by The Laird o’Thistle
December 4, 2014

The announcement this week that DNA evidence has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the car-park bones from Leicester are those of Richard III is most welcome. But, it was the other news about Richard’s DNA that is garnering the headlines, mostly variations of, “DOUBT CAST ON ROYAL ANCESTRY!”

It appears that Richard III’s male-line descent from the Plantagenets has been disproven. Somewhere in the family line a husband was cuckolded by an adulterous wife (or, an infertile husband found a willing stand-in to father an heir for him). Speculation is rife as to the “who-what-when-where” this break in the royal line occurred. Most of the speculation, however, gets a failing grade in historical research!

A quick and simple look at Wikipedia (no less) indicates that there has been speculation, apparently since the fifteenth century, that the paternal grandfather of Edward IV and Richard III was illegitimate. He was known as Richard of Conisburgh (1375-1415). Richard of Conisburgh was ostensibly the son of Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, the fourth son of King Edward III. (Edmund’s two elder brothers were Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, of whom more, anon.) Richard of Conisburgh’s mother was Isabella of Castile. His elder brother was Edward, the second Duke of York in the Plantagenet line. (Edward was the highest ranking English casualty at the battle of Agincourt, dying there in October 1415. He had no children.) Richard of Conisburgh married Anne Mortimer in 1408, and they had two surviving children, a son and a daughter. Their son, Richard (1411-1460), became the third Duke of York after the death of his uncle, and was the father of Edward IV and Richard III. In the summerof 1415 it was discovered that Richard of Conisburgh was part of a plot to assassinate King Henry V, and, after a hasty trial, Conisburgh was executed.

Questions about Richard of Conisburgh’s paternity have existed for years. He received no lands from his “father”, and was not even mentioned in Edmund’s will. It is believed that he may have been the offspring of an adulterous liaison between Isabella of Castile and John Holland, the first Duke of Exeter. Although passed over by his father, Conisburgh was favored by his mother who, in her will, appealed to King Richard II (Conisburgh’s godfather) to grant her son an annuity… which he did. This may be notable because, besides being Richard of Conisburgh’s godfather, Richard II was the maternal half-brother of John Holland. (Holland’s mother was Joan, the “Fair Maid of Kent”, a granddaughter of King Edward I. John Holland was a son of Joan’s first marriage. Her second marriage was to Edward III’s eldest son, Edward the “Black Prince” of Wales. Richard II was the offspring of that second marriage.) After the deposing of Richard II in 1399, Conisburgh “received no favors” from the Lancastrian Henry IV.

So much for Richard of Conisburgh. It seems likely to me that the new DNA discovery will eventually be found (if they can get evidence from the Holland family) to confirm the old speculation. What all the articles that I have seen thus far fail to take into account, however, is that the House of York’s primary claim to the throne – putting them ahead of the Lancastrians – was not based on their male-line descent from Edmund of Langley. It was based on their descent through Richard of Conisburgh’s wife, Anne Mortimer, who was the heiress of Edward II’s second son, Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence. The question of Richard III’s male-line descent… and that of Edward IV… is moot, so long as their father was their father, the son of Anne Mortimer.

Anne Mortimer (1390-1411) was the daughter and eventual heiress of Roger Mortimer, fourth Earl of March, and Eleanor Holland. (Eleanor was a grandniece of John Holland, above.) Roger Mortimer was, in turn the son and primary heir of Philippa of Clarence, the only child of Lionel of Antwerp. Roger Mortimer was widely, though not officially, recognized as the “heir presumptive” to the childless King Richard II. Mortimer, however, was slain in Ireland in 1398, and the family claim was shunted aside by Henry IV’s coup the following year. Mortimer’s elder surviving son and daughters were not well treated by the Lancastrians, and Anne Mortimer was the only one to have issue. Anne’s marriage to Richard of Conisburgh occurred without parental consent, but it was validated by the Pope in 1408. Anne died shortly after the birth of her son Richard, the eventual third Duke of York, in 1411.

Anne Mortimer was the key to the House of York’s claim to the throne, over against the Lancastrians. It was her claim that was being pressed in the Wars of the Roses. It was her claim that passed through her son to King’s Edward IV and Richard III. It was her claim that passed through Edward IV’s daughter, Elizabeth of York, to the Tudors with Elizabeth’s marriage to Henry VII. The question of the male-line descent of Edward IV and Richard III is moot… as is the question being asked by some about legitimacy in the Lancastrian line. While the English laws of succession… until the recent change prior to Prince George’s birth… practiced male primogeniture, they never excluded descent via the female line. England was never a land where the Salic Law (allowing only male-line descent) was recognized. (Ironically, Shakespeare includes a notable discussion of the Salic Law in his Henry V.)

It is fairly safe to assume, then, that despite the sensational headlines of the moment, there is no actual threat to the legitimacy of the British royal line, past or present, in this Richard III news. There may be a newly confirmed anomaly, but the legitimacy of the historic succession is not in question here.

Best wishes to all for a Merry Christmas, and a “Gude New Year” to ane and ‘a!

Yours aye,
Ken Cuthbertson