King Edmund I Mortimer

[Shawn Endresen]

I've been wondering lately why Henry chose to seize the crown for his own rather than be happy with Richard II's abdication. He seems to have gained very little for the price of being called usurper; having Parliament declare him Lord Protector or Regent for Richard's most legitimate heir, Edmund Mortimer, age 7, seems just as easy, just as good a return, and lower risk. He gets real power for a decade and can marry his daughter Philippa to the King, then retire to be merely the Duke of Lancaster, richest man in England and the King's father-in-law.

The obvious stumbling block is the young King's uncle, Sir Edmund Mortimer, who could conceivably lay a better claim to being Regent than Henry. However, Henry is a Duke, very rich, and has an army, while Sir Edmund is a landless knight (a bit hyperbolic, I admit, but the point is clear). Further, Sir Edmund seems to me to have had little personal ambition and to have been a reasonable man; a deal seems quite possible, perhaps naming him Duke of Ulster, or Lord Constable, or both.

It's true that England dislikes regencies and minor Kings, having had bad luck with them, but surely it likes an usurper even less.

So what am I overlooking that makes this a bad plan? And if it is indeed a reasonable plan, what obvious effects do other people see coming from it?

 

[Emperor Constantine]

I've been wondering lately why Henry chose to seize the crown for his own rather than be happy with Richard II's abdication. He seems to have gained very little for the price of being called usurper; having Parliament declare him Lord Protector or Regent for Richard's most legitimate heir, Edmund Mortimer, age 7, seems just as easy, just as good a return, and lower risk. He gets real power for a decade and can marry his daughter Philippa to the King, then retire to be merely the Duke of Lancaster, richest man in England and the King's father-in-law.

The obvious stumbling block is the young King's uncle, Sir Edmund Mortimer, who could conceivably lay a better claim to being Regent than Henry. However, Henry is a Duke, very rich, and has an army, while Sir Edmund is a landless knight (a bit hyperbolic, I admit, but the point is clear). Further, Sir Edmund seems to me to have had little personal ambition and to have been a reasonable man; a deal seems quite possible, perhaps naming him Duke of Ulster, or Lord Constable, or both.

It's true that England dislikes regencies and minor Kings, having had bad luck with them, but surely it likes an usurper even less.

So what am I overlooking that makes this a bad plan? And if it is indeed a reasonable plan, what obvious effects do other people see coming from it?

We've had this discussion about the Mortimer claim before. Basically Edmund Mortimer WASN'T the heir to the throne. England was actually under Salic law at this point. Edward III had apparently issued a decree that gave precedent to younger sons rather then daughters of an elder son. And I don't think Richard ever really saw the Mortimers as potential heirs. Look at the titles he granted. He made his half brothers and cousins Dukes but not Roger Mortimer. If he had taken the claim seriously Roger would have been made a Duke.

So Basically, under the current, odd, succession line, Henry WAS the heir after Richard. And plus, why be the power behind the throne when you can be King?

 

[Elfwine]

So Basically, under the current, odd, succession line, Henry WAS the heir after Richard. And plus, why be the power behind the throne when you can be King?

Strange how that's not how Henry justified taking the throne (he claimed it via something far more convoluted), if there was such a decree.

But yes, being a king > being merely the most powerful duke (if it was "power behind the throne for life", that might be one thing, but merely protector during Edmund's regency is not that).

 

[Rex Mundi]

People want to be king. Being king is badass. A lot of people would rather be the king than prime minister even in the modern day, when most kings have very little power.

 

[zert]

Plus what happens after Edmund reaches his majority and xecides he does not like what Henry has done? An early start on the War of the Roses?

 

[Just a Rube]

It's good to be the king. Henry IV realized this fact.

And it's not like regents who try to be the power behind the throne had a good track record at that point. Lets look at the previous kings, both of whom underwent regencies with powerful would-be puppeteers.

-Edward III: his regency was dominated by his mother and her lover, Roger Mortimer. When Edward had the power, he had Mortimer executed, and Isabella spent time under house arrest.

-Richard II (the king Henry overthrew): John of Gaunt had a much less serious fall (he eventually became an elder statesman figure of Richard's regime), but he still became massively unpopular during the regency, had his palace burned, and lost a lot of the power he initially held.

So all in all, much safer to just be the king. After all, it worked out fine OTL (came back to bite his grandson in the end, but that was long after Henry IV was dead).

 

[Pericles]

I was thinking Edmund could be King, but in a TL where Richard II is suceeded by Roger Mortimer.

 

[TheImagineer]

Speaking as a Shakespeare history play buff, I really like the concept behind this TL! I think Pericles' idea is a little more likely, though, since Henry IV would probably not let anyone else onto the throne but himself after going to the trouble of usurping Richard II. Maybe if Henry IV fails ITTL, and Richard II names Roger as his successor first? Does the timing work?

I was thinking Edmund could be King, but in a TL where Richard II is suceeded by Roger Mortimer.

 

[Pericles]

Speaking as a Shakespeare history play buff, I really like the concept behind this TL! I think Pericles' idea is a little more likely, though, since Henry IV would probably not let anyone else onto the throne but himself after going to the trouble of usurping Richard II. Maybe if Henry IV fails ITTL, and Richard II names Roger as his successor first? Does the timing work?

Thanks. in this scenario, Edmund would likely have an heir and so the Mortimer dynasty would rule in place if the Yorks and Lancasters.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

OK what are people not getting by the fact that Edmund/Roger Mortimer was NEVER the heir. Read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_line_of_succession According to the laws set down by Edward III John of Guants line was next.

 

[Blurgle]

OK what are people not getting by the fact that Edmund/Roger Mortimer was NEVER the heir. Read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_line_of_succession According to the laws set down by Edward III John of Guants line was next.

It shows quite clearly that Edmund was Richard's heir, according to the 1399 entail.

 

[Pericles]

Anyway, Edmund was the legitimate heir to the throne, as the only thing ruling him out was Salic Law and the Plantagenets came to the throne through female descent, so Salic law is overruled. Whether or not Richard II acknowledged him, Edmund had a powerful claim and could feasibly be King.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

http://www.gateway.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=285631. Perfect example of a previous discussion very similar to this and captures my arguments.

 

[Elfwine]

Anyway, Edmund was the legitimate heir to the throne, as the only thing ruling him out was Salic Law and the Plantagenets came to the throne through female descent, so Salic law is overruled. Whether or not Richard II acknowledged him, Edmund had a powerful claim and could feasibly be King.

The downside is, he was eight at the time of Richard's abdication, and Henry was an attractive candidate - or at least one hard to argue with.

 

[zert]

http://www.gateway.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=285631. Perfect example of a previous discussion very similar to this and captures my arguments.

I think what I and others are saying is that we are willing to believe that Edmund was the heir and taking things based onthat concept. Whether it can play out or not will have to be seen.

 

[Ladymadchan]

So does anyone know why Henry IV was called usurper? Was it for deposing RII or taking the throne ahead of Edmund Mortimer?

 

[TheImagineer]

So does anyone know why Henry IV was called usurper? Was it for deposing RII or taking the throne ahead of Edmund Mortimer?

Definitely for deposing Richard II--it wasn't even his original goal when he returned to England but went ahead with it even though he at least thought of himself as legally the best-placed successor.

At the same time, how entrenched was Salic law at this point? Could RII have named any blood relative that he wished with the approval of the nobility?

OK what are people not getting by the fact that Edmund/Roger Mortimer was NEVER the heir. Read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_line_of_succession According to the laws set down by Edward III John of Guants line was next.

Anyway, Edmund was the legitimate heir to the throne, as the only thing ruling him out was Salic Law and the Plantagenets came to the throne through female descent, so Salic law is overruled. Whether or not Richard II acknowledged him, Edmund had a powerful claim and could feasibly be King.

Well, it's more likely than Henry becoming a regent for Edmund IMHO.

 

[Ladymadchan]

At the same time, how entrenched was Salic law at this point? Could RII have named any blood relative that he wished with the approval of the nobility?

I've seen the order of succession from before EIII's death, but can you really saw England had Salic law when EIII's claimed to the King of France through his mother? Or when the Plantagenet family had a claim to the throne of England through Empress Matilda?

 

[Elfwine]

I've seen the order of succession from before EIII's death, but can you really saw England had Salic law when EIII's claimed to the King of France through his mother? Or when the Plantagenet family had a claim to the throne of England through Empress Matilda?

Not with a straight face. Saying that junior but male line claimants take precedent over senior but female line grandsons is far from Salic.

TheImaginer: I've read, though I'm not sure how seriously to take the author, that Richard picked Edmund Duke of York. Who is not the closest by either male line or strict seniority.

So I'm not sure the approval of the nobility even gets into it except so far as that a king without their approval will have a harder job reigning.

 

[The Professor]

Not with a straight face. Saying that junior but male line claimants take precedent over senior but female line grandsons is far from Salic.

I think there was an element of degree of blood and a preference for adult males in there too.

TheImaginer: I've read, though I'm not sure how seriously to take the author, that Richard picked Edmund Duke of York. Who is not the closest by either male line or strict seniority.

Where's that?
Tho if we think along factors of degree of blood sons of kings would outrank grandsons and greatgrandsons.