I stumbled across something interesting the other day. For some reason, I was checking out the Wikipedia entry on ‘usurpers of the English throne’ (we’ve all done it) and discovered that it features a list of those who had seized the crown. As you can imagine, it was an exciting moment!
But it was also a moment that triggered a surge of indignation in my usually placid personality. For while Henry IV, the first Lancastrian King had made his way onto the list, Edward IV of the House of York was strangely absent.
Before this spirals into a whole Lancaster vs York partisan thing, let me be clear: I fully accept that Henry IV deserves his place on the list. Even though his bid to seize the throne was initially fairly popular and despite propagandist claims that his cousin Richard II ‘agreed’ to the new arrangement, there can be no doubt that Henry of Bolingbroke was a usurper. Richard II was clearly forced off the throne and even if he had died or surrendered it willingly, there was arguably another with a better claim.
But excluding Edward IV, who seized the throne from the Lancastrians in 1461, really got my goat.
Although the authors of the page do not present a reason for their spurious (yes, I said it – spurious) decision, it’s not hard to guess where they’re coming from. While Henry Bolingbroke – as the eldest son of Edward III’s third son – was the heir male of his grandfather (or at least, he was after Richard II had actually died), the house of York descended in the female line from Lionel of Antwerp (Edward’s second son), making Edward IV the heir general of his namesake. Most historians now believe this gave York a superior claim to the throne. No doubt the Wikipedia entry does therefore not list the first York King as a usurper because they view it as a restoration of the true blood line.
But this doesn’t stack up.
To start with, back in 1399, when Henry IV was crowned, there was genuine confusion as to whether someone could base their claim to the throne through descent in the female line. Obviously this had become fairly meaningless by the end of the War of the Roses when even the best Lancastrian claimant (Henry Tudor) was basing his right to the crown on his mother’s lineage. But for as long as the male-line Lancastrian wing existed, they had a right which could well have been viewed as superior.
The real reason actually goes much deeper. Regardless of the ‘who had the better claim’ debate, the truth was that by 1461, the house of Lancaster was an established dynasty. The crown had passed seamlessly from the first Lancastrian King to his son who reigned so successfully that his infant boy inherited without challenge. Not only had Henry VI inherited the crown smoothly enough, he had held it for the first 40 years of his reign without anyone questioning it. When Edward IV managed to get his hands on power, Parliament had only recently re-asserted Henry’s right to it, albeit at the cost of disinheriting his son.
To take the throne, Edward IV had to seize it by force. Both law and the establishment were initially against him. In my book, this is the very definition of usurption and, to be frank, it should be in anybody’s. Perhaps the Wikipedia community could take a little look at this post and snap into edit mode.
(Editor’s note: What really makes my blood boil is that Richard III is also excluded from the list of usurpers. I’m too angry about this to even put pen to paper.)
Well geeks over to you…am I misjudging what it means to usurp? Are you a crazed Yorkist who believes that house can do no wrong? Do you have a crush on Max Hastings and are letting that cloud your view? I want to know what YOU think!
Just because a dynasty is established doesn’t make it legitimate. You are right about Richard III, but there were extenuating circumstances.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that, yes, you are misjudging what it means to usurp. Taking by force is a big part of it; but, it also means that, when you take the force away, they would no claim otherwise. Not really the case for Edward.
Thanks so much for commenting.
Hmmm…is that what it means though? I mean, even Henry Tudor had SOME claim to the throne – doesn’t mean he wasn’t a usurper. Besides the House of York had failed to gain the throne by legal means and arguably, in the mindset of 1461, Lancaster had the stronger legal claim.
I’m afraid Edward should be on the list…
As much as I think Edward IV was a good king and certainly a better choice than poor Henry VI, the method by which he gained and maintained his kingship was usurpation. I’d place Henry IV, Richard III, and Henry VII on that list too. I guess I view the word usurp as neutral and judge the men by their effect on the country and on history.
Something you have to understand is that usurpation basically means taking something by force that is not yours to take or you have no legal claim too.
The claim to the English throne went through the Plantagenet family which in this case was the House of Lancaster and the House of York both houses who were cousins and had an almost equal claim to the throne which essentially is part of the reason why the bloody feud between those cousin houses broke out. However someone can argue that it was the Lancastrians who by definition had the weaker claim. Henry’s claim was through his grandfather, Henry IV, who had murdered Richard II and usurped the throne in 1399. Henry IV’s father, John of Gaunt, was the third son of Edward III. Edward IV could trace his claim through the second son of Edward III, so thus had a stronger genealogical claim than Henry VI. A combination of this and the fact that Henry VI had become king because his grandfather usurped the throne made Edward believe he had the stronger claim to the throne. So by definition Edward IV was more of a conquer rather than a usper since he had a real legitimate claim to the English throne that even rivaled that of his cousin Henry VI who he eventually deposed from the throne.
Richard III claimant to throne is rather more complicated, while Richard definitely had a claim to the thorne by definition he wasn’t the next in line to the throne, that was his brother’s son Edward V. The whole reason why he became King is because he declared his brother’s children illegitimated since Edward IV allegedly had a pre-contract marriage with a women named Eleanor Butler prior to marrying Elizabeth Woodville which if true would’ve made their marriage invalid . However there is really no real evidence anymore to date that the pre-contract existed or if it was just an made up excuse to depose the rightful King Edward V and thus gave Richard the chance to usurp the throne for himself.
While Richard’s III taking of the throne was rather dubious he definitely still had a stronger claim to the throne than Henry VII who’s claim to the throne by inheritance was rather weak, in fact it was the weakest claim since William the Conqueror. Henry’s claim was through his mothers (Margret Beaufort) side of the family which was an illegitimate line and he was technically barred from the throne. All in all Henry VII was definitely a usper since he had very weak claim to the throne and even after he defeated Richard III on the battlefield and then usurped the throne for himself there where still people out there who had better claim to the throne than him, which actually caused him a lot of problems in the coming years of his reign. Henry eventfully went and married Edward IV eldest daughter Elizabeth of York (who he had declared legitimated again) to not only united the two feuding factions (The York’s and The Lancastrians) but too also strengthen his and more impotently his future children’s claim to the English throne.
“…back in 1399, when Henry IV was crowned, there was genuine confusion as to whether someone could base their claim to the throne through descent in the female line.”
The Plantagenet claim to the throne came via a woman. As had Stephen’s.
Thanks for the comment, Peter.
In the Stephen / Matilda era there was no clear pattern of hereditary/primogeniture succession.
Regardless, much had changed by 1399. In the late 1300s there was a huge trend toward entailing estates down the male line only. Edward III had left an document entailing the crown down the male line. The heirs of John of Gaunt were explicitly placed above the Mortimers. Richard II seems to have followed the same principle, although that’s not fully clear.