Edward III of England

WI: His eldest son Edward, who pre-deceased him, had only daughters? Who would have succeeded him? Woud the throne pass to the nearest male heir or an heiress?
 
Under modern rules, he would have been succeeded by an heiress.

There wasn't a clear rule in 1377. The only post-conquest precedent came when Henry I died without a surviving, legitimate son in 1135. Henry's reign was followed by a civil war between his daughter and his sister's son. The final settlement ducked the legal question of who had the better original claim.

Henry's lawyers had unearthed the existence of a pre-conquest succession by a female in Wessex, but it was a weak precedent (she was the king's widow, and doesn't appear on all the Wessex king lists) and it wasn't all that much help as things worked out.
 
Under modern rules, he would have been succeeded by an heiress.

There wasn't a clear rule in 1377. The only post-conquest precedent came when Henry I died without a surviving, legitimate son in 1135. Henry's reign was followed by a civil war between his daughter and his sister's son. The final settlement ducked the legal question of who had the better original claim..

OTOH, Edward's claim to the crown of France was through a female line. It would be rather awkward for Edward's daughter not to inherit. The French denied Edward's claim - as they did when Henry V renewed it - under the Salic Law, but both Edward and Henry explicitly rejected the Salic Law.

Furthermore, the Yorkist claim during the Wars of the Roses was through a female line.

Of course the issue of a Queen Regnant comes in, but I still don't see how she could be simply set aside.
 
In 1377? She'll be set aside on the grounds that she can't personally lead an army, and no one who can't lead an army could possibly be King.

[no judgement about the actual strategic ability of Edward's daughters should be inferred from that statement]
 
What about a marriage between Prince Edward's daughter and Henry of Bolingbrooke? Reign as joint monarchs.

I think Edward's heiress' chances get better the longer Edward survives, especially if he survives long enough to be crowned king. The Black Prince was an immensely popular figure during his father's reign. I have a feeling that part of the reason Lionel of Clarence's descendants were put aside was because he hadn't made his mark and died early.

In theory its harder to introduce Salic law in England considering that the Plantagenets had the throne due to descendent from Empress Matilda. Practically speaking The Black Prince's daughter might not end up on the throne for the same reasons as Empress Matilda.
 
Last edited:
Prior to Edward III the last four kings (John, Henry III, Edward I and Edward II) had been succeeded by their eldest son and since the Norman Conquest there had only been one peaceful inheritance that wasn't by an eldest son (and that was Henry II getting the throne in lieu of Stephen's son!) So when the Black Prince died with issue it was unclear what should happen when the king died. Had the crown been any ordinary title it would pass to the Black Prince's children, but the precedent of John's rise to the throne in 1199 implied that a son of a king should be favoured over a grandson of a king, and so John of Gaunt (Edward III's eldest surviving son) should be heir.

Edward III's entailment of the throne in 1376 stated that the crown would be inherited by male-only primogeniture (the future Richard II, then Gaunt and his son the future Henry IV, then the future Duke of York and his sons). However, the choice of this rule of succession appears to have been an act of politics, so it cannot be assumed that the same rule would have been chosen if it would have resulted in a different heir.

John of Gaunt's massive unpopularity at all levels would have led to trouble if he was heir. He had pretty much governed the country since 1374 (Edward III and the Black Prince being ill) and was blamed for high taxes, corruption and the loss of land in France. On the other hand as the greatest landowner in the country having John of Gaunt dissatisfied with the inheritance would not be a recipe for stability.

My view is that if Richard of Bordeaux had been instead a girl then England would have returned to its old custom of disputed successions. I think the most likely result would be John of Gaunt being named heir, but having to fight against an anyone-but-Gaunt faction led by Edmund Mortimer that might be aiming to put on the throne either the Black Prince's daughter (with a suitable husband lined up a la Guildford Dudley) or Edmund's son Roger, who at the time of Edward III's death would have been the only male descendent of either of Edward III's two eldest sons.
 
I can't see Edward jilting his daughter - obviously there'd be hope of Joan of Kent producing a son until the Black Prince died, and Edward would have no grounds to disinherit her. OTL Bolingbroke usurped the throne by conquest/election/a trumped up claim via his mother, to the exclusion of the rightful and designated heir the Earl of March.

Would be interesting if they decided to marry the girl to the Dauphin and resolve the Hundred Years War that way. Or alternatively, to marry her to one of her Imperial cousins.
 
Top