A fundamental question

In describing Richard and his family as the House of "York", are they
being demeaned. Is this an example of medieval spin, seeking to
downplay their female line descent from a senior son of Edward III.
Perhaps we should seek to rename them the House of "Clarence"
(confusing?), "Ulster" or "Mortimer" to emphasise their seniority
over "Lancastrians".

PS I have attached my Scrope pedigree featuring: the executed
Archbishop, the Southampton rebel who was his nephew, the Earl beheaded
by Bolingbroke during his invasion and the Bishop of Carlisle who was
Richard's first cousin (their mothers were Neville half-sisters).

While families tended to be named in respect of their direct male
descent (there were no hyphenated names in use yet), I don't think the
York line ever forgot their senior royal descent. Although of course
they did not emphasise it at certain times so as not to be considered
treasonous.
I think the simple answer is that the title "Duke of York" can be
considered the senior of all the titles the family held. The house "of
Ulster" would be consider that of de Burgh, "of March" that of
Mortimer. While holding and displaying all of these, the family
clearly considered York to be the more important title.


--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@...> wrote:
>
> In describing Richard and his family as the House of "York", are they
> being demeaned. Is this an example of medieval spin, seeking to
> downplay their female line descent from a senior son of Edward III.
> Perhaps we should seek to rename them the House of "Clarence"
> (confusing?), "Ulster" or "Mortimer" to emphasise their seniority
> over "Lancastrians".
>
> PS I have attached my Scrope pedigree featuring: the executed
> Archbishop, the Southampton rebel who was his nephew, the Earl
beheaded
> by Bolingbroke during his invasion and the Bishop of Carlisle who was
> Richard's first cousin (their mothers were Neville half-sisters).
>

Wouldn't they have regarded themselves as the senior line of the
house of Plantagenet ?

Richard G

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> While families tended to be named in respect of their direct male
> descent (there were no hyphenated names in use yet), I don't think
the
> York line ever forgot their senior royal descent. Although of
course
> they did not emphasise it at certain times so as not to be
considered
> treasonous.
> I think the simple answer is that the title "Duke of York" can be
> considered the senior of all the titles the family held. The
house "of
> Ulster" would be consider that of de Burgh, "of March" that of
> Mortimer. While holding and displaying all of these, the family
> clearly considered York to be the more important title.
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <smlark@> wrote:
> >
> > In describing Richard and his family as the House of "York", are
they
> > being demeaned. Is this an example of medieval spin, seeking to
> > downplay their female line descent from a senior son of Edward
III.
> > Perhaps we should seek to rename them the House of "Clarence"
> > (confusing?), "Ulster" or "Mortimer" to emphasise their
seniority
> > over "Lancastrians".
> >
> > PS I have attached my Scrope pedigree featuring: the executed
> > Archbishop, the Southampton rebel who was his nephew, the Earl
> beheaded
> > by Bolingbroke during his invasion and the Bishop of Carlisle
who was
> > Richard's first cousin (their mothers were Neville half-sisters).
> >
>

--- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Wouldn't they have regarded themselves as the senior line of the
> house of Plantagenet ?
>
> Richard G
>
Yes, but it is my whole point that the "Lancastrians" had to find a
way to demean them, to make them inferior to themselves.

> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > While families tended to be named in respect of their direct male
> > descent (there were no hyphenated names in use yet), I don't
think
> the
> > York line ever forgot their senior royal descent. Although of
> course
> > they did not emphasise it at certain times so as not to be
> considered
> > treasonous.
> > I think the simple answer is that the title "Duke of York" can be
> > considered the senior of all the titles the family held. The
> house "of
> > Ulster" would be consider that of de Burgh, "of March" that of
> > Mortimer. While holding and displaying all of these, the family
> > clearly considered York to be the more important title.
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <smlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > In describing Richard and his family as the House of "York",
are
> they
> > > being demeaned. Is this an example of medieval spin, seeking to
> > > downplay their female line descent from a senior son of Edward
> III.
> > > Perhaps we should seek to rename them the House of "Clarence"
> > > (confusing?), "Ulster" or "Mortimer" to emphasise their
> seniority
> > > over "Lancastrians".
> > >
> > > PS I have attached my Scrope pedigree featuring: the executed
> > > Archbishop, the Southampton rebel who was his nephew, the Earl
> > beheaded
> > > by Bolingbroke during his invasion and the Bishop of Carlisle
> who was
> > > Richard's first cousin (their mothers were Neville half-
sisters).
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Wouldn't they have regarded themselves as the senior line of the
> house of Plantagenet ?
>
> Richard G
>
Yes, but it is my whole point that the "Lancastrians" had to find a
way to demean them, to make them inferior to themselves.

> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > While families tended to be named in respect of their direct male
> > descent (there were no hyphenated names in use yet), I don't
think
> the
> > York line ever forgot their senior royal descent. Although of
> course
> > they did not emphasise it at certain times so as not to be
> considered
> > treasonous.
> > I think the simple answer is that the title "Duke of York" can be
> > considered the senior of all the titles the family held. The
> house "of
> > Ulster" would be consider that of de Burgh, "of March" that of
> > Mortimer. While holding and displaying all of these, the family
> > clearly considered York to be the more important title.
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <smlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > In describing Richard and his family as the House of "York",
are
> they
> > > being demeaned. Is this an example of medieval spin, seeking to
> > > downplay their female line descent from a senior son of Edward
> III.
> > > Perhaps we should seek to rename them the House of "Clarence"
> > > (confusing?), "Ulster" or "Mortimer" to emphasise their
> seniority
> > > over "Lancastrians".
> > >
> > > PS I have attached my Scrope pedigree featuring: the executed
> > > Archbishop, the Southampton rebel who was his nephew, the Earl
> > beheaded
> > > by Bolingbroke during his invasion and the Bishop of Carlisle
> who was
> > > Richard's first cousin (their mothers were Neville half-
sisters).
> > >
> >
>

The Yorks were NOT the senior Plantagenets, since the male line came
from Edmund of Langley.
They were the HEIRS of the senior Plantagenet line through several
female ancestors. It's important to note that the titles of Duke and
Earl were officially only heritable through an unbroken male descent.
In practice titles were often passed through a female line, but
officially these were always new creations.
The root cause of the Wars was that in England the question of heir
general (female line) versus heir male had not cropped up regarding
the crown itself since the Stephen-Matilda civil war. There was no
English equivalent to the French Salic law governing the crown of
England which was in any case supposed to be the "gift" of Parliament.
Hence even Henry Tudor, whose hereditary claim was non existant,
could claim the crown by virtue of Parliamentary support, stressing
that he did not owe the office to his wife's much better hereditary
claim.


--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "rgcorris"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > Wouldn't they have regarded themselves as the senior line of the
> > house of Plantagenet ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> Yes, but it is my whole point that the "Lancastrians" had to find a
> way to demean them, to make them inferior to themselves.
>
> > --- In , "theblackprussian"
> > <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > While families tended to be named in respect of their direct
male
> > > descent (there were no hyphenated names in use yet), I don't
> think
> > the
> > > York line ever forgot their senior royal descent. Although of
> > course
> > > they did not emphasise it at certain times so as not to be
> > considered
> > > treasonous.
> > > I think the simple answer is that the title "Duke of York" can
be
> > > considered the senior of all the titles the family held. The
> > house "of
> > > Ulster" would be consider that of de Burgh, "of March" that of
> > > Mortimer. While holding and displaying all of these, the
family
> > > clearly considered York to be the more important title.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > <smlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In describing Richard and his family as the House of "York",
> are
> > they
> > > > being demeaned. Is this an example of medieval spin, seeking
to
> > > > downplay their female line descent from a senior son of
Edward
> > III.
> > > > Perhaps we should seek to rename them the House of "Clarence"
> > > > (confusing?), "Ulster" or "Mortimer" to emphasise their
> > seniority
> > > > over "Lancastrians".
> > > >
> > > > PS I have attached my Scrope pedigree featuring: the executed
> > > > Archbishop, the Southampton rebel who was his nephew, the
Earl
> > > beheaded
> > > > by Bolingbroke during his invasion and the Bishop of Carlisle
> > who was
> > > > Richard's first cousin (their mothers were Neville half-
> sisters).
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> There was no
> English equivalent to the French Salic law governing the crown of
> England which was in any case supposed to be the "gift" of
> Parliament.

IIRC, the Lancastrians did try to limit the crown to heirs male - but
apparently changed their minds when they realised that this would
negate their claim to the French throne.

At that stage, I don't think Parliament would claim that the crown was
in its "gift", but rather that it was entitled to recognize publicly
who was already the rightful holder.

As late as 1603 the throne was taken by a king who was not entitled to
it according to statute law.

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> The Yorks were NOT the senior Plantagenets, since the male line
came
> from Edmund of Langley.
> They were the HEIRS of the senior Plantagenet line through several
> female ancestors. It's important to note that the titles of Duke
and
> Earl were officially only heritable through an unbroken male
descent.
> In practice titles were often passed through a female line, but
> officially these were always new creations.
> The root cause of the Wars was that in England the question of heir
> general (female line) versus heir male had not cropped up regarding
> the crown itself since the Stephen-Matilda civil war. There was no
> English equivalent to the French Salic law governing the crown of
> England which was in any case supposed to be the "gift" of
Parliament.
> Hence even Henry Tudor, whose hereditary claim was non existant,
> could claim the crown by virtue of Parliamentary support, stressing
> that he did not owe the office to his wife's much better hereditary
> claim.
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <smlark@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "rgcorris"
> > <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Wouldn't they have regarded themselves as the senior line of
the
> > > house of Plantagenet ?
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > Yes, but it is my whole point that the "Lancastrians" had to find
a
> > way to demean them, to make them inferior to themselves.
> >
> > > --- In
, "theblackprussian"
> > > <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > While families tended to be named in respect of their direct
> male
> > > > descent (there were no hyphenated names in use yet), I don't
> > think
> > > the
> > > > York line ever forgot their senior royal descent. Although
of
> > > course
> > > > they did not emphasise it at certain times so as not to be
> > > considered
> > > > treasonous.
> > > > I think the simple answer is that the title "Duke of York"
can
> be
> > > > considered the senior of all the titles the family held. The
> > > house "of
> > > > Ulster" would be consider that of de Burgh, "of March" that
of
> > > > Mortimer. While holding and displaying all of these, the
> family
> > > > clearly considered York to be the more important title.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > > <smlark@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In describing Richard and his family as the House
of "York",
> > are
> > > they
> > > > > being demeaned. Is this an example of medieval spin,
seeking
> to
> > > > > downplay their female line descent from a senior son of
> Edward
> > > III.
> > > > > Perhaps we should seek to rename them the House
of "Clarence"
> > > > > (confusing?), "Ulster" or "Mortimer" to emphasise their
> > > seniority
> > > > > over "Lancastrians".
> > > > >
> > > > > PS I have attached my Scrope pedigree featuring: the
executed
> > > > > Archbishop, the Southampton rebel who was his nephew, the
> Earl
> > > > beheaded
> > > > > by Bolingbroke during his invasion and the Bishop of
Carlisle
> > > who was
> > > > > Richard's first cousin (their mothers were Neville half-
> > sisters).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
By the way, sorry if I ever implied that Scrope and Cranmer were the
only executed Archbishops in England. In 1645, William Laud was added
to the list.