Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March

VVD0D95 · Apr 27, 2016

Edmund Mortimer, the 5th Earl of March, was the brother of Richard 3rd Duke of York's mother Anne, and was also seen by some as the rightful King of England. He died in 1425 aged 33 without issue, thus transferring his claim to the throne to his nephew Richard and the House of York, something that contributed to the War of the Roses.

What happens if he does not die in 1425, and survives into the 1450s, would he be considered a rival to Henry VI? Would he form part of a regency council? Furthermore, what might happen if he has children with his wife Anne Stafford?

Kurt_Steiner · Apr 27, 2016

If he has no heir, he's of little use. At least as a brother.

Bearing in mind his temper, he would have ended up losing his head. If he was still alive by the 1440s, he would have loved the troubles of poor Humphrey, duke of Gloucester.

VVD0D95 · Apr 27, 2016

Kurt_Steiner said:
If he has no heir, he's of little use. At least as a brother.

Bearing in mind his temper, he would have ended up losing his head. If he was still alive by the 1440s, he would have loved the troubles of poor Humphrey, duke of Gloucester.

Oh you think so? I had thought that he was quite a serious man, Mortimer that is. So if he does have issue, what consequences might this have? Would thee be a War of the Roses?

Kurt_Steiner · Apr 27, 2016

He and the duke weren't too good friends. Sooner or later things would go out of hand and Edmund wasn't the kind of man that you could keep away in Ireland for too much time, methinks.

If Henry VI is the same man, the war is in order.

VVD0D95 · Apr 27, 2016

Kurt_Steiner said:
He and the duke weren't too good friends. Sooner or later things would go out of hand and Edmund wasn't the kind of man that you could keep away in Ireland for too much time, methinks.

If Henry VI is the same man, the war is in order.

Interesting, do we know what relations were like between Edmund and his nephew Richard?

mcdnab · Apr 27, 2016

He had been loyal to Henry IV and V even betrayed his brother in law the Earl of Cambridge's plot against Henry V and was involved in his subsequent trial and execution.
Richard Duke of York was hardly going to be close to his aged uncle and even his eventual actions against Henry VI were more promoted due to his dislike of the Beaufort favourites of the Queen, the vast amount of cash he was owed by the crown and the worsening situation in France.
Even if he lives Edmund by the late 1440s and early 50s is going to be pretty old and if still childless of little import - of course whilst he lives he prevent Richard using his claim to the throne though it was a last resort for him anyway and he will still consider that after the King he is the most senior Duke and should have a more significant role and place in the government of the realm.

VVD0D95 · Apr 27, 2016

mcdnab said:
He had been loyal to Henry IV and V even betrayed his brother in law the Earl of Cambridge's plot against Henry V and was involved in his subsequent trial and execution.
Richard Duke of York was hardly going to be close to his aged uncle and even his eventual actions against Henry VI were more promoted due to his dislike of the Beaufort favourites of the Queen, the vast amount of cash he was owed by the crown and the worsening situation in France.
Even if he lives Edmund by the late 1440s and early 50s is going to be pretty old and if still childless of little import - of course whilst he lives he prevent Richard using his claim to the throne though it was a last resort for him anyway and he will still consider that after the King he is the most senior Duke and should have a more significant role and place in the government of the realm.

Okay interesting, and if say Edmund has a few sons and daughters along the way?

Considering Henry IV and V were relatively capable but Henry VI really wasn't would Edmund still remain loyal?

VVD0D95 · Apr 27, 2016

How's this sound for a family tree:

Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March (b.1391) m Anne Stafford (b.1408.)

Children:

Henry Mortimer (b. 1426)

Anne Mortimer (b.1429)

Roger Mortimer (b.1433)

Richard Mortimer (b. 1434)

Joan Mortimer (b.1444)

This would be the Mortimer family as of 1445, when Henry VI married Margaeret of Anjou

Anarch King of Dipsodes · Apr 27, 2016

VVD0D95 said:
Edmund Mortimer, the 5th Earl of March, was the brother of Richard 3rd Duke of York's mother Anne, and was also seen by some as the rightful King of England. He died in 1425 aged 33 without issue, thus transferring his claim to the throne to his nephew Richard and the House of York, something that contributed to the War of the Roses.

What happens if he does not die in 1425, and survives into the 1450s, would he be considered a rival to Henry VI? Would he form part of a regency council? Furthermore, what might happen if he has children with his wife Anne Stafford?

Pay no attention to Shakespeare's depiction of Mortimer as a miserable prisoner of the house of Lancaster. He was a loyal vassal of Henry V from 1413, when Henry released him from the custody imposed by Henry IV, and made him a Knight of the Bath.

He did not press his claim to the throne in any way at the time of Henry VI's succession in 1422; instead he was appointed to the Council of Regency. He quarrelled with fellow Councilor Humphrey of Gloucester, but that seems to have been purely personal.

If he had children, they, not the Yorks, would be next in line after the Lancasters. So Richard of York would not rebel, at least not in the OTL way.

I doubt if Edmund would ever raise the claim, but his son or sons might. Or if he had a daughter she might be married to Henry VI, to unite the claims and avert a possible dynastic war. (Against that is the usual practice of royal marriage to a foreign princess.)

If not, the House of Mortimer might continue for generations, separate from the House of Lancaster, yet holding a superior claim. After three or four generations, the claim might be considered to lapse by neglect, but it would be an awkward precedent.

And it could provide a rallying point for rebels or dissidents - say during the Reformation, if the Mortimers and the Crown line were of different creeds, or as an alternative to a union of crowns under the King of Scotland (as in OTL).

VVD0D95 · Apr 28, 2016

Anarch King of Dipsodes said:
Pay no attention to Shakespeare's depiction of Mortimer as a miserable prisoner of the house of Lancaster. He was a loyal vassal of Henry V from 1413, when Henry released him from the custody imposed by Henry IV, and made him a Knight of the Bath.

He did not press his claim to the throne in any way at the time of Henry VI's succession in 1422; instead he was appointed to the Council of Regency. He quarrelled with fellow Councilor Humphrey of Gloucester, but that seems to have been purely personal.

If he had children, they, not the Yorks, would be next in line after the Lancasters. So Richard of York would not rebel, at least not in the OTL way.

I doubt if Edmund would ever raise the claim, but his son or sons might. Or if he had a daughter she might be married to Henry VI, to unite the claims and avert a possible dynastic war. (Against that is the usual practice of royal marriage to a foreign princess.)

If not, the House of Mortimer might continue for generations, separate from the House of Lancaster, yet holding a superior claim. After three or four generations, the claim might be considered to lapse by neglect, but it would be an awkward precedent.

And it could provide a rallying point for rebels or dissidents - say during the Reformation, if the Mortimers and the Crown line were of different creeds, or as an alternative to a union of crowns under the King of Scotland (as in OTL).

Interesting very interesting. I suppose it just depends on what sort of person Henry Mortimer (Edmund's son) is, and whether or not Henry VI uses his brain or not regarding France.

isabella · Apr 28, 2016

Anarch King of Dipsodes said:
Pay no attention to Shakespeare's depiction of Mortimer as a miserable prisoner of the house of Lancaster. He was a loyal vassal of Henry V from 1413, when Henry released him from the custody imposed by Henry IV, and made him a Knight of the Bath.

He did not press his claim to the throne in any way at the time of Henry VI's succession in 1422; instead he was appointed to the Council of Regency. He quarrelled with fellow Councilor Humphrey of Gloucester, but that seems to have been purely personal.

If he had children, they, not the Yorks, would be next in line after the Lancasters. So Richard of York would not rebel, at least not in the OTL way.

I doubt if Edmund would ever raise the claim, but his son or sons might. Or if he had a daughter she might be married to Henry VI, to unite the claims and avert a possible dynastic war. (Against that is the usual practice of royal marriage to a foreign princess.)

If not, the House of Mortimer might continue for generations, separate from the House of Lancaster, yet holding a superior claim. After three or four generations, the claim might be considered to lapse by neglect, but it would be an awkward precedent.

And it could provide a rallying point for rebels or dissidents - say during the Reformation, if the Mortimers and the Crown line were of different creeds, or as an alternative to a union of crowns under the King of Scotland (as in OTL).

The Mortimer had a senior claim than the Lancasters in the female line only. Under the male-only line who the Lancasters used to claim the throne the Mortimers had no claim at all on the crown while the Yorks are the next in line after the Lancaster in the male line and are between the Mortimers and the Lancasters in the female line so they can not claim directly the throne

VVD0D95 · Apr 28, 2016

isabella said:
The Mortimer had a senior claim than the Lancasters in the female line only. Under the male-only line who the Lancasters used to claim the throne the Mortimers had no claim at all on the crown while the Yorks are the next in line after the Lancaster in the male line and are between the Mortimers and the Lancasters in the female line so they can not claim directly the throne

Did Henry IV use the entail of 1377 as justification? I had thought that entail was never formally passed, due to Parliament's reluctance to see it through.

Mikestone8 · Apr 28, 2016

VVD0D95 said:
Did Henry IV use the entail of 1377 as justification? I had thought that entail was never formally passed, due to Parliament's reluctance to see it through.

No.

For reasons best known to himself, he resurrected a preposterous legend that Edmund "Crouchback", Earl of Lancaster, was actually the eldest son of Henry III, but passed over in favour of his brother, Edward I, because of his deformity.

This, if taken seriously, renders moot all questions about the status of the Beauforts, since Henry IV was descended from Edmund Crouchback through his mother, John of Gaunt's first wife, so on this basis children of Gaunt's later marriages would have no claim to the throne.

VVD0D95 · Apr 28, 2016

Mikestone8 said:
No.

For reasons best known to himself, he resurrected a preposterous legend that Edmund "Crouchback", Earl of Lancaster, was actually the eldest son of Henry III, but passed over in favour of his brother, Edward I, because of his deformity.

This, if taken seriously, renders moot all questions about the status of the Beauforts, since Henry IV was descended from Edmund Crouchback through his mother, John of Gaunt's first wife, so on this basis children of Gaunt's later marriages would have no claim to the throne.

Ah I see, that has got to be one of the most shambolic excuses yet used to justify an usurpation. I do wonder, what happens if the Mortimers call them out on that?

Mikestone8 · Apr 28, 2016

VVD0D95 said:
Ah I see, that has got to be one of the most shambolic excuses yet used to justify an usurpation. I do wonder, what happens if the Mortimers call them out on that?

As luck would have it, in 1399 the Mortimer heir (Edmund) was a seven-year-old boy, not in a strong position to press his claim.

Interestingly, failing descendants of Henry IV, his next heirs in blood would be the descendants of his sister Philippa, Queen of Portugal. However, all of these were foreigners, iirc the (large) Portuguese royal family, followed by the Dukes of Burgundy and the Austrian Habsburgs. If foreign Princes were regarded as ineligible to the throne, the next heirs were the descendants of Maud of Lancaster, John of Gaunt's aunt-by-marriage, who married the Earl of Ulster and whose daughter married Lionel Duke of Clarence, from whom the Mortimers would inherit their claim to the throne. So even by Henry IV's bizarre reasoning, the Mortimers, and so the House of York, were next in line after the House of Lancaster.

VVD0D95 · Apr 28, 2016

Mikestone8 said:
As luck would have it, in 1399 the Mortimer heir (Edmund) was a seven-year-old boy, not in a strong position to press his claim.

Interestingly, failing descendants of Henry IV, his next heirs in blood would be the descendants of his sister Philippa, Queen of Portugal. However, all of these were foreigners, iirc the (large) Portuguese royal family, followed by the Dukes of Burgundy and the Austrian Habsburgs. If foreign Princes were regarded as ineligible to the throne, the next heirs were the descendants of Maud of Lancaster, John of Gaunt's aunt-by-marriage, who married the Earl of Ulster and whose daughter married Lionel Duke of Clarence, from whom the Mortimers would inherit their claim to the throne. So even by Henry IV's bizarre reasoning, the Mortimers, and so the House of York, were next in line after the House of Lancaster.

Ah I see, so that's really quite convenient. I wonder, would this make a more interesting timeline for something similar to the War of the Roses as it happened during otl, or something slightly later? WOuld Henry VI still turn out as he did, with an extra set of hands to help guide him?

Mikestone8 · Apr 28, 2016

VVD0D95 said:
Ah I see, so that's really quite convenient. I wonder, would this make a more interesting timeline for something similar to the War of the Roses as it happened during otl, or something slightly later? WOuld Henry VI still turn out as he did, with an extra set of hands to help guide him?

A lot depends on how Edmund and his nephew RoY hit it off. After all, Edmund reportedly shopped RoY's father when the latter plotted against Henry V. So their could be bad blood there. You might even get a phantasmagorical alt-WoTR, not between Lancaster and York but between Lancaster and Mortimer, with York conceivably taking the Lancastrian side.

VVD0D95 · Apr 28, 2016

Mikestone8 said:
A lot depends on how Edmund and his nephew RoY hit it off. After all, Edmund reportedly shopped RoY's father when the latter plotted against Henry V. So their could be bad blood there. You might even get a phantasmagorical alt-WoTR, not between Lancaster and York but between Lancaster and Mortimer, with York conceivably taking the Lancastrian side.

Oh interesting, though considering York's father was committing treason, would there be such a grudge?

VVD0D95 · Apr 29, 2016

A question, was Edmund considered a member of the royal family due to his descent from Edward III, or was that purely reserved for male line descendants? Sorry if the question seems somewhat off.

The Professor · Apr 29, 2016

VVD0D95 said:
Oh interesting, though considering York's father was committing treason, would there be such a grudge?

Arguable treason. Is it treason when you're removing an invalidated monarch in favour of the "rightful king"?

VVD0D95 said:
A question, was Edmund considered a member of the royal family due to his descent from Edward III, or was that purely reserved for male line descendants? Sorry if the question seems somewhat off.

Interesting question. I don't think there was yet the concept of royal family per se. There were heirs to the throne and property entitlements of the crown. When did the French concept of automatically applying prince* to the children of the King arise and get imported to England?

* Prince Minor that is, roughly "archcount" or "overcount" in order to outrank counts.