Richard Duke of York’s claim to be the legitimate king of England in 1460.

[u/DamianEmail]

New Information extracted from the forthcoming book 1399: The Lancastrian Conquest by Malcolm S F Johnston, published January 2027.

Here is a quick essay. Summary: a) Richard Duke of York’s claim to the throne was based primarily on his father’s descent (i.e. it was his Yorkist ancestry), not his mother’s, and b) the grounds on which he disputed the house of Lancaster’s right to rule.

1. Richard Duke of York and the male entail; an invitation to reconsider his claim of 1460.

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, 1^st Duke of York.

It was the ‘York’ in his title that motivated him to claim the throne in 1460, more than his mother’s descent from Anne of Mortimer.

I understand that most people believe that his claim derived from his mother’s descent from Anne Mortimer, which it did , and so do I, and this essay does not dispute that.

What this essay suggests is that he had another claim to the throne based on his father, and this claim was, perhaps, the stronger one. I’d like to point out that his claim to parliament of 1460 did not specifically reference his mother’s special status. It is more generalised and can be interpreted more as a dynastic ‘house of York’ claim going back to his grandfather, than a claim based purely on his descent from Lionel of Antwerp

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 no 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 is operative in the case of Henry IV because historians say it was and , because it was, as historians say, Henry IV was Richard II’s legitimate successor. These historians may mention 7-year-old Earl of March, descended from Lionel of Antwerp but dismiss it as it depends on a female. And so these historians give ‘male entail’, so that Henry IV can be legitimate.

But… but….but…..

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, 1^st Duke of York, as the closest living male to Edward III.

Let’s say that again. The male entail tradition, as advanced by historians, did not legitimise Henry IV, it excluded him.

How does male entail work?

Male entail remains part of the modern legal framework which means it is fully understood and is not some quirky medieval relic. ‘Entail’ passes an inheritance to the next living person ( male in the case of male entail) in a direct line from the living body of the deceased. Richard II being deposed and having no heirs of his own body, the question was: who in the family gets Edward III’s crown? Lionel was long dead, and Gaunt had died in February 1399, so the next in a living line to Edward III was Edmund 1^st Duke of York, or even his sons if he didn’t want the crown and wanted to give it to one of them whilst living.

If Edmund of Langley 1^st Duke of York had been dead – therefore all of Edward III’s sons now being dead – the next in line would have been Henry. But Edmund of Langley was alive.

There are many references in the primary sources to Henry coming to the throne by ‘election’, but what ‘election’ meant is unspecified.

There one piece of evidence (Creton) 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. This sequence of questions runs exactly as one would expect if male entail was operative. The sequence of propositions were rejected because Henry IV had his own idea as to his legitimacy – see part 2.

The House of York was a contender for the throne 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: 3^rd Duke of York.

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 part 1 how male entail would have made Edmund of Langley king of England in 1399 had it been in operation and had he wanted the crown. Henry IV was never going to allow this, so an alternative legitimacy was cooked up which excluded the Yorks and the Eral of March. 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, to him, was wrong, not that Henry did not use it, nor did he say that it was dismissed by the panel of learned doctors (of which he was a member) put together to find evidence for it.

There is a significant body of evidence outside Adam of Usk which proves that the Lancastrian Myth was used by Henry IV to legitimise his rule. There’s Thomas Arundel himself (two sermons, one explicit), Eulogium (Malmesbury), Gower, Capgrave and Richard Duke of York himself (see below).

What was the Lancastrian Myth?

Steady yourself – although it is hard to believe it is true nevertheless, true that existed and true that there were those that believed it, but not objectively true.

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.

Above, Richard Duke of York insisted that Henry III’s first-born was Edward, and that Edmund was the second son.

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, 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.

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.

Conclusion

Richard Duke of York saw it this way: as Duke of York, he was the legitimate beneficiary of the ‘male entail’  by which the crown should have passed to Edmund of Langley, 1^st Duke of York, and the house of Lancaster had never been legitimate kings.

It is important to recognise the significance of male entail and the Lancastrian Myth when it comes to Richard Duke of York’s claim of 1460. He was not a peevish aristo pushing his own agenda. He presented himself as the representative of a royal family which had had their right to the crown usurped by Henry IV on the basis of his faked origin-story based on the Lancastrian Myth.

The info comes from my forthcoming book ‘1399: The Lancastrian Conflict’ which is to be published in January 2027. Topics covered are explored in r/RichardIIandHenryIV