I was watching a documentary on the princes in the tower where Tony Robinson claimed that Richard III might have been right to dispute Edward IV’s legitimacy because of this reason and that reason. 

He said that if it was true that Edward was illegitimate, Richard III was the last legitimate monarch of England as the rest were descended from bastards on either side. 

But that’s not completely correct reasoning.

CAUTION: The rest is 100% tl;dr. You have been warned.

First of all, Edward IV was legally legitimate, as the Duke of York claimed him as his heir, so whatever. By law, he was not a bastard even if he was a bastard. 

FYI: I like writing the word bastard.

Henry Tudor claimed right of rule through conquest rather than blood, which is the best way to establish Henry VII’s rule (the “because I said so” rule of kings) as whoever can keep the crown owns the crown; that’s a tradition honored by history throughout the world and certainly in England. Otherwise you can’t really say that Cnut or William the Conquerer deserved the crown either and that all kings since either of them were not legitimate. 

Though I guess Cnut’s dynasty in England was a short-ish dynasty, as these things go, and the House of Wessex went back to ruling for a bit. 

And William the Conquerer did possibly become the makeshift heir of Edward the Confessor, who later might have named his (…brother???)…some relation whose name I forget…as heir instead and whom William slapped down most quickly as he took over the whole country in a bloody swathe of terror and pillaging until England said, okay, we don’t enjoy being murdered, let’s call you the king.

So if you are the one standing at the end and you put the crown on your head and no one else dare says differently, that is how you know you are the legitimate king. 

End of story. 

Beginning of another.

But Henry VII also sorta claimed right of blood through an ancestor of his mother’s. This dude, whose name I forget, was the illegitimate son of John of Gaunt, but I know he married the mother like twenty years later and all their kids were legally legitimized by…an act of Parliament? Something like that. And also the Pope. And affirmed by King Richard II. 

BUT the sneaky Henry of Bolingbroke, aka John of Gaunt’s eldest and most legitimate son (as we see there are shades), STOLE THE CROWN (!!!) from Richard II because the cousins apparently didn’t get along and Richard disinherited Henry and stole his cousin’s inheritance from his father John of Gaunt because why not, and also reasons. I won’t go into reasons but there were some.

Anyway, after Henry of Bolingbroke became Henry IV, he spitefully declared that his half-siblings, while legitimate, could NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER!!!!!!! inherit the crown. Which means Margaret Beaufort was, according to her half-ancestor Henry IV, not a legitimate heir of the crown and nor was her son. Even though the Pope and the previous king and the parliament (I think?) declared they could be. 

Whoever owns the crown makes the rules and Henry IV was the last to declare it. But Henry VII said “whatevs, I do what I want, please bring all complaints to the sharp end of my sword” and that is how you knew he was the true king.

It wasn’t the first time monarchy-by-conquest happened in England, though I suppose it was the last. So far. We have another Prince Henry RIGHT NOW so omg, watch him. Henry IX??? Probably not but IT COULD (probably not) HAPPEN. Maybe (but probably not).

Also, this is not counting the Civil War. I don’t like Oliver Cromwell’s government because he killed Charles I and Charles I was FABULOUS. And probably also a bad king when he wasn’t UTTERLY FABULOUS, which he ALWAYS was. 

But they also thought he was pretty bad. Which is why they beheaded him.

SO. Henry VII married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, aka possibly (!) the illegitimate brother of Richard III, who stole the crown from his little nephew princes (Elizabeth of York’s brothers) and possibly (probably) had them murdered in the Tower. 

Because monarchy.

But Henry Tudor’s army killed Richard III at…some battle that starts with a B…and ended up being king for a while and his marriage and kingship ended the War of the Roses and started the Renaissance. 

And if you tell me that his son, Henry VIII, was not a king, I will tell you he was the kingliest king of kingly kings, and that must be admitted whether you approved of him or not. 

And if you tell me Elizabeth I or Victoria I were not queens, I will tell you they were the queenliest of queens. 

George III was certainly a king, which is why we Americans separated ourselves from him—an act of separation from monarchy established by fine words but enforced by might.

They were all kings. 

Richard III was a king. 

He might have been the most legitimate choice or he might not have, but none of that really matters to history. 

What matters is that he took the crown and he held it, until he did not. 

Rinse and repeat throughout history and you have the history of all monarchies ever.

The morals of this story are that:

1) Might equals right in the eyes of history AND

2) I am obviously desperate to talk about the middle ages (and other parts of history) with someone because OMG, LOOK WHAT HAPPENED, I WILL NEVER BE OVER ANY OF IT; it’s been years since I studied it and I AM STILL NOT OVER THE WAR OF THE ROSES or the Civil War or ANY of the rest because they are just so dramatic and they are just so horrid and they are just so amazing.