It used to be suggested that Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, was nominated as Richard II’s successor in the Parliament of 1385, but this was questioned by historians due to lack of supporting evidence.

It appears that March was in fact so nominated in the Parliament of 1386. (Source – (Ian Mortimer, ‘Richard II and the Succession to the Crown’, History, vol. 91 (2006), pp. 320–36.) This explains why the Westminster Chronicle (written in the 1390s) is quite clear that March, not Lancaster, was heir.

The Parliament of 1386 – the Wonderful Parliament – busied itself by being extremely critical of Richard’s government. It impeached the Chancellor (the Earl of Suffolk) and caused the removal from office of the Treasurer. It also set up a Commission which pretty much took over the government for 12 months. So in other words “the opposition” was in charge. This may explain why the Mortimers were not elevated in any way, because Richard II may not have approved of the nomination. Of course only he, personally, could give promotion within the peerage or in terms of precedence. There is no suggestion that March ever took precedence of the dukes of Lancaster, York and Gloucester. Indeed, from what I can make out he had only the precedence due to him as Earl of March and nothing more.

Late in Richard’s reign March fell from favour – just before he, March, died. Ian Mortimer has stated that he believes Richard intended Edmund of Langley to succeed him at this point, and this seems likely given the alternatives.

It is worth noting that no “rules” governing the succession were in place at this time, and in the absence of a direct heir it was not absolutely clear who had the right to determine the succession. The King? Parliament? However the very fact that the 1386 Parliament felt competent to make this determination suggests strongly that even this early in history the role of Parliament was decisive. Had Richard reigned longer, would he have produced a succession statute, or Letters Patent to determine the matter? Sadly, we can only speculate.

 

 

 


Subscribe to my newsletter

  1. […] effigy is a lion, and is believed to show Edward IV’s recognition of his descent through the Mortimer Earls of March. Ralph wears the boar emblem of Richard of Gloucester, who did not become Richard III until a few […]

    Like

  2. […] here is the latest video from the Legendary Ten Seconds, this time about the Mortimers and other Marcher […]

    Like

  3. […] seems little doubt that the Mortimer heirship was accepted. The Westminster Chronicle sets it out in the plainest words and goes to some pains to say that the Lancaster lot were not […]

    Like

  4. […] Thomas as the new earl of Desmond, simultaneously appointing him to the stewardship of his Mortimer patrimony in Meath. Thomas took over the reins of lordship at a difficult time, just after the […]

    Like

  5. […] Why do I suggest this? Because when he was still a young man Hotspur accompanied his father-in-law, Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March, to Ireland, where March was the Lieutenant. This was in May 1380, when Hotspur was about […]

    Like

  6. […] Ian Mortimer has demonstrated that the Parliament of 1386 settled the crown on Roger Mortimer, Earl of March. This is confirmed by the evidence of the Westminster Chronicle, written well before 1399, which states in no uncertain terms that March was the King’s heir and that equally Gaunt and his family were not. […]

    Like

  7. […] if one delves around in search of history. Well this morning I was looking for information about Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March. You know, the one who, had he lived beyond today 20 July in 1398, should have been the rightful […]

    Like

Leave a reply to Death in Drogheda: Thomas Fitzgerald, 7th Earl of Desmond – murreyandblue Cancel reply