English Succession

Out of curiosity, could anyone tell me as to whether it would be possible for the descendants of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence, to claim the crown of England?

I was watching a video on Youtube that was going on about how the real monarch of England is the heir of the duke of Clarence.

But, my knowledge of English history is that Clarence was attainted, and executed on charges of treason. As were both his son - the young Earl of Warwick - his daughter, Lady Salisbury, and Lady Salisbury's son and grandson.

Granted in the cases of his children, they were trumped up charges at best, but I was under the impression that an act of attainder renders any and all claims null and void.

Please help
 
In common law, attainder attaints the blood. Such a person cannot inherit , nor can heritance be traced through him. Acts of succession sometimes introduced variations or exceptions to the general rule.

Note that his son Edward was created Earl of Warwick , one of his father's titles , after his father's death. Had he been able to inherit from his father , the title could not have been recreated, fairly good evidence that Clarence was indeed attainted in blood.
 
The Corruption of Blood rule is very firmly established for nobility, but there's a shortage of precedent concerning nobility. It probably applies (which is part of why Richard III could claim the crown after Edward IV's children were declared illegitimate, even though Clarence's children were genealogically senior to Richard), but it's fuzzy enough for the rule to be set aside if politically expedient, enough so that Cardinal Pole's association with the Pilgrimage of Grace panicked Henry VIII into purging as many of Clarence's descendants as he could get his hands on (Pole being the senior male descendant of Clarence at the time).

Later, during the reign of Queen Mary I, Clarence's descendants were pardoned and officially restored to the line of succession. I've seen some claims that some of Clarence's descendants (the Earls of Huntingdon) were seriously discussed as possible successors to Elizabeth I had she died relatively early in her reign.
 
Attainders do attaint the blood preventing any rights being transmitted to heirs. But Attainders can and routinely were reversed as the political tides shift.
 
Later, during the reign of Queen Mary I, Clarence's descendants were pardoned and officially restored to the line of succession. I've seen some claims that some of Clarence's descendants (the Earls of Huntingdon) were seriously discussed as possible successors to Elizabeth I had she died relatively early in her reign.

I knew they were pardoned, but were they placed in the line of succession? If so, where? Before Elizabeth? After Elizabeth?

Wait, wasn't one of the Poles (or someone from Clarence's line) considered as a potential spouse for Mary or Elizabeth to unite the claims?
 
Attainders were used to essentially prevent a man's children from inheriting his estates and title after death.
However they were routinely reversed although sometimes only partially.
Parliament was often rather reluctant to pass them.

Attainders technically barred a descendant any claim to anything including the throne - however might always won out (Edward IV was attainted for example).

George of Clarence's attainder is interesting as it did not bar his children the throne specifically (it actually forbade them from inheriting the style Duke).
After Henry VIII's accession Clarence's daughter Margaret was restored to some of the lands she would have inherited from her father and was created Countess of Salisbury (which she had a claim to through her mother and grandmother) - though this was not a reversal of George's attainder. She was high in Henry's favour and was close to Catherine of Aragon - she fell foul of him in the 1530's due to the Catholicism of her children and more importantly the writings of her son Reginald Pole (who had fled abroad and written a rather scathing article about what he viewed the real reasons behind the divorce and marriage to Anne Boleyn effectively saying it was nothing to do with Henry's religious doubts or scruples but down to the King's lust for another woman) - Henry's wrath fell on all of the family he could get his hands on.
Reginald Pole would go on to become a Cardinal and became Mary I's Archbishop of Canterbury. He was mooted as a possible suitor at varying times.

The claim as expounded by the tv documentary is based on a book which argued that Edward IV was illegitimate and therefore the legal claimants to the throne of England were the descendants of Clarence's daughter Margaret Countess of Salisbury.
The claim ignores a few more elements aside from the attainder 1) There is no recorded reliable evidence beyond a rumour from the time of Richard III's accession that Edward IV's mother denounced her eldest son as illegitimate, 2) Richard Duke of York's actions during Edward's childhood do not suggest he did not regard him as his son 3) Richard III never claimed his brother was illegitimate just that his children were.

Irrespective of that claim - Henry VII's claim and the claim of every monarch descended from him and Elizabeth of York was not based on Elizabeth being the daughter of Edward IV. Henry VII's accession was based on conquest not hereditary right.
Basing his claim on that effectively nullifies any other claim.

The Clarence claim was a recognised one in the 16th century and its principal holder by the 1560s was the protestant Earl of Huntingdon who was mooted as a possible heir if Elizabeth died of her smallpox (alongside the legal heir Catherine Grey and ignoring the superior claims of Mary Stuart and Margaret Douglas).

By Elizabeth's death it was just easier and more desirable to opt for the senior heir general of Henry VII who happened to be the married protestant male King of Scots and ignore everybody else.
 
I knew they were pardoned, but were they placed in the line of succession? If so, where? Before Elizabeth? After Elizabeth?

I can't find what I seem to remember reading about it. It was almost certainly after Elizabeth, and probably after the Stuart and Suffolk branches of the royal family as well.

Wait, wasn't one of the Poles (or someone from Clarence's line) considered as a potential spouse for Mary or Elizabeth to unite the claims?

Yes. That would be Reginald Cardinal Pole. Eustace Champuys (the Hapsburg ambassador to England) suggested him as a match for Mary in 1535 (they year before Pole was made a Cardinal). The suggestion was made when Mary was 18 or 19, Elizabeth was 1 or 2, and Anne Boleyn was still Queen but was starting to look like she was on her way out.
 
I knew they were pardoned, but were they placed in the line of succession? If so, where? Before Elizabeth? After Elizabeth?

Wait, wasn't one of the Poles (or someone from Clarence's line) considered as a potential spouse for Mary or Elizabeth to unite the claims?

On a technicality here, a pardon could not cleanse attaint. The King could pardon (and did, and does) as a matter of prerogative. But to reverse an attainder required an Act of Parliament. There were quite a few cases of people being pardoned, but still attainted. Attaint did not incur any actual penalty. Just the bloodline was 'tainted' , and could not be traced through.

Some confusion arises because conviction of treason also automatically attainted. The conviction carried the death penalty , and forfeiture of lands and chattels. The attaint prevented future inheritance through that line. The King could pardon the execution, and the forfeiture, but not the attaint. Of course in some cases that did not matter.

If X was a new made man, who had no expectations of ever inheriting from ancestors, and was convicted of treason , and thus attainted, he might well be happy to have his conviction (and thus execution) pardoned, and his lands and chattels returned, by Royal prerogative. Since the lands and chattels were returned after the attaint, they were not affected by it , and he could leave them to his children as normal. He, nor his children , would never inherit from penniless and non-noble ancestors anyway , so why pay for an Act of Parliament to reverse the attainder.
 
Top