Was Elizabeth of York Heiress to the Throne?

[Mike Stone]

I've seen a couple of websites in which Elizabeth of York, eldest daughter
of Edward IV, is described as having been heiress-presumoptive to the throne
from her birth in 1466 until her father's deposition in 1470, or if we take
a strictly Yorkist perspective, until her brother was born later that same
year.

Is this information reliable? I've been googling around looking for info on
the subject, but can't find anything definite. All I can find is the 1460
Act of Accord, which vested the crown (after Henry VI) in the "heirs" of
Richard of York, without apparently specifying whether this meant
heirs-general or simply male heirs. Logically, given that the Yorkist claim
to the throne ran through two women, one would think heirs-genral, but was
their any law that said so?


--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Always drink upriver from the herd. (song title).

[Hovite]

On Feb 2, 1:04 pm, "Mike Stone" <[email protected]> wrote:

I've seen a couple of websites in which Elizabeth of York, eldest daughter
of Edward IV, is described as having been heiress-presumoptive to the throne
from her birth in 1466 until her father's deposition in 1470, or if we take
a strictly Yorkist perspective, until her brother was born later that same
year.

Is this information reliable?

That rather depends on the websites. Would you care to name them? Some
websites are unreliable.

In English law, heir means heir general, and some peerages descend to
heirs general rather than to heirs male because the original grant
does not include the word male.