The Duke and the King who kept changing his mind

Richard II- ‘The King who kept changing his mind’

Many people with even a moderate interest in history will likely have heard of Richard, 3^rd Duke of York (1411-1460) and his claim to the throne which made him a rival of the Lancastrian King Henry VI (the sixth)- even if only from Shakespeare’s ‘history’ plays in which this claim is recounted at some length by Richard himself.

As Historians go, most simply take it for granted that Richard and his sons the subsequent Yorkist Kings Edward IV and Richard III had the ‘best’ and ‘strongest’ claim to the throne- or at least one that trumped that of the ‘usurping’ Lancastrians. Either way, the superiority of the Yorkist claim is generally stated as an undisputed fact by many Medievalists. This is a view that I too shared until fairly recently- and which likely a lot of other History students do- but not anymore. In this post I will be examining this subject in more detail- and try not to be too boring in the process!

The key questions that are to be addressed when looking at this claim are thus

1-      What was the nature and origin of Richard’s claim?

2-      Was is truly the strongest and best?

To address the first question it is necessary to go back to long before Richard’s birth in 1411 and to the reign of Richard II. Most know the story of how Richard was deposed by his cousin Henry Bolingbroke, who later became Henry IV (the fourth). This is where Richard’s claim comes in for it is stated that whilst Henry ‘forced’ the childless Richard to name appoint as the heir before his deposition, the true and ‘rightful’ heir of the blood was the child Edmund Mortimer. To examine the ‘rightness’ of Mortimer’s claim it is necessary to go back even further to Edward III (the third) and his family line.

Richard II was of course the Grandson of Edward by his firstborn son Edward the Black Prince who predeased him by one year. Mortimer was descendant of Edward’s second son, Lionel Duke of Clarence, though his only child Phillipa. Henry Bolingbroke however was the son of Edward’s third son, John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster. Seems pretty straightforward and clear whose the rightful claim was, right? That because Richard of York was descended from the eldest son he must have had a better claim than the house of Lancaster, and in light of King Richard’s choice of successor it seems all the clearer.

However, things are not quite so straightforward as they seem even in this regard. Historian Michael Bennett in his book ‘Richard II and the Revolution of 1399’ (Sutton, 2006) accounts for one of the main difficulties with the succession in the reign of Richard II. Richard of course had no children of his own, so his closest legitimate relatives in the royal line were his Uncles and their sons and descendants- his cousins.

Confused by all the Royal Cousins and relations? Click the family tree to make things clearer

Richard seems to have been well aware of his Cousin Henry’s ambitions where the throne was concerned- but also knew that another one of his cousins Roger Mortimer (the father of Edmund) had a claim. It appears that Richard used the succession as something of weapon or at least as a political tool which by which he could gain the upper hand. In the 1480s Roger Mortimer was nominated as his heir, it is suggested perhaps partly to ‘foil the ambition of John of Gaunt’ but later in that same decade he ‘encouraged Bolingbroke’s expectations. Gaunt’s solid support for Richard from 1389 onwards may reflect some understanding that Richard… would nominate Gaunt or Bolingbroke as his heir’. After Roger Mortimer’s death in Ireland in 1397 there seems to have been little expectation that his young son Edmund would be appointed as heir- in this same decade Richard appears to have been showing favour to Edmund of Langley Duke of York and his sons and there is even suggestion that he might have considered them as possible heirs.

It is this issue of Richard’s apparent inconstancy and even capriciousness where the succession was concerned that raises questions over the absolute nature of the Mortimer claim. Next, there is the question of the strength of Richard’s claim. As stated before, he was descended from Phillipa, the daughter of the second son of Edward III but through his mother, Anne Mortimer, the sister of Edmund. Towards the end of his long reign Edward III excluded females from the succession, but when King Richard favoured Roger Mortimer as his heir, he included Phillipa’s heirs again, and there were of course other precedents in the past for female succession, such as the Eleventh century Queen Matilda.

The matter of female succession in important to any analysis of Richard of York’s claim considering that some who wish to discredit Henry Tudor’s claim cite his descent from Edward III in the female line. Yet these often seem to ignore the fact that Richard of York’s claim was derived through not one, but two female ancestors- Phillipa the aforementioned daughter of Lionel, and his mother Anne Mortimer, the sister of Edmund who died childless in 1425. Also, in the last case succession in the female line there had been no hiers in the male line left- which was not the case in 15th century England.

As Michael Hicks has demonstrated Richard of York’s claim stood as but one amongst server in the 1440s and 50s. The Lancastrians were certainly aware of his decent, and the potential threat his rival claim posed, but it does not seem to have become prominent until the late 1440s at least. Even at this time, Henry was favouring his Beaufort relatives, and others who were direct descendants of the House of Lancaster. The Lancastrian Kings themselves also had one major advantage- their descent was in the direct and unbroken male line from Edward III and was not dependant on female (as in the case of Richard) or illegitimate ancestors (as for the Beauforts).

Alongside York as possible heirs to the throne there stood at least four other viable claims

1. John Duke of Exeter who was Nephew of Henry IV by birth and so the Cousin of Henry VI, and his son Henry.
2. John Beaufort Duke of Somerset, and his brother Edmund – also direct descendants in the male line of Edward III, but through John of Gaunt’s illegitimate Beaufort sons- the offspring of his mistress Katherine Swynford. Although there were declared legitimate in the reign of Richard II they were barred from the succession by their half-brother Henry IV.
3. Margaret Beaufort the daughter of Duke John
4. Humphrey Stafford Duke of Buckingham, the heir to the youngest legitimate son of Edward III Thomas of Woodstock but, like York in the female line.

Richard of York and John Duke of Somerset- possibly because of John’s rival claim there was more to thier rivalry then flowers

The above show that York was far from the only viable claimant to the throne, though his claim did arguably trump some of the others, the complicated rules and customs governing succession did not necessarily mean that his claim was the ‘best’. Certainly there were no rules specifically excluding heirs in the female line from the succession, and the matter of Edward III’s exclusion of these seems to have been accepted or disregarded depending on political expediency.

However, the number of claimants in the Lancastrian line, and Henry VI’s attempts to strengthen their hold on power through political marriages may have put York at a disadvantage dynastically.

In some respects, it was circumstances which caused York’s claim to become prominent. The ineffectuality of King Henry, and inability or lack of success of the government in running the country for him, the unpopularity of King Henry’s ‘wicked counsellors’, and York’s own popularity as a viable alternative to these gave his claim prominence. These circumstances, coupled with the force used by York to further his ends, and a number of unsuccessful armed risings against the King lead to York finally claiming the throne in his own right in 1460. This has been argued to be a last resort, after all hopes of reconciliation by peaceful means had been exhausted. After Richard’s death, his son Edward secured the Yorkist claim by Conquest and defeat of his enemies in battle. During the reign of the Yorkist kings is perhaps unsurprising that the legitimacy and superiority and validity of the Yorkist claim came to be an accepted as an absolute fact, in spite of its weaknesses in reality.

Bibliography

Bennett, Michael, Richard II and the Revolution of 1399 (Stroud, 2006).

Hicks, Michael, The Wars of the Roses (London, 2010).

Family Tree taken from http://richardiiicasebook.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/lancaster-and-york-family-tree.html, Accessed 20th May 2012.

“Nerds” of yesterday-”Heroes” of tomorrow?: Why being Historians?

Good morning everyone. After some rearrangements it is me the one in charge to update for this week, and unfortunately you will have to wait to see what amazing Scott has ready for you until the end of the month. Nonetheless, I hope I can entertain you at least for a bit with this very random but perhaps interesting post. I have been meaning to update with something like this for a while and finally here it is.

Some of you might know that one of the requirements for history students is to do an essay and evaluations of the importance of being a historian, studying history and all that jazz. Well, I did like many others my essay some time ago already.The ideas I argued in that paper were very similar to the following one. First of all the issue of employability; history students have a good chance to find a decent graduate job thanks to their knowledge and skills acquired during their degree, which is just as a good reason as anything else to make the degree valuable. Apart from that I also indicated that historians do have the knowledge from the past that can be used to change the present and the future. Many of the nowadays situations that our governments have to deal with and even some of the circumstances given in the majority of the societies and economies all around the world have their origins in the past. As historians we can try and learn from what happened before and take measures to make it work now. In addition, I always thought that just the learning of history should be pretty much compulsory in schools, high schools and colleges no matter what, because history also forms you as an individual. History allows you to develop your own views on different matters, it makes you do your own reading and research, very useful skills for anyone in general, and it makes you understand your place within the world. It allows you to identify yourself within a bigger context, to belong somewhere. History ties in very closely with family and community, two big parts of our everyday life. Many people, not to say everyone, wants to know who they are, where do they come from, who were there ancestors, were they interesting people? did they do something relevant? something important? Something to be proud of and aspire to achieve?

These and many other things make history so important. I could carry on rambling about this the whole day, but now I would like to proceed to put forward the reason why I have been thinking about this lately. There is a TV series, that som of you might know called Falling Skies. It started last year and the new season is about coming out very soon. The basic plot of the story is that in an alternative sci-fi future some aliens have come to some places of the earth, (well in this case america, but one can assume the situation is similar elsewhere), establish huge alien bases and fight mankind. In their struggle it seems that these aliens have also been stealing the young boys and girls on many of these people to enslave them and use them in their colonisation of the planet. Why is this relevant? Because of the main character of this story, called Tom Mason, who is a father of 3 and has lost one of his sons to the aliens, and whose rescue is one of the main subplots of the whole thing. So what is the deal with Tom and why I have the urge to share this with everyone that reads this? Well as it happens he IS AN HISTORIAN!

Have any of you ever seen a historian as the protagonist of any TV series? Everyone knows about the adventures of Professor Jones against the nazis and the russians to recover lost and mysterious artefacts, and the same applies to the National Treasure saga. But it did shocked me that it was a history teacher the one that basically has the control in this series. Apart from the whole deal with the aliens, the one bit that gets to me every single time I see this, is how Amazing Tom Mason keeps on making comments and references to historical events that could give them the answer to solve a specific problem they have to deal with. Mainly and most of the times is references about battles, outcomes, hostages and military history in general, but still It Is History applied to a counterfactual situation, and the man proves himself to be useful and most of the time quite right. He uses his understanding of mankind to attempt to understand these aliens, to defeat them and to change things. I think it is a very nice tribute to all of us that engage with history to know that we can also be the ‘heroes of the day’ even if it is in fiction, and perhaps in reality if this situation could ever occur.

So today goes for you all history lovers, and in particular, as my degree finishes soon (in deed the next time I would be updating this blog I would technically have finished I university), I would like to dedicate this post to some of my particular ‘heroes’ who happen to be historians in a way or another, like the already mentioned Tom Mason, my father without whom I would have never ended up doing history, and my university lecturers.

HISTORY CHEERS! I hope you enjoyed this relaxed update and that you will keep an eye on for the delightful stuff my team mates will be sharing with you in the following weeks.

‘The greatest mistake America made was allowing women to vote’:

Now there is a title for my blog this month. The greatest mistake that America had ever made was allow women the right to vote, call me crazy but for those of us who actually believe in the ideals of equality, freedom, and the right to express ourselves and our opinions politically, isn’t this going a bit far. Ok so that’s an understatement as to how I felt about this article when I read it, and is actually the politest way I could think to describe the shock and anger I felt upon reading it, by the way yes I am a women and as my friends well know one with feminist tendencies and opinions so to me, this was a bit of a kick in the teeth. However I respect the right of Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson to his opinion and have provided a link to the article below for those of you who wish to read the article in full. Yet I hope that he also respectfully accepts my right to disagree with him. So this blog shall explore the complex relationship that women have with politics and voting, and asking the question why, as we come in England (6 years to go) to the centenary of women having the right to vote, do such out dated views, that we should not have the right to vote, still exist.

In the article Rev. Peterson states that women are ‘leading the United States down a path of wickedness because they have too much political power. Whilst I disagree with Rev. Peterson’s idea that the way in which women vote is bringing a form of ‘political evil’, to the United States, or at least this is how it appears to him, as a Republican. However it must be stated that perhaps his rather extremist view is as a result of the suggestion that in the last presidential election (2008), that more women voted for Obama and the Democrat party , his political and the party that is attempting to bring a considerable amount of change to America, which is described by some, particularly of a Republican persuasion, as attempts to bring a kind of socialism into America. For instance through the introduction of the idea of same-sex marriages; the introduction of health care reforms. As a result the suggestion by Rev. Peterson, the ‘wickedness’ that has been brought in by women voting democrat, entail the more left leaning ideas that are changing America. Which as a Republican, a group who can be typically identified as deeply Christian and extremely conservative, he would not appreciate these changes. However there is a wider comment that can be made as a result of Rev. Peterson’s suggestions, that the attitudes to women and power (in this case political, yet there are other examples) is something that hasn’t changed. Since the beginning of time it can be argued that whenever women had some form of power they were often mocked or criticized for it. In sticking with the political element to this blog post I shall stick to women who have actively participated within politics or had an impact upon them within the 21st and 20th century. However my previous statement remains women who have power have been stereotypically seen as a bad thing or something that cannot be trusted to act rationally. Once again I must state that these suggestions are my own opinions, please feel free to disagree with me and post your own comments on this subject.

As an English woman a prime example of this statement can be found in the treatment of Britain’s first and only (so far) woman Prime Minister Margret Thatcher. Now I can hear you start your tirades of how she took away milk and destroyed the miners or how she did great in the Falkland’s whichever camp you’re in, however I ask you to put these feelings aside for a moment and consider whether the fact that she was a women contributed to people’s opinions of her, in a negative manner. For instance she was known as the Iron Lady, a title given to her as a result of her determination and stubbornness with her politics and politicians, whilst this can be seen as a title of strength it can also be seen negatively as the iron lady can also conjure up images of a harsh woman, to an extent unwomanly. As it is already known Thatcher underwent voice coaching and a change of appearance before becoming leader of the conservative party, in order, it can be suggested to become more authoritative a stereotypically manly trait which is needed for any leader. However the fact that Thatcher has to adopt such traits, authoritative, stubbornness, and determination in order to succeed in British politics demonstrates how women to an extent, have to change in order to succeed in politics, and sometimes get ridiculed as unwomanly as a result. Another more recent example of the way in which women who have political power are often criticized, rightly or wrongly is the characterization of Sarah Palin as the “pitbull with lipstick” and other such stereotypes that have been attached to her. Therefore, the wider point that women who have/ gain political power is still something that is seen in an interesting manner, whilst were not burning them on the stake as witches, it can be suggested that attitudes to women being in power still haven’t changed, as women who attempt have power and attempt to create change can be criticized for it. With the negative stereotyping of women who have political power it is perhaps unsurprising that there have been comparatively less great women political figures (when compared to the amount of inspiring male counterparts) and that even today there are still very few women within the political cabinet of the U.K. that can be argued as actually having a degree of influence or the ability to change laws. Whilst I’m not suggesting that the cabinet or any political body is forced to have women with the opportunity to lead and change the status quo, I think that the relationship between women and politics remains complex and this is something that hasn’t changed since women having won the right to political suffrage. The remarks of Shirley Chisholm (a Congresswoman, for New York’s 12th Congressional District from 1969 to 1983) who said that during her New York legislative career, she had faced much more discrimination because she was a woman than because she was black perhaps remain surprisingly more relevant today than we care to believe in our modern society.

Alternatively it must be recognized that within the last 10-20 years there has been a noticeable change in the treatment of women involved within politics, for instance in America and internationally Michelle Obama is considered a very powerful and influential, within her own right as well as a result of being the first lady. Similarly Hillary Clinton, who ran in the same election as Sarah Palin can be suggested as having less negative publicity for being a politically minded women.

Thus demonstrating that whilst the public’s relationship with women in politics is no doubt complex, it is also changing. For instance in 2009 there America had the opportunity to elect its first ever women president. With this in mind the only thing left for me is to reiterate my opinion that women having the right is far from being the worst thing that has ever happened in history. It is perhaps instead a result of the negative publicity that often surrounds female politicians and women voters that has led to that particular conclusion. Yet the times are changing and there may soon be a time when women presidents and prime ministers, become the norm as it is often the case in Scandinavian countries. Who knows?

Sophie

Sources

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141530/Fox-News-guest-Rev-Jesse-Lee-Peterson-says-women-shouldnt-allowed-vote.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Lee_Peterson http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7709852.stm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Chisholm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

Conversion in Northern Europe in the Early Middle Ages.

When thinking about the process of conversion the circumstances which resulted in a change from one religion to another must be explored. For this case, the conversion process to Christianity in northern Europe in the early middle ages is the example that will be considered.

One of the main circumstances that allowed for a successful conversion to take place was the initial conversion of the king. The power that the king wielded allowed for resources to be harnessed to aid the spread the spread of Christianity and also meant that he could influence his retainers and fellow rulers to convert as well. This is apparent in the example of King Ethelberht of Kent, who used the bonds of loyalty present in Anglo-Saxon society to influence the baptisms of King Sigeberht of Essex and King Raedwald of East Anglia. In this period, the role of the king included that of a sacral one, which meant that he wielded influence over the religion of his kingdom. This could either be by introducing it relatively peacefully, such as in the case of Iceland, whereby, according to the Islendingbók, an agreement was reached between chieftains at the Althing – the parliament assembly – which resulted in Christianity becoming the formal religion of the country. Alternatively, it could also happen by more forceful means, such as in the case of the military conquests what were imposed by the Frankish armies in Frisia and Saxony. Here, war and conversion were intimately linked, with bishops accompanying the armies that were sent out, and then settling in communities in the areas which had been conquered and establishing monasteries there. As well as by war, the marriage of kings to already Christian princesses was another way in which kings could influence the conversion process. Ethelberht of Kent again provides a useful example of this. As part of his marriage to Bertha of Frankia, the princess was allowed to bring her chaplain Liudhard with her, which resulted in more favourable circumstances for conversion.

The king also played an important role in providing protection for the new church when it was introduced in these new areas as a new religion. In the First Saxon Capitulary in 782, provision is made for the protection of priests and missionaries. In another capitulary, further provisions for the protection of the ecclesiae are made, with people who treated priests with hostility being liable to having to pay double compensation. Furthermore, such legislation allowed for the tenets of the Christian faith to gradually be implemented further. Examples of this include moves made by King Earconbert of Kent, who introduced measures to eliminate idols in his kingdom. Financial backing and providing land also played another important role in allowing for the successful conversion of the people of northern Europe. This was because land was vital for allowing for the completion of monasteries, which in turn had a pivotal role in the allowing for conversion on a local by helping to integrate the new religion into the existing community. This was the case with Frankish kings such as Pippin, Carloman and Charlemagne. However, at the same time it must be remembered that the conversion of the Bretwalda did not necessarily mean that leaders on a local level could also in turn convert and encourage their populace to convert in return. This was the case with Haakon Sigurdsson, jarl of Lade, who remained a pagan despite the conversion of the Danish King, Harald Bluetooth, to the Christian faith.

Another factor important to consider in the successfulness of conversion is by the way that the power of the new Christian God over the existing pagan ones was portrayed. This often came about as part of victory in battle, with the kings promising to covert if they were given success in battle; for example, in the case of Edwin of Northumbria, who pledged to convert if he was given victory against the West Saxon army. The link between conversion and kings in battle is also apparent in the case of King Olaf ‘the holy’ Haraldson in the Battle of Stiklestad. In the case of the Norwegian king, his death in battle and subsequent sainthood had the effect of helping to unite the country and consolidate the position of Christianity. Demonstrations of power to validate the supposed superiority of Christianity were another factor that arguably influenced the successfulness of the conversion process in northern Europe. Battles between pagan figures such as the druids and the saints were a common way in which this was expressed; for example, the confrontation between St Patrick and a court druid named Lucetmael for control of the weather. Other examples of demonstration of power include came about through the medium of miracles, of which there are various examples. Types of miracles that were generally used included ones dealing with healing through the saints themselves, such as in the case of St Comgall, who healed a man’s blindness by dripping his saliva into his eyes.

The successfulness of conversion in northern Europe in the early middle ages was also arguably due to syncretic connections made between certain elements in the pagan religion and ones in the Christian one. This meant that the role performed by local gods and goddesses was replaced by the use of saints in order to meet the needs of the people who the missionaries were trying to convert. Being able to pray to the saints to intercede with God the Father on their behalf gave the indigenous pagan population of northern Europe a more personal and intimate connection with the Christian God. Moreover, pagan sites of worship were often adapted for Christian use. A good example of this can be found in the form of St Patrick claiming a previous pagan well in Corcu Theimne for the Church which had previously been a site of importance for local gods in the area. Measures such as these helped to make the conversion to Christianity and more fluid and easy process.

All of the issues that have been looked at here help to give an understanding of how successful conversion in northern Europe in the early middle ages came about. However, it must also be remembered that the process of conversion itself was often a lengthy processes, with a transitional period being apparent between the two religions. It is useful to think about the conversion processes in terms of several stages, often involving the experiences of the king. This includes the initial acceptance of the gospel, the decision to announce this publically, before baptism and the entry into the community of Christians.