Re: DESCENDANTS OF HENRY IV OF ENGLAND
- From: Windemere <a.windemere@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 08:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 2, 9:07 am, David <ds...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 1, 9:03 pm, ar...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
If Henry IV had other descendants after the deaths of Henry VI and his
son, why didn't they succeed to the throne after the death of Edward
IV and the presumed deaths of his sons?
The first and easiest answer is that Henry IV had no *legitimate*
descendants surviving after the deaths of Henry VI and Edward of
Westminster in 1471; and legitimacy is usually (not always) a sine qua
non for inheriting a crown.
The second, and more practical answer is: because there was a man
styling himself "Richard III" on the throne, and he wasn't letting
them. (As for Edward V and his brother the Duke of York, we can be
quite sure that their deaths were not "presumed"; not only was the
fact of their demise widely spoken of during Richard III's own reign,
but Richard made rather free use of their titles to reward his family
and supporters. But by that time Richard had so far flouted both his
own obligations as Protector, and every other legal and constitutional
nicety, and shown such an epic bloodthirstiness with respect to his
political opponents that a couple more corpses -- small ones, even --
thrown on the altar of his ambition hardly swayed opinion more than it
could be swayed already.)
In any case, after 1471, there were no more Lancastrian consensus
candidates. The genealogically senior heir of the family (a
descendant of one of Henry IV's sisters) was not English -- he was in
fact the King of Portugal -- but in any case Lancastrian claims were
based on ignoring genealogical seniority. In the non-Portuguese line
descended from John of Gaunt, the senior heir seems to have been Anne
Holland, Countess of Douglas, married to a Scot -- and there was as
yet no precedent for a woman to succeed to the throne of England. If
there had been, the best candidate was doubtless Elizabeth of York,
eldest daughter of Edward IV.
The resistance to Richard III -- which was no longer purely
"Lancastrian", as he had done so much to outrage Yorkists as well --
therefore fell to the exiled Earl of Richmond, descended from John of
Gaunt by an illegitimate line. But his leadership of the anti-Richard
cause had less to do with his genealogy than with him being a young
man with the energy and courage to make a bold gamble for the throne.
In the first instance this claim would be buttressed by an appeal to
force, since if that failed, all other claims would be moot. But
Richmond hedged his bets by promising to marry Elizabeth, thus
ensuring himself at least of Yorkist neutrality if not full-fledged
support. The long-term result was that the descendants of Richmond --
after 1485, "Henry VII" -- would have a securer title to the throne
than any monarch since 1399.
Actually, Queen Elizabeth II does have a descent from Henry IV. She
acquired the descent through her mother. Henry's son Humphrey, Duke of
Gloucester, had a natural daughter Antigone, who is an ancestress of
the present Queen. Antigone's descendants are traceable on
Genealogics.org, and through the "Monarchy Forum" website.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: DESCENDANTS OF HENRY IV OF ENGLAND
- From: Katipo
- Re: DESCENDANTS OF HENRY IV OF ENGLAND
- References:
- DESCENDANTS OF HENRY IV OF ENGLAND
- From: aryeb
- Re: DESCENDANTS OF HENRY IV OF ENGLAND
- From: David
- DESCENDANTS OF HENRY IV OF ENGLAND
- Prev by Date: Re: Monaco - Princely family - since when recognized by the Sovereign Houses?
- Next by Date: Colloredo (princes, 1810, judicial sentence of a Catholic marriage beinng null, therefore cancellation of the entry in the register)
- Previous by thread: Re: DESCENDANTS OF HENRY IV OF ENGLAND
- Next by thread: Re: DESCENDANTS OF HENRY IV OF ENGLAND
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
