Better Lancastrian Genetics

Kellan Sullivan · Jul 26, 2014

So the House of Lancaster started thinning out when Henry VI's uncles started dying. And thus moving the duke of York as close to the throne as he was - which was one of the causes of the Wars of the Roses which ultimately saw the house of York triumphant in the person of Edward IV.

However, there could've been more Lancastrians (discounting the Beauforts) between York and the throne. For instance, the Duke of Clarence left a bastard son;the Duke of Bedford's first wife gave birth to a stillborn child in Paris in 1432,; and Jacqueline, duchess of Gloucester birthed a stillborn child in 1424. So how might English history have been different if Henry VI wasn't the only legitimate heir of his generation? Maybe no War of the Roses (or at least the OTL version anyway) in the immediate future?

Teejay · Jul 26, 2014

Kellan Sullivan said:
So the House of Lancaster started thinning out when Henry VI's uncles started dying. And thus moving the duke of York as close to the throne as he was - which was one of the causes of the Wars of the Roses which ultimately saw the house of York triumphant in the person of Edward IV.

However, there could've been more Lancastrians (discounting the Beauforts) between York and the throne. For instance, the Duke of Clarence left a bastard son;the Duke of Bedford's first wife gave birth to a stillborn child in Paris in 1432,; and Jacqueline, duchess of Gloucester birthed a stillborn child in 1424. So how might English history have been different if Henry VI wasn't the only legitimate heir of his generation? Maybe no War of the Roses (or at least the OTL version anyway) in the immediate future?

Under English common law, the House of York had a stronger claim to the throne than the House of Lancaster, being descended from an older son of Edward III (Lionel of Antwerp).

Therefore, I believe the main cause of the War of the Roses started by Henry VI going into what was a catatonic schizophrenic episode, which allowed for Richard Duke of York (Edward IV's father) to rule the country (as protector) from 1454-1455. The Duke of York’s rule of England was seen as more effective than that of Henry VI.

This allowed the Duke of York to get ideas into his head, that he and his house were the rightful kings of England, not the House of Lancaster. Also the period the Duke of York was effectively ruler of England, convinced a large number of people that the Duke of York was the rightful King of England.

Darth_Kiryan · Jul 26, 2014

Teejay said:
Under English common law, the House of York had a stronger claim to the throne than the House of Lancaster, being descended from an older son of Edward III (Lionel of Antwerp).

.

Just curious, but the fact that Lionel's only child was a daughter would partially negate this, would it not? I mean, the only other English monarch descended from a daughter of the previous king was Henry II, and for better or worse, he was in a superior position than Stephen when he came to challenge the throne.

So at the time, would they skip this succession because of the heir being female?

Lionel died in 1368.
daughter Phillipa in 1382
her son Roger Mortimer died in 1398
and this leads us to Anne Mortimer, who married Richard Plantagenet, and their son who was the famous Richard Plantagenet, the 3rd Duke who started the war.

So, i am curious whether they would dismiss the line of Lionel completely because it ended up being descended through a female, hence why Henry Bolingbroke was attractive. If not, Anne is 9-10 years old at the time of the Lancastrian usurpation.

and young Henry V is only a few years older than her.

The Professor · Jul 26, 2014

Darth_Kiryan said:
Just curious, but the fact that Lionel's only child was a daughter would partially negate this, would it not? I mean, the only other English monarch descended from a daughter of the previous king was Henry II, and for better or worse, he was in a superior position than Stephen when he came to challenge the throne.

So at the time, would they skip this succession because of the heir being female?

Lionel died in 1368.
daughter Phillipa in 1382
her son Roger Mortimer died in 1398
and this leads us to Anne Mortimer, who married Richard Plantagenet, and their son who was the famous Richard Plantagenet, the 3rd Duke who started the war.

So, i am curious whether they would dismiss the line of Lionel completely because it ended up being descended through a female, hence why Henry Bolingbroke was attractive. If not, Anne is 9-10 years old at the time of the Lancastrian usurpation.

and young Henry V is only a few years older than her.

Yeah, granddaughters of Kings were not really considered in the succession at that time except after all other males.
It doesn't help that the succession laws during this period changed a fair bit - I think Ed II made it agnatic primogeniture ie what we erroneously call Salic Law but later and earlier Kings had allowed for women (or rather their husbands) to be in the line of succession.
It's worth pointing out that Henry II himself was deliberatly adopted by Stephen in order to stop any anti-claim

Kellan Sullivan · Jul 26, 2014

Teejay said:
This allowed the Duke of York to get ideas into his head, that he and his house were the rightful kings of England, not the House of Lancaster. Also the period the Duke of York was effectively ruler of England, convinced a large number of people that the Duke of York was the rightful King of England.

Well, I was thinking that if there are a 2nd Duke of Clarence/Bedford/Gloucester between York and the King, said duke would be in a better position to take up the regency during Henry VI's "mental break". Thus, without York being regent, he doesn't get those ideas (well, maybe he does, but it's a lot more difficult convincing someone to support you).

Janprimus · Jul 26, 2014

Teejay said:
(...)

This allowed the Duke of York to get ideas into his head, that he and his house were the rightful kings of England, not the House of Lancaster. Also the period the Duke of York was effectively ruler of England, convinced a large number of people that the Duke of York was the rightful King of England.

It were than ideas, especially after the house of York became the heir to the Clarence (Lionel of Antwerp) claim. From that point onwards the house of York could argue to have a better claim than the house of Lancaster. Lancastrian weakness enabled them to act upon it.

Also the Lancastrian usurpation of the throne from the main Plantagenet line also set a precedent for later pretenders, which was exactly what happened IOTL.

Kellan Sullivan · Jul 26, 2014

From Emperor Constantine's thread on Henry VI:

Just a Rube said:
The Beauforts and Yorkists will still have other disputes, but without the issue of the succession running around, it might not escalate as rapidly. Certainly York would be much less interested in claiming the throne if he hadn't spent the better part of a decade under the assumption that he would inherit.

Janprimus · Jul 26, 2014

Upholding a claim and actually realizing to ascend the throne are not completely the same thing.

Even when someone of the house of Lancaster would be sitting firmly on the throne, that wouldn't change the Yorkist (from Clarence) claim to the throne.
The duke of York might still believe his line ought to be sitting on the throne, instead of the house of Lancaster. What might change is the support they could actually obtain to gain the throne.

mcdnab · Jul 28, 2014

Actually York was extremely reluctant to claim the throne based on his senior descent from Edward III and did not in fact do it until 1459 after he was placed under attainder when he was left with little choice. Up to that point he either wanted to be recognised as the King's heir or after the birth of Edward of Westminster the senior member of the government.

His issues throughout the 1450s were more to do with the misgovernment of the King, his and the Queen's favourites in particularly the Beauforts, the vast debts owed him by the crown and initially his view that he should be the King's heir if he remained childless (which he did until Margaret's 1453 pregnancy), and his involvement with the long-running Percy Neville dispute.

Richard's claim through the Clarence line was undoubtedly known - however he was also very well aware that if Henry died childless he was the only male-line legitimate descendant of Edward III left and was already next in line - Margaret of Anjou and the King's favouritism to the Beaufort's meant Richard's rights as next in succession were being undermined

Thoresby · Jul 31, 2014

Also don't forget the fact that he felt personally slighted. As the Premier Magnate of the realm and a Plantagenet to boot he felt he should get more respect and have more attention paid to him than he was getting. That was a factor in driving him into rebellion and once the House of York had taken up arms against Henry VI it was a case of either win and become King or get attainted and executed as soon as your power falters.

Janprimus · Jul 31, 2014

mcdnab said:
Actually York was extremely reluctant to claim the throne based on his senior descent from Edward III and did not in fact do it until 1459 after he was placed under attainder when he was left with little choice. Up to that point he either wanted to be recognised as the King's heir or after the birth of Edward of Westminster the senior member of the government.

His issues throughout the 1450s were more to do with the misgovernment of the King, his and the Queen's favourites in particularly the Beauforts, the vast debts owed him by the crown and initially his view that he should be the King's heir if he remained childless (which he did until Margaret's 1453 pregnancy), and his involvement with the long-running Percy Neville dispute.

Richard's claim through the Clarence line was undoubtedly known - however he was also very well aware that if Henry died childless he was the only male-line legitimate descendant of Edward III left and was already next in line - Margaret of Anjou and the King's favouritism to the Beaufort's meant Richard's rights as next in succession were being undermined

If Henry VI would have died without an heir, who would oppose the house of York? The barred*(from the Royal line of succession) house of Beaufort with an inferior claim?
(*= a condition for their legitimization)