History is full of what-ifs, and many historians speculate on the possibilities had certain events happened differently. Few, however, expand on those suppositions at great length as J.F. Andrews does in Lost Heirs of the Medieval Crown: Kings and Queens Who Never Were. Lost Heirs explores the lives of royal sons and daughters who never ascended the English throne between 1087 and 1485.
The first chapter centers on Robert Curthose - eldest son of William the Conqueror - and his son, William Clito. The second and third chapters focus on the Angevin and early Plantagenet dynasties. It begins with the succession dispute between Henry I's daughter Empress Matilda and her cousin Stephen of Blois and continues with Stephen's children Eustace, William, and Mary. Empress Matilda's descendants feature in Chapters Four and Five. The remaining chapters continue with various scions of the remarkably fertile Edward III, including Edward the Black Prince; Richard, Duke of York; Edward of Middleham; Edward of Lancaster, son of Henry VI; Edward V; and Edward, Earl of Warwick.
The crown rarely passed smoothly from father to heir in medieval England due to a slew of factors. Andrews’ work fills a unique niche in the study of early medieval English politics.
I found Lost Heirs an excellent introduction to some of those lesser-known royals whose existence could have changed history under different circumstances. What would have happened had Empress Matilda ascended the throne or had Eleanor of Brittany been allowed to marry? How might the sons of Stephen of Blois have contested the provision which prevented them from becoming king? Would Richard, Duke of York, have faced a challenge from Edward of Westminster and Margaret of Anjou had both duke and prince survived the Battle of Wakefield and the Battle of Tewkesbury respectively? It's hard to know for certain, of course, but there's plenty upon which we can speculate.
Andrews employs sufficient primary and secondary research and analysis to make a compelling read. It's important to note, however, that the author only included “lost heirs” who were expected to inherit their respective titles. Not included were illegitimate children, those who wanted to take the throne by force, or presumed impostors. So if you're looking for information on players such as Philip of Cognac, Louis VIII, or Perkins Warbeck and Lambert Simnel, you'll want to look elsewhere. It's a wise approach; otherwise, mapping out all possible branches could easily bloat the narrative.
Lost Heirs provides excellent insight into the politics of medieval succession. Though limited in scope to England (with some comparisons to France for its relatively stable royal succession through the same timeframe), the book offers readers a glimpse into a past where one's birthright could mean ascending a throne just as much as losing it to the next bloke who claims the Treasury and throws a coronation. I appreciated the mentions of female heirs including Empress Matilda and Eleanor of Brittany; I'd have liked to see more discussion on females, especially in relation to Salic law may have impacted Anglo-Norman inheritance, but I found this book an engaging read.
Andrews' inclusion of her thoughts on the disappearance of King Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York - the Princes in the Tower - comes as the only part of the book I found unnecessary. She wrote that, “[L]est it be a disappointment to readers of this book to have come this far and not find any possible explanation, we will add to the conjecture. It is the opinion of this author that Edward and Richard were murdered; that this happened sometime in the late summer or autumn of 1483; that the murders were carried out on the orders of Richard III; and that Richard was motivated by fear – that this had not been his original plan, but that he had worked himself into a position where it ended up appearing the only possible option.” This isn't to say the treatment isn't worthwhile, especially in a book of “lost heirs”. All the same, in this writer's opinion, many authors cover the subject, and the inclusion here felt more like an afterthought than a more nuanced engagement with the known evidence and historiography.
That said, Lost Heirs of the Medieval Crown is sure to please anyone fascinated with English history, medieval history, political history, or the politics of royal succession and inheritance.