A More Thriving House of Lancaster

Maybe not giving so much to the Beauforts?

Okay, but how much is "not so much"? The Beauforts are more closely to related to Henry VI than the Yorks, but at the same time, with Henry having near-contemporaneous cousins would he not be spreading out amongst them what he OTL just gave to the Beauforts?

Also, an idea I'm wondering about, is Catherine de Valois wanted to marry Edmund Beaufort when she was widowed. The privy council objected to it. With more than a few heartbeats between Henry VI and Beaufort, might they allow/agree to it?
 
Okay, but how much is "not so much"? The Beauforts are more closely to related to Henry VI than the Yorks, but at the same time, with Henry having near-contemporaneous cousins would he not be spreading out amongst them what he OTL just gave to the Beauforts?

Also, an idea I'm wondering about, is Catherine de Valois wanted to marry Edmund Beaufort when she was widowed. The privy council objected to it. With more than a few heartbeats between Henry VI and Beaufort, might they allow/agree to it?

Hmm, I think if the cousins are capable there will be less tension there.

And, perhaps yes.
 
Killing him wouldn't necessarily help. It just transfers his claim to the Bourchier family, descended from his sister Isabel.


On second thoughts I could be wrong. If RoY dies early enough then his sister, if not yet married, becomes the most eligible heiress in the land, and might get a husband higher up the totem pole - perhaps a Beaufort instead of a Bourchier. That would make a big difference.
 
Were Jeanne de Navarre and Henri IV using some kinda 15c birth control, since both had kids by their first spouses, but none with each other (unless you count Edmund Labourde, who most Lancastrian family trees I've seen don't even list)?
 
Were Jeanne de Navarre and Henry IV using some kinda 15c birth control, since both had kids by their first spouses, but none with each other (unless you count Edmund Labourde, who most Lancastrian family trees I've seen don't even list)?

The maternity of Edmund Labourde is disputed. Especially since some sources list him as being born in 1387 (25 years before Henry IV and Joan got married in 1403). Plus, Henry V is born in August 1387, meaning that he's awkwardly placed for having an older/younger brother born the same year.

Joan was only 33 at the time of her remarriage, so she doesn't have long to still have more kids.
 
Since of late I'm sort of interested in early 15th century royalty, let's take another stab at this family tree:

Henry IV, King of England [1399-1413] (1367-1413) 1m: 1380 Mary de Bohun (1370-1394); 2m: 1403 Juana of Navarre, Duchess Douairière de Bretagne (1370-1437)

i) [1m.] Isabella (1385-1439) m: 1402 Ludwig III, Elector Palatine of the Rhine [1410-1436] (1378-1436)

ii) [1m.] Henry V, King of England [1413-1422] (1387-1422) m: 1420 Catherine de Valois (1401-1437)

(1) Henry VI, King of England [1422-1460; 1470-1471] & France [1422-1453] (1421-1471) m: 1445 Marguerite d’Anjou (1429-1482)​

(a) Edward, Prince of Wales (1453-)
iii) [1m.] Thomas, Duke of Clarence (1388-1421) m: 1407

(1) John, 2e Duke of Clarence (1409-1431) m:​

iv) [1m.] John, Duke of Bedford (1389-1432) 1m: 1413 Catherine of Burgundy (1391-1414); 2m: 1417

(1) [1m.] Richard, 2e Duke of Bedford (1415-1435) m: 1433 Jacquetta of Luxemburg (1416-1472)

(2) [2m.] Mary (1420-1462) m: ?

(3) [2m.] Stillborn Child (1422)​

v) [1m.] Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester (1390-1447) m: 1422 [ann. 1428] Jacqueline, Comtesse d’Holland, d’Hainaut et de Seeland [1417-1436] (1401-1436)

(1) [1m.] Stillborn Child (1424)​

(2) [1m.] Margaret (1425-) m: 1448 Charles I, Duke of Burgundy [1467-] (1433-)

(3) [1m.] William III, Comte d’Holland, d’Hainaut et de Seeland (1426-1447) m: 1444 Mary of Scots (1428-1465)​

(a) Stillborn Son (1446)​

(b) William IV, Comte d’Holland, d’Hainaut et de Seeland (1448-1451)​

ii) [1m.] Blanche (1392-1409) m: 1402 Ludwig III, Elector Palatine of the Rhine [1410-1436] (1378-1436)

(1) Rupert, Erbprinz von der Palatinate (1406-) m: ?

(2) Elisabeth/Blanka (1409-) m: ?​

iii) [1m.] Philippa (1394-1430) m: 1406 Erik, King of Denmark [(as Eric VII) 1396-1439], Sweden [(as Eric XIII/VIII) 1396-1434; 1435-1436; 1436-1439] & Norway [(as Eric VII) 1389-1442], Duke of Pomerania-Stolp [(as Erich I) 1446-1459] (1382-1459)

(1) (Son), King of Denmark & Sweden [1439-1448], King of Norway [1442-1448] (1429-) m: 1445 ?​

So, with this adjusted family tree, all the male line Lancastrians (the 2e dukes of Clarence Bedford & Gloucester) are dead by 1451. Henry VI is once again the very lonely Lancastrian heir until his son is born. Does York still decide that he's going to pole-vault over the female-line claimants of the Lancasters (who are, as OTL, foreign)? Or does Henry decide to name Mary of Bedford (and her heirs) as the next in line (bearing in mind that Henry IV instituted a form of male-preference primogeniture when he claimed the throne)? Or does the WotR just get so much more intricate here?
 
From what I understand Henry IV's only truly seriously considered claim to the throne was that Richard II named him heir. Yes he was under duress, and in Henry's custody, but the legal precedent at that point was the King's Word on succession was paramount. Remember Richard II was the first representative heir to inherit, and that was only because his grandfather named him heir by creating him Prince of Wales, if he had not most likely Lionel Duke of Clarence would of become King skipping over Richard of Bordeaux completely. Henry IV did not establish any new precedents in succession. The story about a superior claim through his mother was gossip and rumor, never a formal claim, to legitimize Henry IV taking action to force Richard to name himself Heir.
 
From what I understand Henry IV's only truly seriously considered claim to the throne was that Richard II named him heir. Yes he was under duress, and in Henry's custody, but the legal precedent at that point was the King's Word on succession was paramount. Remember Richard II was the first representative heir to inherit, and that was only because his grandfather named him heir by creating him Prince of Wales, if he had not most likely Lionel Duke of Clarence would of become King skipping over Richard of Bordeaux completely. Henry IV did not establish any new precedents in succession. The story about a superior claim through his mother was gossip and rumor, never a formal claim, to legitimize Henry IV taking action to force Richard to name himself Heir.

Okay. Fair enough.

So Henry VI's options of heirs-presumptive between 1451 (the death of the young count of Holland) and 1453 (the birth of Edward of Westminster) can be Mary of Bedford (or rather, her children, who let's face it, are most likely foreign born)?
 
Okay. Fair enough.

So Henry VI's options of heirs-presumptive between 1451 (the death of the young count of Holland) and 1453 (the birth of Edward of Westminster) can be Mary of Bedford (or rather, her children, who let's face it, are most likely foreign born)?
Women couldn't inherit so Mary of Bedford's children might possibly. But without other male heirs in country, I think the war would turn out about how otl except maybe instead of Henry Tudor, we would of got Mary of Bedford's son or grandson on the throne. Or maybe if she only had a daughter and the daughter ends up marrying Edward IV and there children inherit, but my point is I doubt tWotR would of been extended or more or less complicated. York very definitely still would of made a play for the throne.
 
Women couldn't inherit so Mary of Bedford's children might possibly. But without other male heirs in country, I think the war would turn out about how otl except maybe instead of Henry Tudor, we would of got Mary of Bedford's son or grandson on the throne. Or maybe if she only had a daughter and the daughter ends up marrying Edward IV and there children inherit, but my point is I doubt tWotR would of been extended or more or less complicated. York very definitely still would of made a play for the throne.

Plus, York has the benefit of being able to claim descent from Lionel. I was just thinking of how fascinating it would be if in addition to inheriting the Mortimer claim, instead of Cecily Neville, Richard of Conisborough marries one of Edmund Mortimer and Catrin Glendower's daughters, but that's hardly fit for speculation on the house of Lancaster. Still, maybe one of the daughters (I don't have birth years for them) can marry one of Henry IV's sons or grandsons? Or who would you suggest as marriage partners?
 
I know this is tangential, but could Arthur, son of Humphrey, be of political relevance if he escapes his ignominious fate shortly after his father's death?
 
I know this is tangential, but could Arthur, son of Humphrey, be of political relevance if he escapes his ignominious fate shortly after his father's death?

Well, in this TL he's count of Holland, so the chances of him being arrested for witchcraft in England, when he might be in the Low Countries since his mother's death, is slim. But here, even though he dies young, he's still managed two children, although neither survives infancy.
 
Well, in this TL he's count of Holland, so the chances of him being arrested for witchcraft in England, when he might be in the Low Countries since his mother's death, is slim. But here, even though he dies young, he's still managed two children, although neither survives infancy.
Could he be legitimised as Humphrey's heir by the Eleanor Cobham marriage a la John of Gaunt's kids?
 
Wait, technically wouldn't a longer-lasting Henry V solve *all* the problems?

It would also leave the possibility of a son who's not *as* mad/feeble as Henry VI, with OTL Henry VI being possible confined to the Tower or something
 
Some ideas:

  1. Originally, there was a plan for Henry of Lancaster, then Prince of Wales and later King of England, to marry Catherine of Pomerania, the sister to his brother-in-law, the King of Norway, Denmark and Sweden. This earlier match leaves him time to have older children, thus no Henry VI of England. OTL she had 7 children, of which only her youngest son would survive past infany. With this in mind, it wouldn't make sense for her to have seven surviving children with Henry V of England, but two, a son and daughter, isn't impossible.
  2. It's probably for the best if we have Thomas of Lancaster marry elsewhere, if just to give him a chance for some children. My favourite idea is that he marries his wife's OTL nun-sister, Bridget Holland. She's a year younger than him, and it is possible she became a nun later than her sisters, so we could have the match go through. Given her sister's fertility, the Lady Bridget seems sure to have a child or two.
  3. Quite honestly, we'll never know if the issue with the Duke of Bedford's first marriage was on the Duke's side or his wife's. Many assume his wife's, if just because he had a bastard, but then again he didn't have any other bastards, and no children with the highly fertile Jacquetta of Luxembourg. It should also be said that it is possible his bastard was not in fact his, and if that is so he is probably the one with the issue. So I have decided to leave his marriages and lack of children as is.
  4. Basically, all that has to be done for Humphrey is to have Jacqueline, Countess of Hainaut's miscarriage end in a son. If that happens, then he's never going to leave her. They probably wouldn't have any more children, but that's ok as there's an heir.
  5. Blanche of Lancaster OTL had one child before her early death, so she's fine. All we have to do is have her son marry and have a child, as he lived to 20 OTL.
  6. Philippa never seems to have become pregnant OTL, and her husband never had a bastard child, so it seems safe to say no child was to come from this union.

Henry IV of England (b.1367: d.1413) m. Mary de Bohun (b.1368: d.1394) (a), Joan of Navarre (b.1370: d.1437) (b)

1a) Henry V of England (b.1386: d.1422) m. Catherine of Pomerania (b.1390: d.1426) (a)

1a) Stillborn Son (c.1410)

2a) Henry VI of England (b.1412)

3a) Margaret of England (b.1413: d.1414)

4a) Stillborn Son (c.1415)

5a) Blanche of England (b.1418)

6a) Mary of England (b.1420: d.1420)

7a) Humphrey of England (b.1421: d.1421)​

2a) Thomas of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Clarence (b.1387: d.1421) m. Bridget Holland (b.1387: d.1450) (a)

1a) Thomas of Lancaster, 2nd Duke of Clarence (b.1415)

2a) Henry of Lancaster, 1st Earl of Aumale (b.1416)

3a) Anne of Lancaster (b.1418)

4a) Arthur of Lancaster (b.1420: d.1421)​

3a) John of Lancaster, Duke of Bedford (b.1389: d.1435) m. Anne of Burgundy (b.1404: d.1432) (a), Jacquetta of Luxembourg (b.1415: d.1472) (b)

4a) Humphrey of Lancaster, Duke of Gloucester (b.1390: d.1447) m. Jacqueline, Countess of Hainaut (b.1401: d.1436) (a)

1a) Humphrey of Lancaster, Duke of Gloucester, Count of Hainaut, Holland and Zeeland (b.1424)​

5a) Blanche of Lancaster (b.1392: d.1409) m. Louis III, Elector Palatine (b.1378: d.1436) (a)

1a) Ruprecht of the Rhine (b.1406: d.1426) m. Margaret Beaufort (b.1409: d.1449) (a)

1a) Louis IV, Elector Palatine (b.1425)

2a) Albert of the Rhine (b.1426)​

6a) Philippa of Lancaster (b.1394: d.1430) m. Eric of Pomerania, III of Norway, VII of Denmark, XIII of Sweden (b.1381: d.1459) (a)​
 
From what I've read, John of Bedford had at least four kids (two legitimate and two not), so I think that the problem wasn't his - after all, Anne wasn't the only one of her siblings who got married but struggled to have children (her sister, the Countess of Penthièvre did too).

Also, Philippa (according to Lives of the Princesses of England) had at least one kid, a stillborn son. Blanche died after giving birth to a stillborn child.

On the subject of Henry's Kalmar marriage, the reason it didn't go through was because the house of Lancaster wanted it included in the marriage contract that EVEN IF Katharina died without children, Henry's kids by a second wife could inherit HER rights to the Kalmar realms.
 
Could he be legitimised as Humphrey's heir by the Eleanor Cobham marriage a la John of Gaunt's kids?

He doesn'tneed to be legitimized, he's already legitimate since he's the son of Humphrey and Jacqueline.

Wait, technically wouldn't a longer-lasting Henry V solve *all* the problems?

It would also leave the possibility of a son who's not *as* mad/feeble as Henry VI, with OTL Henry VI being possible confined to the Tower or something

Well, it could, but Henry V is butterfly netted, so Henry VI and everything surrounding him is all as OTL.

Kynan said:
Some ideas:

1.Originally, there was a plan for Henry of Lancaster, then Prince of Wales and later King of England, to marry Catherine of Pomerania, the sister to his brother-in-law, the King of Norway, Denmark and Sweden. This earlier match leaves him time to have older children, thus no Henry VI of England. OTL she had 7 children, of which only her youngest son would survive past infany. With this in mind, it wouldn't make sense for her to have seven surviving children with Henry V of England, but two, a son and daughter, isn't impossible.
2.It's probably for the best if we have Thomas of Lancaster marry elsewhere, if just to give him a chance for some children. My favourite idea is that he marries his wife's OTL nun-sister, Bridget Holland. She's a year younger than him, and it is possible she became a nun later than her sisters, so we could have the match go through. Given her sister's fertility, the Lady Bridget seems sure to have a child or two.
3.Quite honestly, we'll never know if the issue with the Duke of Bedford's first marriage was on the Duke's side or his wife's. Many assume his wife's, if just because he had a bastard, but then again he didn't have any other bastards, and no children with the highly fertile Jacquetta of Luxembourg. It should also be said that it is possible his bastard was not in fact his, and if that is so he is probably the one with the issue. So I have decided to leave his marriages and lack of children as is.
4.Basically, all that has to be done for Humphrey is to have Jacqueline, Countess of Hainaut's miscarriage end in a son. If that happens, then he's never going to leave her. They probably wouldn't have any more children, but that's ok as there's an heir.
5.Blanche of Lancaster OTL had one child before her early death, so she's fine. All we have to do is have her son marry and have a child, as he lived to 20 OTL.
6.Philippa never seems to have become pregnant OTL, and her husband never had a bastard child, so it seems safe to say no child was to come from this union.

1. Jonas answered this
2. Sounds like a good idea.
3. Only heard of the one child of John and Anne mentioned on some sites (Italian and French wikis, not on the English one AFAIK). Geni.com mentions a daughter born in the late-1420s and a child in 1432, in addition to the two bastards - Richard and Mary of Bedford.
As to Jacquetta, it may have simply been that there wasn't enough time begween the marriage in April 1433 and September 1435, Jacquetta wasn't nubile yet, or maybe John was too old by then? She supposedly married the Earl Rivers in 1435, but their first child wasn't born until 1437/1438, so it's not implausible.
4. Again, as with his brothers, simply letting the OTL bastards be born on the right side of the blanket - Marge is OTL Antigone, whilst William is OTL Arthur (although Arthur could also work as a name in Holland I guess)
5. Jonas answered this.
6. Jonas answered this.
 
The fact that the house of Lancaster is doing slightly better here (when Henry V dies, they have more than just one heir), makes me wonder about the possibility of Catherine de Valois' projected marriage to the Earl/Duke of Somerset. OTL the council blocked it, and she responded that by "marrying" Owen Tudor. Would they be more grudging in their acceptance of the marriage, or still block the wedding?

And who might make a good candidate for the hand of Mary of Bedford? She's the eldest unmarried princess at court, so I can't see them wasting her domestically. Carlos of Viana showed an interest in marrying Isabel of Scots, Dowager Duchess of Brittany (when that generation of Scots princesses flew as high as they did OTL due to a lack of English princesses/of the blood. The dauphin is out, since Henry VI is technically "king of France", but who else? She's too old for the duke of Burgundy, besides, her Gloucester cousin would make a better match (Burgundy perhaps attempting to legitimize their annexation of Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut) for Charles the Bold. Or would they try for a double match between Henry and Marguerite d'Anjou and Mary and Jean II of Lorraine?
 
I was having some interesting thoughts, is there a way that the duke of York can still claim the throne even if he isn't Henry VI's sole heir? For instance, that some of these lateral branches of the Lancasters side against the king because they either have an agenda of their own, or perhaps they feel snubbed by the Marguerite d'Anjou-Somerset faction at court, and take the duke of York's side.
 
Top