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

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

Eleanor of Brittany was actually supposed to marry the Duke of Austria, the question if she did, Austria is far from Brittany and England.
 
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.
That argument would be on shaky ground when you recall the Lancastrian claim comes from Henry IV. Considering Henry IV claimed to be heir of Henry III specifically (via the Edmund Crouchback claim), that would itself have the effect of declaring the four annointed kings from Edward I to Richard II as unlawful.
 
That argument would be on shaky ground when you recall the Lancastrian claim comes from Henry IV. Considering Henry IV claimed to be heir of Henry III specifically (via the Edmund Crouchback claim), that would itself have the effect of declaring the four annointed kings from Edward I to Richard II as unlawful.

They were all lawful, as they had all been anointed and crowned. Once that was done you were King, regardless of who ought to have been.
 
So Richard, duke of York had no claim, then? Or rather, the only "legal" action was "might makes right"?

In a sense. After all, you couldn't pursue such a claim in the Courts, as these were the King's courts appointed by the man in possession. Similarly Parliament was summoned by the King, so if he wasn't the true King then it was not a lawful Parliament. Such a claim simply could not be pursued by legal means - unless possibly the Pope might be asked to adjudicate - but only on the battlefield.
 
In a sense. After all, you couldn't pursue such a claim in the Courts, as these were the King's courts appointed by the man in possession. Similarly Parliament was summoned by the King, so if he wasn't the true King then it was not a lawful Parliament. Such a claim simply could not be pursued by legal means - unless possibly the Pope might be asked to adjudicate - but only on the battlefield.

And if the parliament were not lawfully convened, I imagine that would likewise open a whole can of worms, since then it would (in theory) void every law published since the "usurpation" occured - as some Jacobites tend to regard the current British legal system AIUI
 

Ban Kulin

Banned
De facto makes it de jure. Henry VII was a Welshman maternally descended from Edward III, much farther from Henry VI than the Yorkists were. Yet Richard III managed his reign so poorly that the realm leapt to support Henry VII. There is no statute of limitations, only how far people are willing to bend the rules in a specific case.
 
if we regard Henry VII's claim as illegitimate, and with no statute of limitations, who would be the lawful heir to the throne?
 
if we regard Henry VII's claim as illegitimate, and with no statute of limitations, who would be the lawful heir to the throne?

If there is no time limit, then presumably the heir of Edward the Confessor. So after Edgar Atheling's death it would be the Kings of Scotland down to Alexander III, and then the Balliols. But I'm not sure where the line goes after that.
 
If there is no time limit, then presumably the heir of Edward the Confessor. So after Edgar Atheling's death it would be the Kings of Scotland down to Alexander III, and then the Balliols. But I'm not sure where the line goes after that.

Fun! But I am serious about wanting to know who the heir would be if we accept Edward IV as legitimate.
 
Fun! But I am serious about wanting to know who the heir would be if we accept Edward IV as legitimate.


That really is fun.

As already noted, EoY and her children are next if they are legitimate.

If not, then the Earl of Warwick, followed by his sister Margaret, unless they are considered to be barred by the attainder on their father the Duke of Clarence. This is sometimes assumed, but afaik there is nothing in the Act of Attainder that actually says so. It merely extinguishes the Dukedom of Clarence. In 1562 Margaret's grandson, Henry Hastings E of Huntingdon, was mentioned as a possible successor when Elizabeth I was critically ill with smallpox.

Next after that are the descendants of RoY's eldest daughter Anne. In 1483 her only child was a small daughter, but iirc the Dukes of Rutland are descended from her.

After that you come to the descendants of Elizabeth, the next dau of E4, who were reportedly nominated by Richard III. But I'm not sure if that line is still extant.
 
Good information.

I don't think EoY would count right away, because she wouldn't take the throne herself and she couldn't pass it to her children because she didn't have any yet when Richard III died (or when the princes in the tower died).
 
Good information.

I don't think EoY would count right away, because she wouldn't take the throne herself and she couldn't pass it to her children because she didn't have any yet when Richard III died (or when the princes in the tower died).
When we last discussed something similar, iirc it was who would rule if both RIII and HVII died at Bosworth, we worked out it depended who had Warwick and who had Edward's daughters.
 
Good information.

I don't think EoY would count right away, because she wouldn't take the throne herself and she couldn't pass it to her children because she didn't have any yet when Richard III died (or when the princes in the tower died).
Elizabeth of York will be able take the Crown for herself and then when she married her husband will rule as King Consort
 
Top