The grant of the dukedom of Guienne to Gaunt was specifically "for life", yet C.Ch.R. iv. 318, dated 16 February, 1390, provided by charter the continuance for his heirs of the liberties granted to him personally. Does this mean that, in addition to the seizure of the Lancastrian estates, Richard II was also re-seizing the dukedom of Aquitaine in his ill-fated move to seize Gaunt's estates after the magnate's death? Or had the dukedom reverted to the crown upon the duke's death?
In 1392, Richard II wrote to the commune of Bayonne that the grant of Aquitaine to John of Gaunt was "as if it were in our own hands" (M.G.A. Vale, English Gascony, 32-33). I think those words (and the grant "for life") must be understood that there was no possibility of legal inheritance of Aquitaine from Gaunt to Henry, and that the title of duke was kept in the direct royal family –like the grant to the Black Prince in 1360-. John of Gaunt also was a son of King Edward III, but Henry, when his father died, only was a son of the Duke of Lancaster. But, legality, reality and possibility do not always coincide. So ...
I am nervous about using any records from 1392 and later, just because of the concerns J.J.N. Palmer raised of the Gascon reactions to the grant by Richard to Gaunt of the duchy that was perceived to work towards the permanent alienation from the Crown. I will admit, I do tend towards Palmer's theory of attempted purposeful alienation, but the legal realities are, as you mentioned, unclear. I guess that is what I am looking to question. But thank you so much for your quick and well-informed answer!
Ok, another posibility. When John of Gaunt died, Henri was the legitimate heir of the throne, as the closer relative of the king. So, he could be the new duke of Aquitaine, but not as heir of his father, but as heir of the throne...But Richard II dishinerited him and then...
If that were the case, and we assume that the duchy reverted to the Crown upon Gaunt's death, then as Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March had been named heir presumptive when Richard went on his second Irish campaign in 1399, the duchy should have rightfully belonged to Roger. Then again, this still deals with matters of the inheritance of the Crown's lands, while I have more concerns as to whether or not the duchy of Aquitaine was technically alienated from the royal demesne during the period after Gaunt's death and before the Royal confiscation of the Lancastrian estates.
To flesh out my initial concerns, I think that the charter of 16 February, 1390 (C.Ch.R. iv. 318) conflicts with Richard's oral declaration that Gaunt's grant served only to create a Lancastrian lieutenancy in Aquitaine. The transfer of Aquitaine seem open to particular scrutiny given the details of the exchange; the charter appointing Gaunt as duke "for life", which was called a charter in the parliament roll, was not enrolled in the Charter Roll but on the Gascon Roll (13 R. II No. 101/6). The grant's peculiar nature is commented on by Tout (v. Ill, p. 464, n. 2), saying that it "is not a charter in form, as was the earlier grant of Lancastrian privileges to John's heirs, or the creation of the earldom of Rutland. It was addressed to John himself, has no witnesses and was given 'sub magni sigilli nostri testimonio.'" Furthermore, the timing of these acts seems suspect, Richard having enacted the grant of Lancastrian privileges for Gaunt's heirs only a month before the duke was invested with Aquitaine. Seems plausible that the duke was meant to have been invested with a duchy fully alienated from the Crown's holdings. Would the king's later oral proclamations technically have superseded grants such as these?
Between Hispanic royal officials of fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was very common the expression "words of the king spoken to my from mouth" to refer to the king oral commands whith force of law. But I think the problem is broader. Could a king of England in 1399 take the decision that he wanted in relation to the succession to the crown or the duchy of Aquitaine? I think the rise of royal power had its limits at that time, precisely to ensure their effectiveness, and the right of inheritance is one of them. Henri saw it well… and he won. But I don’t know the correct answer. I hope you can find it.
Of course, in the end, you're right— any theoretical ideas of the powers of the royal person are overshadowed by the realities of what happened. But the theoretical aspect of what "ought" to have happened may lead to some interesting revelations. Thanks very much for all your help!
Just to put this question to bed, in case any others are similarly interested in the future, I have since found the answer.
The grant that gave Aquitaine to Gaunt closes with a convoluted statement that my earlier translation had managed to garble and overlook. I sat down a few months ago to rehash the issue, and found that the royal officials had added a line amounting to a statement that upon the death of Gaunt the grant was not to continue on to his progeny without the king's expressed permission, and that if there was no heir eligible for the dukedom then it would revert to the crown. As such, the matter was, within the realm of diplomatic, completely within King Richard's control. Basically, the grant of Lancastrian privileges was kept separate from the grant of Aquitaine, and the latter was never intended to be bound in among the elements of the former. Though this is precisely what seems to have happened in the months following the revolution, in what seems to me to be some of the fanciest legal footwork of the age. But that subject begins to stray from the topic, and so I will leave it be for now.
I hope this helps to clarify any who follow this line of thinking, and if any one is similarly interested in the subjects concerned here, please feel free to contact me!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Cartography
- Mapping