39
Henry Tudor overcame extreme challenges throughout his life and unexpectedly rose to the throne of England after defeating King Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. With his ascension, he became the first king from the House of Tudor who would go on to have such infamous monarchs as King Henry VIII, Queen Mary I, and Queen Elizabeth I. Were the Tudors the rightful monarchs or was Henry VII a usurper?
With Henry VII, it’s not as clear cut as simply answering the question ‘Was he a usurper?’ because there are so many other questions to consider. If the Yorkists had usurped the crown from the Lancastrians, is it considered usurpation for the Lancastrians to take it back? Was Henry Tudor even the rightful heir of Lancaster? Is it conscionable to overthrow a king whose subjects viewed as extremely dangerous, even murderous as most people believed King Richard III killed his two young nephews so he could claim the throne for himself?
The last reigning Lancastrian king was the pitiful Henry VI, who was overthrown twice by Yorkists. As a result, Edward IV and Richard III from the House of York ruled over England for twenty-four years, depriving the princes of the House of Lancaster their right to rule. The crux of the Yorkists claim was that succession should be allowed to pass through females, for example, the daughter of a king could pass along the right of succession to her eldest living son and he could become king. This, of course, is how the House of York came about. Traditionally in England, the precedent had been set that succession would only flow through the male line but there was no legal statute defining the rules of succession.
Previously, we judged that Henry IV was not a usurper because he ascended the throne legally and without violence, therefore, the House of Lancaster were the rightful rulers of England. Between Henry IV, his son Henry V, and his grandson Henry VI, the House of Lancaster ruled over England for nearly 100 years. It was only when Richard of York, then his son Edward IV, ousted King Henry VI by force, locked him up in the Tower, and took over the kingdom that the House of York came to the throne.
When Henry VI died in May 1471, it was unclear who would carry the torch for the House of Lancaster. There was no clear front runner but there were three strong candidates. Edward, the earl of Warwick, son of the deceased George, Duke of Clarence, could trace his lineage to Edward III through the king’s second son, Lionel of Antwerp. The problem with this line is that it passes through Lionel’s daughter Philippa, when England was more accustomed to succession passing through a male line.
Henry Tudor traced his descent to Edward III through John of Gaunt and his Beaufort children and grandchildren, including the formidable Margaret Beaufort. Margaret was the chief source of Henry’s English royal blood, although he did have French royal blood through his grandmother Catherine de Valois.
The third candidate to lead the House of Lancaster was Sir Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, who traced his connection to Edward III through the king’s youngest son, Thomas of Woodstock. Once again, succession would have passed through a woman, Thomas of Woodstock’s daughter Anne, therefore his line of succession wasn’t clear cut either.
No matter the rightful claimant of the House of Lancaster, did Richard deserve to be deposed? Many of his subjects and nobles would have answered yes. After usurping the throne from his nephews, his reputation as a trustworthy, loyal leader was completely undone. He was hated, distrusted, and many wanted to take vengeance upon him for his treatment of the young, innocent princes in the Tower. But that does not justify facing a reigning king on the battlefield and slaying him. Even though it was vengeance against Richard III and the House of York, a usurpation is still a usurpation. Henry Tudor had no legal precedence over the crown and he came to power through violence, therefore, Henry VII is a usurper.