Rightful Kingship: Edward III’s accession at the expense of his father

In 1327 King Edward II abdicated in favour of his son, Edward III. The abdication of the King had been forced, with him effectively being overthrown by his wife Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer 1st Earl of March. Edward II had ruled from 1307. His reign faced several challenges: finances and the use of taxes; War, particularly in relation to Scotland; his relationships and favourites with Piers Gaveston and the Despencer family.

These challenges led to disputes with the Barony over the course of his reign. They triggered the Barons into imposing the Ordinances of 1311 onto the King, then armed clashes between King and some Peers. Ultimately, it led to plots, led by his wife Queen Isabella, that resulted in Edward being ousted. As a consequence, he was forced into abdicating in favour of his son, Edward III.

Justification of deposing a King

Deposing a monarch has clear implications for the Governance of a Kingdom. For there to be any sense of Law and Order, Justice, or Economic certainty, the removal of the head of the state has to have some form of justification. Edward II’s removal had implications in respect of most areas of Governance. Diplomatically a change of monarch, either through natural causes or usurpation, leads to uncertainty over the security of the realm and future direction of policy. It has implications for the management of taxation, and may result in changes to the way in which day to day laws and justice are administered. These also impact on the economic outlook and may affect the fortunes of traders in the short and longer term. As such, any decision to remove a King has to be accompanied by a sense of fairness, a justification of its legality, and an acceptance of the change as being for the good of the country.

Edward III’s statement of his Right to be King

The statement of Right for Edward III to succeed his still living father needed to address both the overthrowing of Edward II and the young King’s own right to the Crown. It did so, briefly, by noting that his father had:

“ousted himself from the government of the said realm and has granted and willed that the government of the said realm devolve upon Sir Edward, his eldest son and heir, and that he govern, reign, and be crowned king.” Edward II, “formerly king of England,” had done this “of his good will and by common counsel and assent of the prelates, earls, and barons, and other nobles, and the whole community of the kingdom.”

Dunham, William Huse, and Charles T. Wood. “The Right to Rule in England: Depositions and the Kingdom’s Authority, 1327-1485.” The American Historical Review, vol. 81, no. 4, 1976, pp. 738–61. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1864778.

Edward was placed on the throne as a result of the abdication of his father, King Edward II. This was a decision that Edward II had little choice but to make. He was ousted by his opponents, led by his wife. With little popular support and no magnates of note willing to fight for his own right to remain King, he abdicated in favour of his son. The above quote is based on a translation of texts issued in Edward III’s name upon his accession to the throne [see here for original source]. As Edward III was a minor at the time, it is clear that the argument presented was ‘in his name’ rather than being his own words. The key point to the statement is that his right to Kingship is not stated as being a god given right, it is instead due to the assent of the Three Estates. In simple terms, if the church, nobles, and commons agreed that you should be King, then you have every right to that title.

Implications for the events of the 15th Century

The removal of Edward II as King of England and the accession, and quick coronation, of his son as Edward III, set precedents. The justification for ousting Edward II was, in simple terms, that he was ineffective. The justification of Edward III’s Right to the Crown included his hereditary right, but also makes reference to ‘assent of the prelates, earls, and barons, and other nobles, and the whole community of the kingdom‘. This makes the point that Kingship is not simply a matter of being the ‘next in line’ but rather it is reliant upon the acceptance of the church, barons, other nobles, and the commons. This is the assent of the Three Estates, an argument which is often put forward in relation to the accession of Richard III over Edward V in 1483.

Quick Coronations!

Often there is reference to the speed at which monarchs held their Coronation. It is particularly pertinent in the Wars of the Roses with reference to the cancelled Coronation of Edward V and the subsequent Coronation of Richard III.

Preparations for the Coronation of Edward V did begin to be made as soon as his father died. A date of 4 May 1483 is noted as an intended date upon which the ceremony could have been held [See here]. This was postponed, twice, with the last planned date for a ceremony being 22 June 1483 [See here]. That date was also postponed, as was the Parliament that had been initially summoned. Neither took place, Edward V was declared illegitimate and Richard III was crowned King in his place.

The earliest date suggested for Edward V’s Coronation was 4 May. This would be 25 days after the death of King Edward IV.

Richard III was crowned on 6 July 1483, having become King by invitation on 26 June 1483. This is 10 days after being named as King.

Neither of these examples from 1483 are as fast as Edward III was crowned as King of England. Edward III became King on 25 January 1327 and his Coronation was a week later, on 1 February of the same year. This is 7 days after his succession.

Links

Featured Image

A 15th-century depiction of Isabella capturing Edward. Bibliothèque Nationale MS Fr. 2675, France. Via Wikimedia.