alternatehistory.com

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
Top