19
Henry IV is considered one of the most famous usurpers off all time. He has been accused and convicted in the court of public opinion for deposing his cousin, King Richard II, and seizing the throne for himself. In fact, that was the crux of Shakespeare’s Henry IV plays, but is that how it really happened? Was Henry Bolingbroke right to overthrow Richard II in order to restore justice to the kingdom of England? Did he take advantage of the poor circumstances of Richard’s reign to claim the throne for himself? Did Henry seize the throne from Richard illegally or was he the rightful heir to the crown?
Since we know Henry IV did not take the throne from Richard II by force, the only remaining question is whether he took it legally. The legality of Henry’s rise to king was somewhat dependent on the past which brings up even more questions. Were any laws broken when Edward III named his grandson Richard as his heir instead of his eldest living son John of Gaunt? Likewise, did Richard break any laws when he bypassed Edward’s entail and named Roger Mortimer and Edmund of Langley as his heirs? Did Henry break any laws when he accepted the crown for himself and deposed his cousin Richard? Should kings have to uphold entails from their predecessors or was it legal for them to change it to their own personal liking?
In England during the Middle Ages, there was no law that strictly defined the order of succession. Other European kingdoms, such as France, observed Salic Law which prohibited women from being crowned as well as their sons. Germanic kingdoms followed semi-Salic rule which allowed a woman to inherit but only if all the men in the royal bloodline were dead. England had no set rules or laws regarding succession.
European neighbours had a great influence on England’s laws and customs, which were typically mish-mash. Since England had not put the order of succession into a legal act up until this point, it was basically up to the current ruler to choose the next heir to the throne. Is it any wonder England had so many disputes over who should rightfully rule England during the Middle Ages? With no legal rules governing the order of succession it became open to interpretation and that’s when the royal heirs and nobility used it to their advantage. It made it much more possible to manoeuver their own royal relatives into positions where they might someday have a shot at the throne themselves.
Henry IV has long been regarded as one of the most famous usurpers in history, but was he really? It is my judgement that Henry IV was not a usurper. To be a usurper, one must either seize authority illegally or by force. Although Henry did amass a sizable army, it did not resort to violence to solve the conflict. The army was merely a show of force so that Richard would take them seriously and understand the gravity of the situation. Furthermore, Richard’s own regent and heir, Edmund of Langley, did nothing to stop Henry. In fact, it was his acquiescence that made Richard’s overthrow possible.
Lastly, Henry was careful to use lawyers to find legal ways to depose King Richard II and thus overturn his previous statute naming Edmund of Langley as his heir. With Richard deposed and all of his previous acts of parliament voided, the order of succession had to revert back to the previous king. That would make King Edward III’s act of entail valid again and Henry of Bolingbroke next in line to the throne.