Usurpers, A New Look at Medieval Kings
Usurpers, A New Look at Medieval Kings
by Michele Morrical
Pen & Sword History, 2021
256 pages
An accessible account of the Kings of England who took the throne from another and of their lasting ill repute.
With a title as such, it’d be necessary to define what a ‘usurper’ really is, and the author helps us with it: to usurp means ‘to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right’. The author doesn't really care much if the act of usurpation is justified morally; for example, if the current king is bad at his job or ill-fitted for the office while there is someone else better prepared for it. The author picks William the Conqueror, Stephen of Blois, Henry Bolingbroke, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry Tudor to put their reputation to the test. First is William the Conqueror: after Edward the Confessor’s death in 1066, with no successor mentioned (it wasn’t in his power to do so), the noblemen’s council known as Witan had to pick someone and they did so with King Harold Godwin. It was customary and within the law for the reigning king to make public his preference toward a candidate to succeed him, but the decision at the end of the day was the Witan’s. William — a Norman foreigner — did not like that decision and invaded England. So, his fame is not changed here. Next is King Stephen: Like William, he said that king Henry chose him as his successor on his deathbed. England in this time period had no strict laws for succession. It was mostly the king’s choice if there were no direct blood heirs; however, the people were not forced to follow the king’s command. King Henry I picked his daughter Matilda as his heir, for he had no male one. As surprising as it was, there was no law against a woman ruling the country, and Henry made his barons swear oaths of fealty, including Matilda’s cousin Stephen. After Henry’s death, Stephen saw a chance to steal the crown from her cousin, but he had no legal claim to the throne, and he wasn’t even close to Henry I’s bloodline. Next is Henry IV: while Henry did gather a sizable army, he did not resort to violence against his cousin, King Richard II. He used his army as a show of force and even had the acquiescence of Richard’s regent, Edmund Langley, when Henry entered London. Henry used lawyers wherever possible and reverted the order of succession and to make himself the next in line to the throne. Does that fit into the usurper’s definition? No, but he did upset the status quo and because of that he is often seen, wrongly, as a usurper. Quite the contrary perspective is that of King Edward IV who is not always seen as such, he most definitely was a usurper. Even when he was supported by the people, even when he had more royal blood than Henry VI, he used force and no legal means. He is one example of a man breaking the law for what was perceived as common good. One of the most popular historical villains is Richard III who is not given a chance of redemption in this book’s assessment of his crimes: While being loyal to his brother King Edward IV in life, Richard supported the rumor that Edward’s sons — and heirs to the throne — were illegitimate and didn’t do a thing to find evidence of that fact, and took the throne for himself on that basis. While Richard was enthroned by parliament legally, there was never an investigation of Eleanor Butler’s supposed marriage to King Edward IV, which would make his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville null. Richard pressed for his coronation and suspiciously did away with Edward’s sons, for they represented a threat. And since murder was illegal even at that time, the murder of the boys made a criminal out of Richard, and an outright usurper as well. Regarding Henry VII the matter is a bit more complicated as stated by the author: “If the Yorkist 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?” Even though, Richard III was hated by his people, was that an excuse for usurpation? The author concludes: “Henry Tudor had no legal precedence over the crown, and he came to power through violence, therefore he is a usurper”.
With the sole purpose of labeling each king with the “usurper” tag and leaving the moral/ethical justifications to the side, the book reads this book weirdly reads — in the most part — as a lawyer defending or accusing someone else. Some historical background is repeated several times when it was not necessary to mention it again. However, that aspect is what will make this book very accessible and easy to follow to people reading about this topic for the first time. ~
