Didn't say there would be.
Yeah right.
"Hey, you know how you agreed to marry Elizabeth to this landed Welshman with the Lancaster claim? Well instead you have this bastard commoner..."
Not going to happen.
Two Deaths at Bosworth
- Thread starter VVD0D95
- Start date
"Hey, you know how you agreed to marry Elizabeth to this landed Welshman with the Lancaster claim? Well instead you have this bastard commoner..."
Not going to happen.
Why not? The deal requires an adult male Lancastrian to provide a grandson for the late Edward IV. So with HT dead it's a case of any port in a storm. And Lord Stanley is unlikely to object. He just wants a stable government and the combination of Lancastrians and Edwardian Yorkists is the best way to get one. If his Lancastrian allies go for Somerset [1]he'll accept it.
It also gives them a chance to collar Northumberland. OTL Henry VII put him under arrest, and he apparently submitted to it without a fight. probably HT's backers will also want him in custody. If he demands to see the KIng before surrendering, they bring in Somerset (or someone else Northumberland has never met) and as he enters the tent all genuflect and shout "kin Henry". Since both Henry and Somerset have lived in exile since they were children, Northumberland will have no way of spotting the imposture.
[1] An anachronistic name. Iirc he actually called himself "Beaufort" at this time, only changing to "Somerset" after HVII's accession. I use the name by which history knows him best.
But by default Sir (if he's sir at this point) Charles Beaufort/Somerset isn't technically a Lancaster heir BECAUSE he's an illegitimate commoner and there's a legitimate noble alternative. And while there's a noble alternative Stanley won't accept him.
How many times does that need to be said?
As often as anyone likes. Repetition is not evidence,
If by “a legitimate noble alternative” you mean Edward Stafford, why would the Yorkists (incl Lord Stanley if he can be classed as such) like him any better than Somerset? The whole deal is for EoY to marry and produce asap a grandson for the late King Edward IV, which grandson is destined to be the next King after her current hubby. Why would any Yorkist be willing to kick this down the road for the best part of a decade or even longer, by mating their best brood mare with a prepubescent child?
Sorry if the phrase “brood mare” upsets anyone, but it is factually correct. In 1485 and for many centuries thereafter, that is exactly what princesses were.
As for Somerset’s bastardy, if needs must would it really be beyond human ingenuity to find a clergyman of Lancastrian sympathies who was willing to conveniently “remember” having secretly married his parents?
Why? Because he happens to be a)noble and b)legitimate. My point.
Recall that that for the primary Yorkists it's a way to unite the two claims. A bastard commoner does not do that.
Because it needs to have a veneer of conviction that the ruling parties can accept. Recall Gloucester's delegitimising of Edward's kids for the same reason.
So back to my dispute:
You've made the claim that Charles Somerset was an acceptable heir to the Lancaster succession. Can you provide evidence of this?
It does if the Lancastrians accept him as their man. In Yorkist eyes no Lancastrian has any claim, so how does it matter. For them, Stafford's claim would be no better.
The Yorkists want a grandson of Edward IV as Prince of Wales. For that to happen they need an adult male.
And once a King has been anointed and crowned (which will be asap after Bosworth) he is not a "commoner", whether he was before or not.
Last edited:
*cough*
You've made the claim that Charles Somerset was an acceptable heir to the Lancaster succession. Can you provide evidence of this?
How on earth can anyone do that, given that Henry Tudor survived and so the issue never arose?
Can you point to any other unmarried adult male of royal blood whom the Lancastrians would regard as one of their own?
Last edited:
Considering Henry VII's massive paranoia about his throne during his reign he watched all his relatives and possible claimants. Yet Charles Somerset spent a decade in obscurity before being eventually made Earl of Worcester, whilst Stafford ended up dead. That says a lot about Charles's claim.
I can point to an unmarried legitimate noble. Can you?
Underaged legitimate noble trumps adult bastard commoner.
Not by Henry VI but by his wife Margaret of Anjou and most important by Edward of Westminster, only child and heir of Henry VI...
Charles Somerset was firmly loyal to henry VII, even to the point of changing his name from Beaufort to avoid any suggestion of rivalry with the King. Bhen who knows?ut if there is no Henry to be loyal to
Even though that requires Yorkists to resign themselves to waiting for maybe a decade before EoY can give them the Yorkist heir they want? And even if/when he materialises, having such a young Lancastrian on the throne means that it could be fifty-odd years before Ed IV's grandson finally reaches it - something which few of the current generation of Yorkists will live to see?
And for the umpteenth time, why should Yorkists *care* whether a Lancastrian king is legitimate or not? To them, a legitimate Lancastrian has no more right to the throne than a bastard one.
It didn't matter how loyal it was about whether they were a threat.
If they're keeping to the compromise then yes.
Because it's not just about his royal claim it's whether he's also worthy as a spouse. At that time the insult to the family of marrying royalty to a bastard commoner would be huge.
Maybe you're young but I still recall the fuss over the princes's and Anne's marriages to commoners. At this period it would be worse, so congratulations you've offered to reignite a conflict the marriage was supposed to resolve.
Again you're paying no heed to context.
I suspect you're being a trifle optimistic there, but let it pass.
So, assuming you're right and Somerset won't do, where do we go from there? Afaics, the next option seems to be Lord Stanley himself, jure uxoris. He is on the spot, and unlike his brother William (who has no claim to the throne) has been relatively neutral as between Lancaster and York.
As there's no likelihood of any issue to his current marriage, there will still be the need to seek an heir who is free to marry EoY. However, having him as king makes the need a bit less urgent, providing valuable time in which, if need be, a foreigner can be naturalised,, a bastard legitimised or even (Vatican permitting) an existing marriage dissolved.
Rather more optimistic to bank on a bastard commoner to solve it.
Where do we go?
Well, Stafford is declared the Lancaster heir and married to Elizabeth.
There's a regency council including Stanley and Jasper who get prime positions.
Jasper gets married to Stafford's mum (as OTL).
There's a general amnesty for anyone who rebelled against Richard.
Northumberland is probably invited back.
Anything after that depends on Elizabeth's precise role; the roles of the Stanleys, Pembroke, Oxford, and Northumberland; how the council deals with the likely rebellions, etc etc.
Another minority only two years after the last (disastrous) one? Would *anybody be prepared to risk it?
It's that or the war continues. Which would probably be favourable to the Warwick or Lincoln Yorkists considering the Lancastrians only have Stafford left.
certainly no t
How so? There are a whole platoon of Beaufort descendants out there, plus a few from Elizabeth of Lancaster. They may not have impeccably Lancastrian records, but how many do beyond the few die-hards who chose exile rather than accept the verdict of Tewkesbury? Certainly not the Staffords. It's only two years since Buckingham assisted Richard II on to the throne - veen if he did change his mind later. And have either Oxford or Jasper any close ties with the House of Stafford?
How so? There are a whole platoon of Beaufort descendants out there, plus a few from Elizabeth of Lancaster. They may not have impeccably Lancastrian records, but how many do beyond the few die-hards who chose exile rather than accept the verdict of Tewkesbury? Certainly not the Staffords. It's only two years since Buckingham assisted Richard II on to the throne - veen if he did change his mind later. And have either Oxford or Jasper any close ties with the House of Stafford?
What platoon? Bearing in mind that the Lancastrians were originally following the agnatic descent of Edward's entail.