A Question Concerning English Succession

In the event of a Lancastrian victory during the Wars of the Roses (we'll say early for simplicity's sake in this scenario), would the future constitutional interpretation of the English succession be one of agnatic primogenture (i.e. Salic or at least semi-Salic law), with women and their issue excluded?

I remember reading somewhere that Edward III may have issued a charter to this effect in his later years.

Just curious, I'm not too familiar with the finer points of pre-Tudor English constitutional law..
 
In the event of a Lancastrian victory during the Wars of the Roses (we'll say early for simplicity's sake in this scenario), would the future constitutional interpretation of the English succession be one of agnatic primogenture (i.e. Salic or at least semi-Salic law), with women and their issue excluded?

I remember reading somewhere that Edward III may have issued a charter to this effect in his later years.

Just curious, I'm not too familiar with the finer points of pre-Tudor English constitutional law..

Which Lancatrian head did you have in mind for the win?.....cos alot is gonna depend on who wins, how they won, what they did later during their reign, mostly based on what character we knew of them
 
In the event of a Lancastrian victory during the Wars of the Roses (we'll say early for simplicity's sake in this scenario), would the future constitutional interpretation of the English succession be one of agnatic primogenture (i.e. Salic or at least semi-Salic law), with women and their issue excluded?

I remember reading somewhere that Edward III may have issued a charter to this effect in his later years.

Just curious, I'm not too familiar with the finer points of pre-Tudor English constitutional law..

I think it depends. I can see it being the law of the land up to the point when a King only has daughters. At that point we could easily see a King changing the law to favor his daughter over his brother or cousin (similar to Fernando VII making his daughter Isabella heiress over his brother Carlos).
 
Which Lancatrian head did you have in mind for the win?.....cos alot is gonna depend on who wins, how they won, what they did later during their reign, mostly based on what character we knew of them

Let's say the Yorkist rebellion is defeated very early, perhaps around the time of the Battle of St Albans. The Lancastrians keep the throne and the War of the Roses are largely stillborn.
 
Originally the Common Law regarded the Realm as just another (very large) fief, and it followed the German law (not Salian Franks). Which is called male preference agnatic primogeniture, I think.

Descends to the oldest son of the most recent holder, then next oldest son etc , in the whole blood , then eldest son of the previous holder, and working back so long as there is a male descendant of the first holder. If that fails, repeat for the half blood. Then if there are no male descendants at all of the first holder, repeat process with daughter.

That later got changed for ordinary fiefs to have multiple female heirs hold as co-parceners. That change was never picked up for the realm.

The Salic law never applied in England.
 
Originally the Common Law regarded the Realm as just another (very large) fief, and it followed the German law (not Salian Franks). Which is called male preference agnatic primogeniture, I think.

Descends to the oldest son of the most recent holder, then next oldest son etc , in the whole blood , then eldest son of the previous holder, and working back so long as there is a male descendant of the first holder. If that fails, repeat for the half blood. Then if there are no male descendants at all of the first holder, repeat process with daughter.

That later got changed for ordinary fiefs to have multiple female heirs hold as co-parceners. That change was never picked up for the realm.

The Salic law never applied in England.
English succession law (like most succession laws at that point really; disputes tended to be resolved on the battle field, see e.g. the Hundred Years War) was never really codified until much later. If you go through the English monarchs, you have many cases of the person who would be the logical successor under male-preference primogeniture being ignored; the Anarchy is the most famous one, but the origin of the Yorkist claim involves another one.

Regardless, one of the Lancastrian justifications (beyond the obvious one that Henry IV had the power to make his claim stick back in the day) was that Edward III had allegedly attempted to change the succession law. Since the House of York was descended from Edward III's third son through the female line, they were senior to the Lancastrians (descended from the fourth son through the male line) according to modern inheritance rules; hence the confusion. (Edward's second son died in infancy, and his first son's line had died out, with some assistance from Henry IV).

In practice, as the Wars of the Roses went on, that changed; Henry Tudor, the successful Lancastrian claimant, was famously descended from a legitimized bastard of the fourth son through the female line (and his mother, who by modern practice would have been the queen, was still alive), but by that point there were no real male-line descendants of the House of Lancaster to provide an alternative.

To get back to the OP's question, I agree with what was said earlier: the new succession law would continue until some future Lancastrian king was left with only daughters. Whether the result would be more similar to the OTL accession of Mary I or the the Empress Mathilda will depend on the circumstances.
 
Oh, yes. All succession laws tend to be directed by who has the sharpest sword. Generally, though, people worried about such matters in prospective - "When the king should die, which Heaven forbid, who is the next heir . And if it is me can I borrow some money on those expectations".

Actually, it has never been codified. But I don't know that i would say that the "correct" succession was ignored. Usually considerable effort went into finding some reason , no matter how fetched, why the "correct" successor was actually disqualified. His father was pre-contracted; there was an error in the Papal dispensation;his great grandfather was attainted; the marriage ceremony was irregular , whatever. Just to provide a veneer of legitimacy . Outright usurpation was very rare . Even William the Conqueror took pains to establish a claim to justify the conquest.
 
One could say that the Anarchy was an attempt to impose primogeniture. Previously it tended to go to the nearest adult legitimate/legitimised male of the royal line.
Primogeniture was merely another way of simplifying the case when there was more than one nearest man and no will of the previous King at a time when the power of royal council was weak.
 
Top