The New Murrey and Blue blog

The Tydder hereditary claim to the throne is laughable. They simply didn’t have one. Or at least, there were literally dozens in front of them. If you accept Henry IV’s ban as valid, they had no claim at all.

As for “conquest”… OMG, I have grown so tired of explaining this. Henry IV wanted to claim by conquest, but it was not allowed by Parliament because it would have had an impact on every single property owner in the land. In other words, the entire ruling class. So Henry IV’s accession was formally by inheritance (which was carefully kept opaque) and this was later buttressed by a succession statute. Two, actually. In effect, Henry was legally put on the throne by Parliament and was our first statutory sovereign.

Similarly, although Henry Tydder may have objectively have won the throne by conquest, legally (which is what counts) he ruled on the basis of a statute that declared him king. This statute did not set out an hereditary claim, it merely asserted his kingship. This demonstrates that Tydder’s claim was uniquely feeble, because if it hadn’t been the statute would have been sure to set out his claim to bolster his position. Just as Richard III’s own statute did!

LikeLiked by 1 person

What a load of utter codswallop. Another so called historian who never does any proper research and doesn’t have a clue.

LikeLike