King John of Gaunt

Not sure whether he'd be inclined to drain England for ruinous foreign wars in Castile etc, but for one it'd reinforce the notion that younger male sons have preference in the succession to female grandchildren.
 
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.
 
Although formally acknowledging that as the rule would automatically invalidate the Plantagenets' claim to the throne of 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.
 
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.
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!
(The basis for their argument being a suggestion that 'Crouchback' meant 'hunchback', although historians generally agree that it was a variant form of 'Cross-back' and simply indicated that he'd gone on Crusade...)
 
If you want John of Gaunt to take over England, I'd say that a better time would be in the later years of Edward III's reign, where he effectively served as regent while his father was too senile to rule. Parliament was scared of him taking over and took measures to try and stop it, but I reckon had he actually wanted the Crown and been ruthless enough to cross the Rubicon, he could have managed. After the Black Prince's death he was the most senior Plantagenet, the most experienced war leader, the best administrator in the royal family and not to mention the fact that he was publicly hostile to Edward's mistress and his favourites. Perhaps if he made some concessions to the Commons he could pull a Richard III-sideline Richard II and either become the eternal Regent or just have him shuffle off quietly and seize the Crown in his own name.
 
Although formally acknowledging that as the rule would automatically invalidate the Plantagenets' claim to the throne of France.

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.
 
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?
 
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?

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.
 
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.
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...
 
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.
 
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.

Margaret was King Alexander's only remaining heir of his body. In 1281 he and his nobles agreed that a son of his eldest son, Prince Alexander, would succeed him on the throne, but if there was a daughter, one of the King's own sons by a subsequent marriage would have precedence.

If I understand things correctly (for example) if Prince Alexander had a daughter (Alexandra) and his sister Margaret had a son (Margareto) Margareto would be preferred in the succession to Alexandra.
 
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...

Yes, that does make sense. Edward III apparently did a rather odd thing of setting things out in a letters patent but getting witnesses to sign on. And it was all in French too :D
 
Top