Although formally acknowledging that as the rule would automatically invalidate the Plantagenets' claim to the throne of France.for one it'd reinforce the notion that younger male sons have preference in the succession to female grandchildren
Although formally acknowledging that as the rule would automatically invalidate the Plantagenets' claim to the throne of France.
And then at one point a Lancastrian heir (Henry VII?) tried to claim that Edward I's brother Edmund 'Crouchback' -- an ancestor of Henry IV's mother -- had been older than Edward but excluded from the throne because he was deformed, and that the Lancastrians therefore had a valid claim to the throne under the same rules that let the English kings from Edward III claim France!Henry IV did acknowledge it IOTL. And yes, it does make a nonsense of the claim to France. Not that that stopped subsequent English kings from believing in it, mind.
Although formally acknowledging that as the rule would automatically invalidate the Plantagenets' claim to the throne of France.
Okay, that I hadn't known. The question arises, though, could the king legally establish such an entail (differing from the normal rules) for the royal succesion without an Act of Parliament? Was there a relevant Act?It doesn't actually. It boils down to the principle of representation. The entail of Edward III followed a previous entail in Scotland, in which female grandchildren couldn't take the place of a father who died young, whereas a male grandchild could (Richard II). Female children, however, could pass on a claim to the inheritance if they had no living brothers. Hence Edward III being able to claim the French throne over his Navarrese cousins and Henry IV preserving the claim to France; hence also, perhaps, Henry VII claiming the throne instead of his mother Margaret. Obviously this was different to common law and the general practices of the nobility at the time, which no doubt influenced the popular support for the Mortimers.
Okay, that I hadn't known. The question arises, though, could the king legally establish such an entail (differing from the normal rules) for the royal succesion without an Act of Parliament? Was there a relevant Act?
But in this case it would have affected the matter of to whom the crown's vassals would owe fealty after his death, so I suspect that they might -- by tradition, even if not outright by law -- have been (or, at the very least, felt) entitled to some say in the matter...There doesn't seem to have been. Edward III set it out as letters-patent. I'm inclined to believe the royal prerogative of the time permitted the King to make law by statute without Parliamentary ratification, but not 100% certain.
The entail of Edward III followed a previous entail in Scotland, in which female grandchildren couldn't take the place of a father who died young, whereas a male grandchild could (Richard II).
When was this? Margaret, Maid of Norway took the place of a mother who died young, so the Scottish rule must have been different by the late 1200s.
But in this case it would have affected the matter of to whom the crown's vassals would owe fealty after his death, so I suspect that they might -- by tradition, even if not outright by law -- have been (or, at the very least, felt) entitled to some say in the matter...