Statute of Limitations on Richard, Duke of York's Claim?

This is probably a dumb question (at least the title probably is), but it came up when a lawyer friend of mine discovered Edward IV WASN'T Henry VI's son ("how was I supposed to know? His [Henry's] son was also called Edward!" Note: he's not a history buff like most of the people on this board).

Either way, he wanted to know HOW Edward IV even fitted into the picture. I explqined. And then he made an interesting observation, even IF Richard's claim was the highest as next in line (as descended from the duke of York), the Lancastrians had had THREE annointed kings in the meantime. The original claimant (Philippa of Clarence) was dead. As were her sons. And the granddaughter by which her claim passed to the Yorks. Not to mention the time elapsed between Anne de Mortimer's death and Richard claiming the throne. My friend actually drew strong comparisons to the usurpation of his son, Richard III (there being a legitimate but underaged heir) or even a blatant coup d'etat.

I must admit, I've never thought about the concept of time "legitimizing" the Lancastrian claim (if this was at all possible). Nor of there being a statute of limitations to one's claim (although I'm guessing had Arthur of Brittany lived or Eleanor of Brittany married and had kids, one would end up in a similar situation).

Thoughts?
@The Professor @mcdnab @Tyler96 @isabella @VVD0D95 @desmirelle
 
I must admit, I've never thought about the concept of time "legitimizing" the Lancastrian claim (if this was at all possible). Nor of there being a statute of limitations to one's claim (although I'm guessing had Arthur of Brittany lived or Eleanor of Brittany married and had kids, one would end up in a similar situation).

Such descendants might well have gained the throne in the 1260s.
 
Hmm, unsure. I think the longer the lancastrians remain on the throne e with peace and development the harder it becomes for Richard to succeed
 
Not sure statutes of limitations existed back then, but if they did, then did they for treason?

Because taking the throne from the rightful claimant (which is the Yorkist argument) is nothing less than treason. Yeah, it wasn't pursued in the reigns of Henry IV or V, but I'm not sure that invalidates the claim. If it does, then is Henry V's renewed claim to the French throne invalidated by the same means?
 
Even now there's no limitation above magistrate level in the UK and its predecessors, which therefore includes treason. So as Geordie says, it wouldn't matter when the claim was raised if it was rightful and thus usurption had occurred.
The legal issue at the time was whether the claim was rightful or not. Succession to the throne depended on what succession model was followed, and how important both heir designation (i.e. Kings's Will) and noble ratification (latterly Parliament) were.

Edit: a quick summary of various succession models can be found here:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/succession.382204/
 
Last edited:
Hmm, unsure. I think the longer the lancastrians remain on the throne e with peace and development the harder it becomes for Richard to succeed

Yeah, there's also the matter that Richard and his kids likely wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the throne if the Lancastrians had a more robust family tree (i.e. more sons for Henry V, or some of his brothers producing male issue, maybe even just Henry VI having a son earlier).
 
Yeah, there's also the matter that Richard and his kids likely wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the throne if the Lancastrians had a more robust family tree (i.e. more sons for Henry V, or some of his brothers producing male issue, maybe even just Henry VI having a son earlier).

Yeah, then I imagine that it would be a case of one of those male line kids either taking the regency or not
 
Doesn't it get even more muddled thanks to Henry IV's claim about Edward I and Edmund Crouchback being swapped around in age? Or did no one seriously believe that?

Such descendants might well have gained the throne in the 1260s.

In the Second Baron's War? Interesting. To see an earlier WotR played out on an international stage between rival Plantagenet claimants.
 
One thing to also keep in mind is superstition. The fact that Henry the 5th and 6th only had one son each and VI was a moron would be seen as proof that God was not pleased, therefore the Yorkist claim is legit.

This of course takes time to play out and the evidence to mount, which argues against the there being a "statute of limitations" on the Yorkist claim, or at least not one in which was expired.
 
Doesn't it get even more muddled thanks to Henry IV's claim about Edward I and Edmund Crouchback being swapped around in age? Or did no one seriously believe that?
It was more of a fauxlegal counter to York's claim since the latter derives from Edward III. Afterall noone brought up Edmund being elder when they were growing up and when it would have been reasonable to raise it even in a "even though Edmund is older he's skipped because xyz" way.
 
Last edited:
It was more of a fauxlegal counter to York's claim since the latter derives from Edward I. Afterall noone brought up Edmund being elder when they were growing up and when it would have been reasonable to raise it even in a "even though Edmund is older he's skipped because xyz" way.

Ah. What WAS Henry's purported reason about why Edmund WAS skipped over? I always thought thesurname Crouchback maybe implied he was hunchbacked, and given how Charlemagne reacted when hearing one of his sons was born lame/hunchbacked that sorta made sense. But since the Crouchback had to do with Edmund being a crusader, it sorta doesn't hold water.
 
Ah. What WAS Henry's purported reason about why Edmund WAS skipped over? I always thought thesurname Crouchback maybe implied he was hunchbacked, and given how Charlemagne reacted when hearing one of his sons was born lame/hunchbacked that sorta made sense. But since the Crouchback had to do with Edmund being a crusader, it sorta doesn't hold water.
It's possible it was a ploy to help convince the masses who might misunderstand crouchback as hunchback rather than crossback/bearer. This was a time when kings played the people against the nobles.
 
I've looked a bit more into things and apparently Henry IV (Bolingbroke) raised that Edmund was skipped due to a deformity as part of his heir to Richard II scheme but noone could find any evidence so him as heir to the senior male line was brought up as justification instead.
Then with the regular incapacity of Henry VI York got to be regent (Lord Protector) as head of the next line according to the Lancasters. This was protested by the Beauforts who were cadets of the Lancaster line. Which was then countered with them being founded by a legitimised bastard whose later legitimisation put them behind the York line and York got to raise his descent from the Clarence line which would be first if the Lancaster male only rule was ignored.
 
I've looked a bit more into things and apparently Henry IV (Bolingbroke) raised that Edmund was skipped due to a deformity as part of his heir to Richard II scheme but noone could find any evidence so him as heir to the senior male line was brought up as justification instead.
Then with the regular incapacity of Henry VI York got to be regent (Lord Protector) as head of the next line according to the Lancasters. This was protested by the Beauforts who were cadets of the Lancaster line. Which was then countered with them being founded by a legitimised bastard whose later legitimisation put them behind the York line and York got to raise his descent from the Clarence line which would be first if the Lancaster male only rule was ignored.

Sounds like a case of "every trick in the book" IMO
 
It was more of a fauxlegal counter to York's claim since the latter derives from Edward III. Afterall noone brought up Edmund being elder when they were growing up and when it would have been reasonable to raise it even in a "even though Edmund is older he's skipped because xyz" way.
York has nothing to do with that story. Henry IV needed a way to claim the throne over Richard II (who was without any doubt both the male and the general heir of Edward I) and Edmund Chrouchback being the older brother was a good one.

I've looked a bit more into things and apparently Henry IV (Bolingbroke) raised that Edmund was skipped due to a deformity as part of his heir to Richard II scheme but noone could find any evidence so him as heir to the senior male line was brought up as justification instead.
Then with the regular incapacity of Henry VI York got to be regent (Lord Protector) as head of the next line according to the Lancasters. This was protested by the Beauforts who were cadets of the Lancaster line. Which was then countered with them being founded by a legitimised bastard whose later legitimisation put them behind the York line and York got to raise his descent from the Clarence line which would be first if the Lancaster male only rule was ignored.
The Lancaster’s rule was in no way a male only claim (as that would have invalidated their claim on France) but a more complexed claim who was based over two things: a) the false story who Edmund Crouchback (of which Henry IV was the heir general through his mother) was the elder brother of Edward I instead of the younger and b) they claimed who because Lionel of Clarence was dead before his father Edward III, Lionel’s daughter and heiress Philippa (either because she was female and/or daughter of a son who predeceased his father) had a lower right to the crown than her uncles (so either the line of the daughter of a dead son counted as female and not male line or simply proximity of blood, the latter was also used in a well know conflict of succession in France when Mahaut of Artois inherited her father’s lands over her nephew Robert (who was a male grandson in male line), son of her deceased brother)
 
This is probably a dumb question (at least the title probably is), but it came up when a lawyer friend of mine discovered Edward IV WASN'T Henry VI's son ("how was I supposed to know? His [Henry's] son was also called Edward!" Note: he's not a history buff like most of the people on this board).

Either way, he wanted to know HOW Edward IV even fitted into the picture. I explqined. And then he made an interesting observation, even IF Richard's claim was the highest as next in line (as descended from the duke of York), the Lancastrians had had THREE annointed kings in the meantime. The original claimant (Philippa of Clarence) was dead. As were her sons. And the granddaughter by which her claim passed to the Yorks. Not to mention the time elapsed between Anne de Mortimer's death and Richard claiming the throne. My friend actually drew strong comparisons to the usurpation of his son, Richard III (there being a legitimate but underaged heir) or even a blatant coup d'etat.

I must admit, I've never thought about the concept of time "legitimizing" the Lancastrian claim (if this was at all possible). Nor of there being a statute of limitations to one's claim (although I'm guessing had Arthur of Brittany lived or Eleanor of Brittany married and had kids, one would end up in a similar situation).

Thoughts?
@The Professor @mcdnab @Tyler96 @isabella @VVD0D95 @desmirelle
If a Crown was usurped (and Henry IV usurped it without doubt as he had stripped it by force from Richard II) do not exist any timeframe after which the previous legitimate holders and their heirs lost their rights....
Plus Philippa was never a claimant in her rights as during her life the line of her father’s older brother was alive. Philippa’s grandson Roger was heir presuntive of the childless Richard II and was unwilling to claim the crown (but the crown was claimed for him and he was imprisoned for some time before dying childless at 33 years old). After his death his claim passed to his nephew Richard, Duke of York (who claimed the Crown) and then to Richard’s son who became Edward IV
 
York has nothing to do with that story. Henry IV needed a way to claim the throne over Richard II (who was without any doubt both the male and the general heir of Edward I) and Edmund Chrouchback being the older brother was a good one.
Hence my later "correction".

The Lancaster’s rule was in no way a male only claim (as that would have invalidated their claim on France) but a more complexed claim who was based over two things: a) the false story who Edmund Crouchback (of which Henry IV was the heir general through his mother) was the elder brother of Edward I instead of the younger and b) they claimed who because Lionel of Clarence was dead before his father Edward III, Lionel’s daughter and heiress Philippa (either because she was female and/or daughter of a son who predeceased his father) had a lower right to the crown than her uncles (so either the line of the daughter of a dead son counted as female and not male line or simply proximity of blood, the latter was also used in a well know conflict of succession in France when Mahaut of Artois inherited her father’s lands over her nephew Robert (who was a male grandson in male line), son of her deceased brother)
Oh yes, I definitely oversimplified by saying "male only" rather than "senior lines via males".
See my link earlier where I lay out various modes of succession including agnate, cognate, female representation, etc.
 
Hence my later "correction".
Oh yes, I definitely oversimplified by saying "male only" rather than "senior lines via males".
See my link earlier where I lay out various modes of succession including agnate, cognate, female representation, etc.
I had already written the first part of my post before answering to your second. Plus Philippa was a rather complicate case as Henry IV need to justify the exclusion of her line
 
Claims to the throne really only work when the crown is weak. There is no limitation, per se. It would be about believable aims - a 3rd or 4th generation claimant who was nobody would get nowhere. But Richard of York was somebody, not least because Henry VI's rule was a weak one, with disasters happening. So, he had a position and could later use that to make good on a claim. The one without the other would be nothing
 
Top