s older brother, Lionel of Clarence. (her name was Philippa by the way) As for Richard of Cambridge, he was descended from Edmund of York, a younger brother of John of Gaunt. Sadly women could not inherit the throne and female claims came second in the line of succession. Thus, Richard duke of York’s only claim could come through Edmund of York. But any of York’s descends use this claim. ”

My research [as of others] however showes, that not the Lancasters,

but the Yorks had a superior right to the throne

WOMAN’S RIGHTS TO THE THRONE

In contrary to what the author wrote, in England women could inherit

the throne, because there were no Salic Laws as in the Holy

Roman Empire and France. [1]

A historical English example is King Henry I [son to

William the Conqueror], who passed his right to the throne

to his daughter Matilda, the later Queen Maud, mother of

King Henry II. [2]

If a woman had no right to inherit the throne, King

Henry could not have made such a move.

That Queen Maud, also named  Empress Matilda[3]  [after

her former marriage to the Holy Roman Emperor

Henry V] never ruled England, was due to the civil

war, which broke out, since her cousin, Stephen of

Blois, claimed the throne, simply because he was a man. [4]

But he was also a grandson of William the Conqueror,

by his mother Adela, daughter to William the Conqueror. [5]

Not the son of the anointed King, Henry I [whose

son was already dead]

Civil war broke out, a period, called ”the Anarchy” [6],which

ended with a compromise, the Treaty of Winchester [or

Wallingford],  whichwas an agreement reached in England the summer of 1153.  The Treaty of Wallingford allowed Stephen to keep the throne until his death (which was to come in October 1154), but forced Stephen to recognise Matilda’s son Henry of Anjou (also called Henry FitzEmpress), who later became Henry II, as his heir.” [7]

After the death of Stephen of Blois, King Henry II ascended the throne. [8]

BACK TO THE YORK CLAIM ON THE THRONE

THE SONS OF KING EDWARD III

King Edward III had a number of sons, Edward, the Black Prince [father of the later King Richard II] [9], Lionel of

Antwerp, Duke of Clarence [great great grandfather of Richard, the

Duke of York] [10], John of Gaunt, First Duke of Lancaster

[title inherited from his wife, Blanche of Lancaster] [11], Edmund of

Langley, First Duke of York [grandfather of Richard, Duke of York]

[12] and Thomas of Woodstock, First Duke of Gloucester. [13]

THE YORK LINEAGE OF INHERITANCE

YORK BRANCHE AND MORTIMER BRANCHE

FATHER’S SIDE:

Richard, Duke of York, descends from as well as father’s as

mother’s side, from King Edward III.

His father, Richard of Conisburgh [14] was the second son of

Edmund Langley, Duke of York and therefore the grandson of

King Edward III.

What made the Yorkist claim to the throne legitimate and valid were

two factors.

The fact, that the Lancasters raised to power by usurping the throne

from King Richard II [20], as the fact that Richard II appointed Roger Mortimer

his heir presumptive [21], being the descendant of King Edward III’s second son, Lionel of Antwerp.

He died a year before King Richard II, but his right to the throne passed to

his son, Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March [22].

Edmund of Mortimer was the maternal uncle of Richard, Duke

of York [brother of his mother, Anne Mortimer] [23]

After the death of Edmund, the heir presumptive right, thus passed to

his nephew Richard, Duke of York. [24]

LANCASTER USURPATION OF THE THRONE OF

KING RICHARD II

But there is more to it.

At 1399, King Richard’s cousin [son of his uncle, John of

Gaunt, third son of Edward III], Henry Bolingbroke, deposed

Richard II, making himself King Henry IV. [25]

That meant, that the Lancasters [Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI] were

no legitimate Kings, but usurpers,with the only later legitimization

the considerable military successes of King Henry V. [26]

The Lancasters did an attempt by legitimise their right, by claiming,

that Blanche of Lancaster [the wife of John of Gaunt[, who was a descendant

of Edmund Crouchback [27] [son of King Henry III and younger brother of

King Edward I], had superior rights to the throne.

Because Edmund Crouchback was in reality the first son of King Henry

III, but was disinherited.

So King Edward I should not have been king, being a younger brother.

However, this is pure Lancaster propaganda and no real

proof for it whatsoever. [28]

By deposing King Richard II the Lancasters did more than

usurpation.

Theyoverlooked and  passed the rightful heir presumptive Edmund

 Mortimer,  son of the first heir presumptive, Roger Mortimer. [29]

And in the fifties, when the reign of friendly and pious,

and, alas, insane, King Henry VI was weak and men as Somerset

and Suffolk [allies of the wife of Henry, Queen Margaret of Anjou],

made a ruin of English rule [30], Richard, Duke of York, at last,

made his claim, wiith a vengeance, resulting in civil

war, The Wars of the Roses.

See also my article

ENGLISH HISTORY/

THE WARS OF THE ROSES, MARGARET OF ANJOU

AND RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK, TWO MAJOR PLAYERS

OR

EPILOGUE

I think I have made my point by showing  a different

view, that the York claim to the throne was superior above the

Lancasters.

Summary:

The female right to the throne was valid.

The Yorks descended from the second son of

King Edward III,.the Lancasters from the third

The Yorks of course based their claim on the MATERNAL

side [from the second son of Edward III], NOT on

the side of the father [descended from the fourth son

of Edward III]

King Richard II appointed Roger Mortimer, maternal grandfather

of the Duke of York, as his heir presumptive, which passed

to his descendants, but could not be effectuated since

Henry Bolingbroke [later King Henry IV] usurped the throne.

There was no proof, that Blanche of Lancaster”s [the wife

of John of Gaunt and foremother of the Lancasters] ancestor,

Edmund Crouchback, second son of King Henry III, was in reality

his first son in stead of King Edward I, which was a claim

of the Lancasters.

So I may conclude, as been affirmed by any source I researched,

that the House of York had a superior right to the throne,

by mother’s [Mortimer] side.

Thanks very much for making a trip to the past

with me again

Astrid Essed

Amsterdam

The Netherlands

[1]

WIKIPEDIA

SALIC LAW

” In response to this, Henry declared his daughter, Matilda, as his heir and married her to Geoffrey of Anjou. ”

WIKIPEDIA

[20]

WIKIPEDIA

RICHARD II OF ENGLAND

[21]

WIKIPEDIA

HEIR PRESUMPTIVE

WIKIPEDIA

ROGER MORTIMER, 4TH EARL OF MARCH

[22]

”Edmund de Mortimer, 5th Earl of March and 7th Earl of Ulster (6 November 1391 – 18 January 1425), was anEnglish nobleman. A great-grandson of King Edward III of England, he was heir presumptive to King Richard II of England, his cousin once removed, when Richard II was deposed in favour of Henry IV.”

WIKIPEDIA

EDMUND MORTIMER, 5TH EARL OF MARCH

[23]

”Anne’s father, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March, was heir presumptive during his lifetime, and at his death in Ireland on 20 July 1398 his claim to the crown passed to his eldest son, Edmund.”

WIKIPEDIA

ANNE DE MORTIMER

[24]

”The Duke of York, now Henry’s heir presumptive, was excluded from the court circle and sent to govern Ireland, while his opponents, the Earls of Suffolk and Somerset were promoted to Dukes, a title at that time still normally reserved for immediate relatives of the monarch.^[11]”