G2G: Did Henry IV (Bolingbroke) of England really USURP the crown in 1399?

Question

The WT profile states he usurped the crown (in1399) - but did he really? He fought and defeated King Richard II's army in battle, later found and captured the King, who abdicated (perhaps under duress) or was deposed, and Henry IV was proclaimed King by parliament. Can we agree that that is not really usurption - was it not a legitimate way of claiming the crown back then?

Also at the end of the same sentence as "usurping": should not "the Lancaster's downfall... " read the Lancasters' (i.e. their collective) downfall?

Comments

Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, son of Lionel of Antwerp (John of Gaunt's older brother) was next in line after Richard.

---

yes true, but the legal right to the crown was not only by primo-genitor-based succession, back then it was also by right of conquest and/or by right of proclamation as far as I understood

Answer 1

Merriam-Webster, OED and Cambridge dictionaries agree that usurp can mean 'take a position of power by force', which is exactly what you have described him doing.

Comments

ursurption means unlawful taking of power by force - it was the (un)lawful aspect that interested me

---

If Henry had walked into the throne room, killed Richard and taken the throne for himself - that would be unlawful.

However, taking the throne by battle was acceptable.

---

agreed Ros - by right of conquest, followed by a lawful proclamation

---

Usurp does not have to mean illegally, it can simply mean by force:

• Merriam Webster "to seize and hold (office, place, functions, powers, etc.) in possession by force or without right"
• Cambridge: "to take power or control of something by force or without the right to do so"
• OED: "To appropriate or seize wrongfully or forcibly"

In addition, one can consult what professional historians have written. In the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry for Henry the word usurp or usurpation is used 12 times to describe his actions. The titles alone of two scholarly works about him also indicate that it is an appropriate word:

• P. Strohm, England’s empty throne: usurpation and the language of legitimation, 1399–1422 (New Haven and London, 1998)
• D. Biggs, Three armies in Britain: the Irish campaign of Richard II and the usurpation of Henry IV, 1397–99 (Leiden, 2006)

Answer 2

I have to disagree with you, Jeremy.  Usurpation is to take control of a position of power without having the right to that position.  That is exactly what Bolingbroke does.  It is pretty much the textbook example.  

Comments

Was it not allowed in those times to claim/take the crown by proclamation? (conquest/sucession/proclamation). I agree it was contentious, but then so was putting a child on the throne in 1377

---

No it was not legal. The Treason Act 1351 (which is still in force) says that "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm" it should be judged treason.

---

Even today the Royal household site states that he was a usurper which suggests the official position.

https://www.royal.uk/henry-iv

He didn't claim the throne through conquest.

https://www.medievalists.net/2014/12/usurpation-henry-iv-quest-legitimacy-english-throne/

It was more a rebellion than a conquest and, as Andrew says,  treason.