The Right to Rule in England: Depositions and the Kingdom's Authority, 1327-1485

Abstract

A SERIES OF FIVE DEPOSITIONS between 1327 and 1485 drove the English to conjure up arguments and principles justifying a change in kings. Five sovereigns-Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, Edward V, and Richard III-lost the throne permanently; and four usurpers-Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII-claimed to be lawfully seised and possessed of the said in their stead. To sanction the removal of an unsatisfactory sovereign and his successor's usurpation, men of law-both common and canondevised apologias. These justificatory declarations, taken seriatim, created a doctrine of restraint upon the regal power that eventually became a part of England's constitutional, or public, law. On each of these occasions, God and His Englishmen had the chance to choose a new king. As they did so, their spokesmen defined further the right to rule and the authority to govern, thereby limiting the English monarchy, for to define is to curb. The deposers, to justify their deeds, alleged deceit, deviousness, distrust, and uselessness in those they removed; and sometimes irresponsibility, bad faith, and a breach of the coronation oath. The deposed kings had governed, they said, without good counsel and consent, or against England's laws and customs. Positively, the usurpers claimed the crown through inheritance or by God's will, conquest, or election. Thereby they brought into play and into public law God's authority, the people's, and the kingdom's-authority that was expressed through the three estates of the realm and, finally, through parliament. These indictments of beaten kings and the vindications of their conquerors contained much bad history. In due season they made good law. Again and again the official apologias raised basic questions about public law and governance. To whom was, or ought, the good king to be responsible? And for what and how much was he himself to be answerable, and to whom? To God alone? Yet that position was hardly satisfactory. To medieval men, the kingdom possessed authority of its own that in several ways complemented God's, thus suggesting that the king was, in some measure, also