Henry Tudor's Claim to England's Throne

Portrait of young Henry Tudor
by Musee Calvet

It is often said that Henry Tudor did not have a strong claim to the throne when he took it in 1485. However, he was quick to publicize his three-prong claim in the hopes that people not convinced by one reason would willingly accept another. With many of the branches of the Plantagenet family tree rather thoroughly pruned during the decades of the Wars of the Roses, it is somewhat surprising just how good Henry's claim was.

Tudor's strongest claim was through conquest. Regardless of the semi-royal bloodline that we will discuss next, Henry Tudor marched into England and killed its king. Richard III had left behind his heir, John de la Pole, and a few other nephews and the like, but it doesn't really matter because he was defeated on the field. While we sometimes minimize this claim, people of the time did not. John de la Pole did not fight Tudor (at least not at first), but served him, as did most noble sons of the era who could match their king's pedigree with family trees reaching back to Edward III.

Yet, Henry could also trace his ancestry back to the legendary king, and this was the second prong of his claim. Henry's mother, Margaret, was the heiress of the Beaufort line descended from John of Gaunt, which was legitimized in 1399. The Beauforts had suffered heavy losses during the Wars of the Roses in support of the Lancastrian king, Henry VI. Debate over which Plantagenet branch held a superior claim to the throne had begun as soon as Henry Bolingbroke took the crown from his cousin, Richard II. Unknowingly, Henry IV set the precedent that the crown could be taken by whichever family member was most able, rather than the one who inherited it, and his descendants suffered for it. Confusion over whether a female line should be considered and reluctance to crown children with greater claims than capable adults added fuel to the debate long before Tudor made his claim, causing bloodline alone to be a shaky foundation.

Henry VI

In addition to his mother being the great granddaughter of John of Gaunt, Henry's father was half-brother to the king, Henry VI. Edmund Tudor's blood was decidedly not royal, but his father had married Catherine Valois after the death of her first husband, Henry V. While Catherine could not pass on any right to inherit England's crown to the children of her second marriage, it could not hurt that Henry could call the Lancastrian king his uncle.

Henry Tudor understood that others could match his pedigree, so he planned to take a wife whose status was unquestioned and whose popularity was well-known. When he married Elizabeth of York, Tudor had already established that he took his position in his own right. However, uniting England under the joint heirs of Lancaster and York was a brilliant political move. Those who did not believe in Tudor's claim were likely to support him for the sake of his wife. The union went far toward securing peace and acquiescence to Tudor rule. By timing the wedding when he did (after his own coronation), Tudor ensured that Elizabeth strengthened his claim rather than making it her own.

The fact of the matter is that anyone who might have made a grasp for the throne of England by 1485 had just as questionable of a claim as Henry Tudor. That is precisely how the Wars of the Roses began in the first place with York proposing that their line was superior to that of the sitting Lancastrian king. With so many noble sons dying on the field and disagreements on just which Plantagenet heirs had superior claims for almost a century before Tudor's victory, a claim of bloodline alone was simply not sufficient to bring about peace.

The Quiet Strength of Elizabeth of York

Elizabeth of York is a name that is not widely known outside of the circles of history enthusiasts. Those of us that know and love her recognize the importance of the decisions that she made and the role that she played, even if that role was one that left her in the background. Elizabeth's personal decision to choose peace and the greater good of her kingdom over personal glory and ambition was vital to England's future and was a form of self sacrifice that few of her ancestors had been willing to make.

The Wars of the Roses began due to familial infighting between the descendants of Edward III, each certain that they would be more capable of leading the kingdom but also hungry for the riches and power that the monarchy would bring them. Two child kings, Richard II and Henry VI, proved themselves unable to successfully rule or to hold on to their power in the face of violent enemies. Once Henry IV demonstrated that the throne was up for grabs when he deposed his cousin Richard, he set a dangerous precedent that would eventually end the Plantagenet dynasty.

Battle of Towton (Graham Turner):
pivotal victory for Elizabeth's father, Edward IV

When this happened and the last Plantagenet king was killed on the battlefield near Bosworth, Elizabeth of York was left as the York heiress betrothed to the conquering Tudor king. While one might argue that Elizabeth had little choice over whether or not to marry Henry Tudor, the decisions that she did make demonstrated her support of him and his claim.

She did not press her own family's claim. This may seem like a minor point at a time when women were expected to stay home and bear heirs, but it was far from the world that Elizabeth had been raised in. From the times that her family had to enter sanctuary due to the vicious forces of Margaret of Anjou to the political scheming of her own mother, Elizabeth Woodville, Elizabeth of York had not been raised to believe that royal women had no power.

Tower of London

Even if she did not wish to rally troops to herself, Elizabeth had a number of options besides submitting to a Tudor husband and mothering a new dynasty. We have no way of knowing what she believed to be true of her brothers at this time. Some believed them to be dead at the hand of her uncle, Richard III, and she does not seem to believe that she was usurping their position. Therefore, we will assume that she believed them dead. That still left Edward of Warwick, Elizabeth's cousin and son of George of Clarence, as the male with the most royal blood coursing through his veins. Unfortunately, he was young and his father had been executed for treason. That would not have made it impossible for Elizabeth to be more insistent upon his rights, but she was not - even when Henry had young Edward imprisoned within the Tower.

The de la Pole brothers, the oldest of which had been Richard III's heir after the death of his son, were also strong possibilities. In fact, John de la Pole did later rebel against Henry VII, but not with Elizabeth's support. She chose peace over rallying behind her York cousins and was committed to creating a thriving new dynasty that would largely forget about her.

York Princesses

Despite Elizabeth's efforts, the Tudor dynasty would quickly die out. Her infamous son, Henry VIII, shocked the world with his reformation of the English church, many marriages, and failure to leave a robust son to carry on his name. Would his reign have been the bloody tragedy that it became if Elizabeth had survived longer to train him in a quieter and more peaceful method of rule? His daughter, Elizabeth I, named for her grandmother and much more famous, would prove the final blow to the Tudor dynasty by refusing to marry or even name a successor for her crown. She left the kingdom ripe for civil war that her grandmother had worked so tirelessly to end.

Perhaps this Plantagenet princess who became a Tudor queen deserves a bit more credit for her quiet strength that saved England from more bloody battles for supremacy.

Read more about Elizabeth of York in Plantagenet Princess Tudor Queen.

Available in paperback, hardcover, Kindle, and audiobook.

FREE with Kindle Unlimited!

Margaret Myths: Guest Post by Catherine Hokin

Join me in welcoming Catherine Hokin to my blog today! I am happy to be a part of the blog tour to announce the release of Catherine's novel, Blood and Roses, in which she challenges some of the best known myths surrounding Margaret of Anjou. If the name alone conjures up images of a villain, read on.  ~ Samantha

The Margaret Myths

“Foreigner, white devil, shrew, virago, vengeful fury.”

I am indebted to Dorothea Kehler (Shakespeare’s Widows) for that brilliant summation of the way Shakespeare portrays Margaret of Anjou (1430-1482), the protagonist of my novel Blood and Roses. Our beloved bard is rather obsessed with her – Margaret appears in all three parts of Henry IV and, with a complete disregard for historical fact, in Richard III where Shakespeare pulls no punches, describing her as “a foul wrinkled witch’ and a ‘hateful with’red hag.”

Shakespeare’s Margaret is evil and twisted almost to the point of parody: wandering round Court clutching the severed head of her supposed lover the Duke of Suffolk; rubbing a cloth soaked in his son’s blood all over the Duke of York’s face before placing a paper crown on his head and stabbing him; prophesying evil falling on the House of York like a medieval Cassandra. As a character portrayal it is over-wrought at best; as an historical source it is deeply suspect, as we would expect given that the plays were written for Elizabeth I as pieces of political propaganda. But the myths about the evil ‘she-wolf’ persist and Shakespeare’s portrayal is the one many people recognise, which is where I came in…

The challenge for a historical novelist is to get underneath the sources, separate the fact from the fiction (often just as important) and find the stories hidden in the gaps – imagine miners scrabbling in the dark for that nugget which turns those never-ending ‘but why?’ moments into narrative gold.

I like challenging women who won’t conform to the customs and pre-conceptions of their time, Margaret always struck me as the epitome of this which is why I chose her as the protagonist of my first novel.

There is, of course, the real Margaret and my Margaret. The real Margaret was described by a contemporary as a “great and strong-laboured woman” – that fits the bill rather nicely. She was a Queen Consort – her role was essentially to be an intercessor and a peacemaker which is all very well except she was married to the weak, ill and ineffectual King Henry VI at a time when the English Crown was very much the spoils of war. Margaret’s crime? She was politically astute, well-educated (by very strong women role models) and perfectly able to rule in an England that would not countenance her doing so. Her punishment? To be made the scapegoat for her husband’s failings, a not uncommon process of female vilification in the medieval period as Diana E.S. Dunn discusses in War and Society in Medieval Britain.

So who is my Margaret? I hope you will find everything the real one was and more: a strong, deeply intelligent women driven by ambition and perfectly capable of manipulating circumstances to her own advantage – believe me, Jacquetta Woodville in my novel deeply regrets ever pretending to play at witchcraft.

What is she not? A crone, a murderess or a woman so foolish that she would take a cast of lovers including the Duke of Suffolk who was 34 years older than her, only a man could have written that…

Blood and Roses – it’s not a romance, there’s far too much blood for that but I hope it is a portrayal of a woman you will be as fascinated by as me. Perhaps I need to let you hear from the lady herself in a short extract…

I am alone.

She sat in a Court bustling with people and knew the truth of it.

I am alone.

If anyone of them knew what I plan to do, what I will make Jacquetta and Rivers party to, they would drive me from this throne and there would be no one to defend me.

I am alone but I am winning.

The thought brought a smile to her lips and everyone watching her wondered what brought such a sparkle to her eyes and a softening to her face the Court rarely saw these days.

I am winning because they hate me less than they despise York for his ambitions and pretensions.

Her smile deepened as she remembered the reluctance with which York had been forced to swear his allegiance to Henry just days before when the support he presumed would follow his second attack on Somerset had simply melted away. It was a smile so full of warmth, the courtiers began to look around them for the object of her delight. 

She was no fool; she could sense the power in the country shifting. There were risings from Derbyshire to Devon, local grievances in the main but with the potential to become far more dangerous. It was already becoming treacherously unstable in the North where the Nevilles and the Percies had rekindled past hatreds and looked set to plunge the whole region into chaos. And she knew well enough how close York was  to his nephew Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, knew that he would watch the North like a hawk ready to swoop and make any rebellion his. 

But, for now, she was winning and York was gone from Court and, if the real danger was not in the plan but in the execution, she was ready to face that.  So she smiled and her women whispered and she hugged her secret close.

About Blood and Roses

Blood and Roses – a novel of Margaret of Anjou and her pivotal role in the Wars of the Roses by Catherine Hokin.

1460

The English Crown – a bloodied, restless prize.

The one contender strong enough to hold it? A woman. Margaret of Anjou: a French Queen in a hostile country, born to rule but refused the right, shackled to a King lost in a shadow-land.

When a craving for power becomes a crusade, when two rival dynasties rip the country apart in their desire to rule it and thrones are the spoils of a battlefield, the stakes can only rise. And if the highest stake you have is your son?

You play it.

Blood and Roses, a work of historical fiction, retells the story of Margaret of Anjou (1430-82), wife of Henry VI and a key protagonist in the Wars of the Roses. This is a feminist revision of a woman frequently imagined only as the shadowy figure demonised by Shakespeare. Blood and Roses examines Margaret as a Queen unable to wield the power and authority she is capable of, as a wife trapped in marriage to a man born to be a saint and as a mother whose son meets a terrible fate she has set in motion.

The story opens in 1480 with Margaret as an unwilling exile in France and is structured as a reflection on the events of her life and the relationships that shaped it, primarily her son Edward, her husband Henry IV, Anne Neville and the Earl of Warwick.

The novel spans 1435 to 1480. The dynastic conflicts around the throne, known to a modern audience as the Wars of the Roses, are the main backdrop to the story including the battles which were some of the bloodiest ever fought.

​The main conflicts in the novel reflect both the issues of the age – the challenge of holding onto a crown in a kingdom riven by dynastic struggle in which loyalties shift like quicksand – and the personal price to be paid by being a woman outside her time. In trying to resolve her marriage and its desperate need for an heir, shape her son for a dangerous future and reconcile her ambition with her lack of power, does Margaret become the author of her own fate?

A key issue for historians has been the relationship between Margaret of Anjou and her husband Henry IV (who suffered from what has been described as narcolepsy, resulting in long periods of what are best described as coma) and the paternity of her son, born 8 years into what was a seemingly barren marriage. Blood and Roses offers a solution to the paternity question rooted in Margaret’s political acumen and her relationship with Jacquetta Woodville – a friendship which ended in a betrayal that has never been fully explored.

This is a novel about power: winning it, the sacrifices made for it and its value. It is also a novel about a woman out of her time, playing a game ultimately no one can control.

from Yolk Publishing.

About the Author

Catherine is a Glasgow-based author with a degree in History from Manchester University. After years of talking about it, she finally started writing seriously about 3 years ago, researching and writing her debut novel, Blood and Roses, which will be published in January 2016 by Yolk Publishing. The novel tells the story of Margaret of Anjou and her pivotal role in the Wars of the Roses, exploring the relationship between Margaret and her son and her part in shaping the course of the bloody political rivalry of the fifteenth century. About a year ago, Catherine also started writing short stories - she was recently 3rd prize winner in the 2015 West Sussex Writers Short Story Competition and a finalist in the Scottish Arts Club 2015 Short Story Competition. She regularly blogs as Heroine Chic, casting a historical, and often hysterical, eye over women in history, popular culture and life in general.

Connect with Catherine Hokin

Connect with Catherine Hokin through her website, blog, Facebook, or Twitter.

Get Blood and Roses at Amazon.co.uk or Amazon US!

Readeption of Henry VI

Towton Rout by Graham Turner

After the Battle of Towton in 1461, Edward IV had good reasons to feel relatively secure on his throne. Although his rival, Henry VI was not taken prisoner until 1465, Edward had strong support from the Earl of Warwick and his own optimism and charisma to buoy him. Any battles that took place in the decade following Towton were Yorkist victories, with the exception of Edgecote Moor in 1469. That battle, however, had only convinced Edward to take his enemies more seriously, not to doubt himself. That changed when Edward was forced to flee the country to escape the joint forces of Margaret of Anjou, Warwick, and his own brother, George of Clarence.

This set of unlikely allies made it possible for Henry VI to be returned to the position that had been his since before his first birthday. Margaret had clear motivations, she had been the most staunch supporter of her husband and her son's future right to inherit from the beginning. She had been forced to unite with the former Yorkists in order to gain a victory. Warwick, disappointed that Edward was making his own decisions instead of following his guidance, had decided to gamble on an improved position for himself as counselor to Margaret and father-in-law to George. Never content with what his brother gave him, George had married Warwick's oldest daughter and hoped to steal his brother's throne.

Henry VI

With Edward in exile accompanied by his greatest supporter, his youngest brother Richard of Gloucester, his three enemies reinstated the feeble minded Henry of Lancaster as king. Warwick and Clarence were content to rule in the king's name. Henry could hardly walk any distance without support and was now famous for lengthy stretches of non-responsive insanity. The victory did not last long.

Edward had fled in October 1470, leaving his wife forced to claim sanctuary where she gave birth to the couple's first son, Prince Edward. In March 1471, Edward returned to fight for his crown and the right to someday have it placed upon his son's head.

The Lancastrians may have underestimated the popularity of the York king. Though he landed with only a small force provided for him by the Duke of Burgundy, Edward soon had additional followers, including the brother that had betrayed him time and again, George of Clarence. Finally seeing that Warwick had no intention to press his claim, George determined that he may be better off with his brother in charge after all. With both of his brothers at his side, Edward defeated Warwick at the battle of Barnet.

Edward IV

With Warwick dead, Margaret once again took up her husband's fight. Against her wishes, her only son took the field at Tewkesbury where he was killed. With nothing left to fight for, Margaret was captured and taken to the Tower to join her husband. 

Henry VI, a man who had failed to bear arms in the bloody battles that had been fought in his name, died on May 21, 1471. The cause of death was given as melancholy at the news of his son's death, but he was likely put to death at Edward's orders. His readeption had lasted approximately six months and left countless more Englishmen dead. The Wars of the Roses would seem to be over until Edward's untimely death twelve years later.

How Did Henry Tudor Become King?

Love him or hate him, one has to admit that Henry Tudor defied all odds when he claimed the kingdom of England as his own. When the crown was laid on his head on August 22, 1485, it likely surprised him as much as the rest of the country. Richard III, the last Plantagenet king, certainly had not expected to be defeated by the "Welsh milksop." How did it happen? What chain of events fell into place to turn a minor half Welsh nobleman into a king?

Henry's ascendancy cannot be credited to his bloodline. Though history enthusiasts argue to this day regarding the strength of his claim, Henry himself made little attempt to justify his grasp at power that way. He claimed his rich Welsh heritage through his grandfather, Owen Tudor. His mother, Margaret Beaufort, did have a bloodline that eventually reached back to Edward III through John of Gaunt's mistress, but this was hardly a fact that would place him near the throne.

Except that it did.

Henry may not have had much royal blood, but with noble cousins killing each other on battlefields for the last 30 years of the Wars of the Roses, few stronger options existed. Yes, there were other relations, but each remaining family line had some weakness in it before it reached back to a solid royal root. In the end, the fitness of his blood didn't matter, because Henry Tudor won the crown through conquest, just as his distant relative William of Normandy had.

Why was England in this state where distant royal bastard lines were considered for kingship? It all started with the many sons of Edward III. 

Edward III's heir gave all signs of being a medieval knight quite capable of following in his father's footsteps. Probably for his dark armor, or possibly because of acts committed in France, this younger Edward became known as the Black Prince. Unfortunately, the he died shortly before his father, leaving a young Richard II on the throne surrounded by uncles and cousins who coveted power.

Richard II was forced to abdicate by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, who was the son of John of Gaunt - another of Edward III's sons. When he became king in 1399, Henry IV set the stage for the Wars of the Roses that would clear the way for the Tudor dynasty. Considered the Lancastrian branch of the Plantagenet royal family due to John of Gaunt's title as Duke of Lancaster, Henry's reign almost immediately came under fire from the Mortimer family, which had ties to Edward III's second son, George, and fourth son, Edmund. Henry proved capable of quelling those rebellions, and the country rallied behind his son when he became Henry V.

Henry V was considered everything that a medieval king should be. He pressed to reclaim lands in France that had previously been in English hands under Henry II, the original Plantagenet king. No one felt a need to point out that his father had been a usurper. Things might have gone on swimmingly had Henry V not died too young, leaving a 9 month old Henry VI as king.

Henry VI was raised and advised by his uncles, and never seemed capable of shaking his need for their instruction - or at least someone's instruction. His mother was Catherine of Valois, daughter of Charles VI of France who was quite insane when he died. Both Catherine and Henry would eventually demonstrate signs that they suffered the same malady.

The young widow Catherine made a scandalous second marriage to a servant of her household. His name was Owen Tudor. This connection gives Henry Tudor one link to the royal family, but not his strongest one. It did, however, give him his Tudor name that would go down in history.

Henry VI proved completely incapable of ruling, becoming victim to those who would manipulate and mislead him before falling into long trances of madness. Soon the Duke of York was pressing his claim as heir presumptive, and calling Henry unfit for duty. Were it not for the strength, or some would say stubbornness of Henry's queen Margaret of Anjou, that may have been an end of things. Richard of York may have been king as agreed by Henry when he made him his heir, disinheriting his own young son.

Margaret took the fight to the York supporters, and many noblemen answered her call in defense of their anointed king. Over the course of three decades, generations of earls and dukes, many of whom could trace their family tree back to reach Edward III, were left dead on fields of battle. By the time Henry Tudor defeated Richard III at Bosworth, there truly were few left who had a better blood claim, and none had struck down the last king in battle.

Before we reach that moment though, we must give attention to England's York kings. Richard Duke of York who had originally taken up the fight was killed in the battle of Wakefield in 1460. Instead of giving them victory, the Lancastrians now were faced with a vengeful Edward Earl of March, now Duke of York. The 17 year old heir of York was the epitome of a soldier, standing tall and golden above the men around him and looking every bit the Plantagenet king that Henry VI was not.

When he became king in 1461, he continued to battle the supporters of Henry VI for over a decade. The fighting did not come to an end until 1471, when the Lancastrian prince was killed in battle and Henry VI was disposed of in the Tower. With nobody to threaten him, Edward IV could have enjoyed a long and peaceful reign. Like his predecessor, Henry V, Edward made the mistake of dying too young and leaving the future vague and turbulent.

His heir was 12 year old Edward, who was immediately proclaimed Edward V with his uncle Richard of Gloucester as protector. Without debating whether Richard was the one who murdered Edward and his brother, we will simply say that it was Richard who was crowned while the young sons of Edward IV disappeared. Their fate as the Princes in the Tower is one of history's greatest mysteries, and was another key slipping into place opening the way for Henry Tudor.

Whether Richard III had done away with the boys or not, enough people questioned his innocence and his motivation in taking his nephew's crown. He faced rebellion from the Duke of Buckingham, who also had a fair share of royal blood, and the constant threat of the followers of Henry Tudor from exile. When Henry landed in Wales, Richard likely saw it as a chance to rid himself of an annoyance. Since Richard's wife and son had both recently died, he had nobody to follow him if he died in battle besides the sons of his sisters and young Edward of Warwick, son of Richard's brother George.

One of those men did challenge Henry VII after he was made the first Tudor king. John de la Pole led forces at Stoke in 1487, supposedly in favor of the imprisoned Edward of Warwick though it is just as likely that de la Pole was fighting for his own rights as Richard III's heir. He was killed, and Henry Tudor cemented his place in history as the father of the Tudor dynasty, a phenomenon that none of his forefathers could have predicted.

Henry also took the step of strengthening his claim through the blood of his wife. He married Elizabeth or York, the oldest child of Edward IV. She was a peaceful and uniting presence, bearing Henry sons to carry on the Tudor name. After more than three centuries, the Plantagenet dynasty was no more, and the Tudors would go on to become one of the most famous dynasties that ever reigned in England.

Henry IV Becomes King

On September 30, 1399, the seed for the Wars of the Roses was planted. Though the first Lancastrian king came to the throne to high acclaim, it was this action that would eventually lead to the bloody battle between cousins when his grandson, Henry VI, proved inept. Arguing that Lancastrians should never have been kings in the first place, Richard Duke of York brought his own claim forward.

Long before that path of events could have been foreseen, Henry IV had to fight plenty of his own battles to defend his right to reign, even after convincing his cousin, Richard II, to abdicate. Rebellions against the usurper king kept him in an almost constant state of war, despite the fact that he did prove a better ruler than Richard had been.

The first challenge of his reign came quickly from the Welsh led by Owen Glendower in 1400. Allied with the Percys and Mortimers of England, who felt that Edmund Mortimer had a better claim to the throne than Henry. The Welsh were burdened by heavy taxes and revolted against his rule. They also received assistance from Charles VI of France, who was always eager for the opportunity to undermine the English.

The best known battle of rebellion against Henry IV was that led by another Henry. The Earl of Northumberland Henry Percy was known as Hotspur for his fury in battle. Though he had helped put Henry Bolingbroke on the throne, he became disillusioned with his rule and joined the rebellion as a strong and important ally. With the goal of placing Edmund Mortimer Earl of March on the throne in Henry's place, Hotspur's warrior zeal was brought against his king near Shrewsbury on July 21, 1403.

After surprisingly skilled assistance from his son, the future Henry V then a prince of almost 16 years of age, Henry IV proved victorious. Henry Percy was killed in the battle, leaving his troops to be slaughtered in retreat.

The new Earl of Northumberland, another Henry Percy, did not wait long to attempt to right the wrongs that he felt had taken place on that field near Shrewsbury. In 1405, he conspired with Thomas Mowbray Earl of Nottingham to remove Henry IV from power. They, too, were defeated, and Mowbray was executed while Percy went into exile.

Owen Glendower had increased his power in Wales but had not been successful in overthrowing Henry, and his allies were reducing in number with every battle. Henry was able to subdue the Welsh and drive the French from the country with the help of his warrior son. Prince Henry took on increasing duties as a soldier and in government as his father's health began to fail.

As Henry V, this infamous warrior took the war to the French with successes that had not been seen since his ancestor Richard I. If it weren't for the early death of Henry V, we may not have seen civil war erupt among cousins. As the epitome of medieval kingship, there were no whispers of the Lancastrian line being usurpers when Henry V was king. However, his son was only 9 months old when the burden of the crown was thrust upon him, and he never proved capable of carrying it.

The rebellion of Richard Duke of York with the support of Richard Earl of Salisbury was the result of Henry VI's poor rule. Though Richard himself would never wear the crown, two of his sons did, becoming Edward IV and Richard III in turn. The defeat of Richard III by Henry Tudor in 1485 was the final defeat between the Lancastrians and Yorks, leaving a Tudor on the throne and the Plantagenet dynasty at an end.

Are English Monarchs Guilty of Legalized Murder?

A few of my recent posts have turned into discussions of executions

performed by various Plantagenet and Tudor monarchs. Often, in a conversation of the end of one dynasty and the beginning of the next, proponents of one king or the other are likely to pull questionable killings out of the debate arsenal. The truth is, whether you think Henry VII was a horrid usurper or saved the country from the evil villain Richard III, most of these men - and women - have some blood on their hands.

Limiting myself to the 15th and 16th centuries, I decided to take a look at executions that may qualify more as murders ordered by the kings and queens of England.

Henry IV

The most infamous execution under Henry IV's reign is that of Richard II. Rumors abound regarding the death of this inept king who was replaced by his royal cousin. While Richard may have starved himself as he suffered from severe depression, there is no doubt that he died under Henry IV's watch on February 14, 1400.

Henry V

Unlike many who would follow him, Henry V does not have a lengthy list of Englishmen who met their end at his hands. One exception is his friend John Oldcastle who was charged with heresy. This Henry is better known for his escapades in France, where he ordered the execution of French prisoners and the starvation of women and children at Rouen.

Henry VI

This gentle and mentally ill monarch may not have ordered questionable executions himself, but England became a bloody killing field during his reign. Many blame his wife, Margaret of Anjou, for sending thousands of soldiers to their deaths rather than let those next in line advise Henry. Others see her as a strong example of a devoted wife and mother. However you judge her, noblemen began to die in droves until the ascendancy of Edward of York.

Edward IV

Edward would eventually follow the example set by his distant cousin, Henry IV, and order the death of Henry VI. Though this did not happen until 1471, after the death of the displaced king's son and heir, Edward undoubtedly saw Henry's death as the beginning of peace after two violent decades of civil war. Officially, Henry died of melancholy.

Some claim that the death of Edward of Lancaster, son of Henry VI, was also murder by Edward or his followers. All that is known for sure is that he fell at Tewkesbury, during or shortly following the battle.

George of Clarence, Edward's own brother, is another mysterious execution that took place at Edward's command. It is also one of the events that got this discussion started here.

Edward was grew bold in his willingness to clear the land of his opponents. Was this in reaction to the death of his father, Richard of York, and brother, Edmund? Richard had hidden behind armies while asking to advise the king. Edward showed no such hesitance. After Hedgeley Moor, he executed the Lancastrian leaders. He was also not afraid to pull his enemies from sanctuary.

Edward V

The doomed Edward V had little opportunity to order any executions. As the 12 year old heir to Edward IV, he was soon replaced by his uncle Richard III. Was Edward a bastard or Richard a usurper? We may never know.

Before Richard was crowned, he ordered the executions of Anthony Woodville and Richard Grey. These deaths technically took place during Edward's reign, if we can even call it that, but he certainly didn't order them. Anthony was a father figure to Edward, but a threat to Richard. There is little question who truly ordered these deaths.

Richard III

Richard's short reign is plagued by questionable deaths, starting with those already mentioned. The hasty execution of William Hastings is also often noted by many as evidence of Richard's ruthlessness. Hastings, a friend and counselor of Edward IV was summarily killed when Richard became convinced that he was plotting against him with Woodville allies.

Richard is also responsible for the execution of Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, after his ill-fated rebellion against his one-time friend. Richard refused even to speak to Buckingham or give him an opportunity to defend himself. Though Richard is also criticized for this, it was standard procedure of the day.

Finally and most dramatically, Richard is held responsible for the murder of his nephews, Edward and Richard, better known as the Princes in the Tower. Though some have attempted to clear Richard's name of this crime, the fact remains that the two boys disappeared while in Richard's care.

Henry VII

Henry VII is often overlooked in favor of the more intriguing kings that bookend his reign. While some believe he deserves more credit and attention, others believe his ruthlessness is what is understated.

Henry showed himself merciful when he made the rebel figurehead, Lambert Simnel, a member of his household rather than having the boy executed. However, Henry would later execute others with eyes for his throne. Perkin Warbeck, Edward of Warwick, and Ralph Wilford each met this end. Henry also sent assassins after Richard de la Pole in Europe in much the way his son would later hunt Reginald Pole.

Henry VIII

It would be possible to write quite a long list of those who fell to the ax under Henry VIII's order. Another Duke of Buckingham met a treasonous end, this one the son of Henry Stafford. Not stopping there, Henry also trumped up charges against several remaining Plantagenets, including Henry Pole, Margaret Pole, Henry Courtenay, Edmund de la Pole, and Henry Howard.

Henry was fast to cross the fine line between love and hate, executing several former friends. Most notable among these are Thomas Moore and Thomas Cromwell. Of course we cannot forget his unfortunate wives, Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, in addition to the several men who went to their deaths with them.

Deaths at Henry's order could fill a book, so we will simply agree at this point that he may be the bloodiest, and least predictable of the monarchs considered here.

Edward VI

Edward was young and advised by others throughout his reign, leaving little to accuse him of. Possibly the most shocking execution orders signed by him were for his own uncles, Edward and Thomas Seymour. The Tudors like to keep murder in the family.

Mary

Was "Bloody Mary" truly more ruthless than her predecessors or her sister? Protestants, like Thomas Cranmer, would burn at Mary's order, but the same occurred during her father's reign. She gave into pressure to have Jane Grey executed, but Elizabeth went on to make the remaining Grey sisters sorry to be alive. Mary's reign had its fair share of horrid deaths, but they were less than ordered by her father, and at least she remained consistent regarding who she stood against.

Elizabeth

The glorious virgin queen excelled were her sister did not: public relations. Like her father, she executed noblemen who got out of line, including Thomas Percy, Robert Devereux, Thomas Howard, and, of course, Mary Queen of Scots. Several priests met their end, despite Elizabeth's reputation as

religiously tolerant. Elizabeth was also talented in punishments that did not include death. She played a decades' long marriage game with Robert Dudley (and half the other eligible bachelors in Europe), imprisoned the Grey sisters, their spouses, and children when they dared to start families that may match Elizabeth in royal blood.

Many other pieces of evidence could be brought against each of these monarchs, but in the end it may be true that they are each guilty of legalized murder. This seems inexcusable to us by modern standards, but monarchs of the 15th and 16th centuries had long precedent of using ruthless methods to ensure their power.