43« CORNWALL fr.O in Pari. PRINCE OF WALES, DUKE OF CORNWALL (") and EARL OF CHESTER, being, by charter of the same date, invested with the said Principality and Dukedom, together with the Counties of Chester and Flint, "sibi et heredibus suis Regibus Anglie." On lo Nov. 1399 he was declared DUKE OF LANCASTER in Pari., as also DUKE OF AQUITAINE in France, and it was ordered that he should bear the titles of Prince of Wales, Duke of Aquitaine, of Lancaster and of Cornwall, and Earl of Chester. K.G. I399- On 21 Mar. 1412/3 he ascended the throne as Henry V, when all his honours merged in the Crown. IV. 1 42 1 HenrYjC) s. and h. ap. of Henry V, by Katherine, to da. of Charles VI, King of France. He was b. 6 Dec. 1422. 1 42 1, at Windsor, and is held by some to have become DUKE OF CORNWALL at his birth.^ Being but (^) Though, on the accession of his father to the Crown, he was the eldest s. of a King of England, that King was not the heir general (the obvious construction of herei), though he was heir tnale of Prince Edward, the original grantee of the Dukedom of Cornwall. It was therefore supposed that Prince Henry was not entitled thereto, under the terms of the grant of 1337, and that "a new creation became therefore necessary; but notwithstanding the express limitation contained in the preceding and subsequent charters, the limitations in this case are the same as those of the Principality of Wales — sihl et heredibus mis Regibus Anglie — the effect ot which would be to vest that dignity in the Crown upon accession, there to remain until regranted." See Courthope^ p. 9. (^) In an Act (9 Hen. V), 1421, reciting the Act of (11 Edw. Ill) 1337, all reference to the heirs of the grantee (Prince Edward) is omitted. Courthope speaks of this (garbled) recital as a ^^construction given to the original statute." See post, p. 448, note "c." This theory would no doubt, if admitted, account for the allowances of the Dukedom in Dec. 1421 and in 1453, as well as for certain other allowances before, and all after, 1 714; but it seems hardly tenable, inasmuch as the Act of 1 42 1 was not passed for the purpose of explaining the original statute, and, apparently, was itself totally ignored in all subsequent proceedings respecting the Dukedom of Cornwall. The following is the account of this Act of 1421 given in Courthope, p. 12, note "r": — "This Act, which is for disuniting the manor of Isleworth from the Duchy of Cornwall, and annexing it to the Monastery of Sion, recites the intent and meaning of the Act of 1 1 Edw. Ill in the following words : — ' fuist accordee qe les fitz eisnes des Rois d'Engleterre c'est assavoir ceux qe serroient heirs proschiens du Roialme d' Engleterre fuissent Dues de Cornewaille et q. le Countee de Cornewaille touts jours demoreroit come Duchee a les eisnes fitz des Rois d'Engle- terre q. serroient heirs proscheins du dit Roialme sans estre aillours donee.' — Rot. Pari. 9 Hen. V (1421)." {^) As to his supposed name of " Plantagenet," see vol. i, p. 183, note " c." He is not included in Courthope among the Dukes of Cornwall. V.G. ("*) Probably by the same force majeure as that under which Henry IV became King; possibly by interpreting '■'■ heres" in the Act of 1337, as heir male; or, under the construction given, to that Act, in the Act of 1421. See note "b" above.
