HISTORICAL FICTION
HISTORICAL IMAGE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
KING RICHARD II, [SON OF THE BLACK PRINCE, THE FIRST
SON OF KING EDWARD III AND THEREFORE 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
ANNE MORTIMER’S SON, RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK,
GRANDSON [FROM HIS MOTHER’S SIDE]
OF ROGER MORTIMER
HIS CLAIM TO THE THRONE WAS BASED ON HIS
MATERNAL SIDE AND SUPERIOR TO THE LANCASTERS,
WHO DESCENDED FROM THE THIRD SON OF EDWARD III,
WHILE RICHARD DESCENDED FROM THE SECOND SON
.jpg)
KING HENRY IV, WHO USURPED THE THRONE OF RICHARD II AS
HENRY BOLINGBROKE, HIS COUSIN
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]
KING HENRY V, SON OF KING HENRY IV
[HISTORICAL IMAGE]
.jpg)
KING HENRY VI OF ENGLAND, SON OF KING HENRY V
[HISTORICAL IMAGE]
MARGARET OF ANJOU, QUEEN OF ENGLAND
[HISTORICAL IMAGE]
TWO IMAGES OF MARGARET OF ANJOU, QUEEN OF ENGLAND
[FICTION]
KING EDWARD IV, SON OF RICHARD, DUKE OF
YORK
[FICTION]
KING RICHARD III, SON OF RICHARD,
DUKE OF YORK
HISTORICAL IMAGE
KING HENRY VII, THE FIRST TUDOR KING
AND FOUNDER OF THE TUDOR DYNASTY
HISTORICAL IMAGE
THE WARS OF THE ROSES/THE HOUSE OF YORK/REACTION
ON ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA’S CHANGES IN THEIR
ARTICLE AFTER MY COMMENTS
Dear Readers,
Recently I wrote to Encyclopaedia Britannica about their
article ”The House of York”, adding some critical remarks.
Reasons?
Two.
FIRST:
Encyclopaedia Britannica called the overthrow of King Henry VI
by the son of Richard, Duke of York, the later King Edward IV,
after his victory in the Battle of Towton, an ”usurpation”.
In my letter to Encyclopaedia Britannica, I pointed out,
that although it was a deposing of King Henry VI, it was no
”usurpation”, because of the York superior claim to
the throne, by descending from maternal side from
King Edward III’s second son, Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of
Clarence, while the Lancasters descended from the third
son of King Edward III, John of Gaunt.
King Richard II appointed the grandson of Lionel
of Antwerp, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March,
[the son of Lionel’s daughter Philippa Plantagenet,
who married Edmund Mortimer, 3th Earl of March,
as his heir presumptive
to the throne, a right which passed through his son, Edmund
Were Richard II not usurped by his cousin, Henrt Bolingbroke
[the later King Henry IV, and Richard II died childless, Edmund
Mortimer should be King of England.
And Edmund Mortimer was the maternal uncle
of Richard, Duke of York, who was the son of Edmund Mortimer’s
sister, Anne Mortimer.
Since Edmund Mortimer died childless, Richard of York inherited
his vast estates and the title of Earl of March [he became the
6th Earl of March], which he passed
to his son, the later Edward IV.
So when Edward IV overthrew Henry VI, it was a deposal, not
usurpation.
SECOND
When mentioning the Act of Accord of 1460, by which
Richard of York and Parliament agreed, that Richard of York
would succeed Henry VI after his death [and thus disinheriting
Edward of Westminster, the son of Henry VI, which infuriated
of course his mother, Margaret of Anjou], which was confirmed
by Richard’s superior claim to the throne,
Encyclopaedia Britannica made a remark about the
”weakness” in this claim by deriving from females.
I challenged that by pointing out, that four English Kings
REACTION OF ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
I received an interesting and partly satisfying reaction
from Encyclopaedia Britannica with some changes
in the article
This was their reaction: