Elizabeth of York.

There's a very small chance of it working (and I don't think it's a very realistic one but then again no one counting on Henry Tudor winning). If someone like Henry Tudor isn't there (one of the last who could carry the Lancaster banner) or if Richard's continues to have more troubles or dies without a son. A Kingmaker may be able to make it happen (especially if he has a son). What if she marries a foreign monarch, and they win and rule as joint rulers? At the very least if Richard continues to reign, she could be the focus of plots. A generation before, as a child Margaret Beaufort was apparently a center of a plot with John de la Pole wanting to make her and his son (technically her current husband) monarchs. Who knows what Elizabeth and her sisters really thought about the possibilities about it or whether it was her right by blood?

Without meaning to sound sexist, they were women and didn't consider it something to aim for. Remember that Edward IV had two sons - brothers of Elizabeth - who only died young because their uncle, Edward's brother, had them kidnapped and murdered so that he could take the throne, so Elizabeth wasn't even in a strong position until her chance had gone. It was very uncommon for a woman to actually manage to get to the front of the queue, so all except the most intensely manipulative women simply didn't try to promote their interests, and focused instead on persuading their father or brother to pair them up with a dashing and important Prince so that their children could grow up to be everything that, as women, they couldn't be. It's not exactly politically correct, but it's how it was.

And marrying a foreign monarch is really not the way to go. The 18th century kind of glamourised Personal Unions in the 21st century reader's eye, but Personal Unions were viewed as a terrifying possibility for a country in this era (and as a useless waste of time in the 18th century). People didn't want Personal Unions as you could only have one monarch for two territories, which meant that somewhere along the way, one or more likely both countries were going to get sacrificed for the advancement of others. The nobility would become less powerful because of having to share their monarch's attention with the nobility from the other state, the middle classes felt that the King would pursue an economic strategy that favoured either random monopolies or a great-in-theory-rubbish-in-practise system to combine the economies of both countries at the expense of the traditionally strong guilds and the powerful of the town councils, and the peasants frequently suffered when their monarch went abroad to the other Kingdom and stopped paying attention to the plight of the common man back home (remember that this is an era when even a lowly serf could petition the King for redress...but only if the King was close by).

In short, if Elizabeth were to marry a foreign monarch, the foreign monarch might support her because of seeing money symbols in his eyes, but she would lose all support back in England because no-one in England would want to be shackled to another country.
 
I suspect that Richard III thought the same thing about Lancaster just before Henry Tudor started bandying himself around the courts of Western Europe ;) and let's not forget that there were still Yorkist claimants around, if weak ones (still, not as weak as Henry Tudor's claim). For instance, the Earl of Devon, made Marquess of Exeter by Henry VIII himself in 1525, was the son of Edward IV's sixth daughter, Katherine, and while Katherine was the only daughter of Edward's with issue still alive, early on in Henry's reign there had been another two or three of these former Princesses who still had children who could quite easily have lived to be strong claimants. The Duke of Norfolk, for instance, was the most powerful non-royal nobility title in the country, and the present Duke of Norfolk had until 1511 been married to Edward's fifth daughter Anne, while his seventh daughter Bridget remained unmarried and therefore claimable until her death in 1517.

I understand and respect caution here but I think Henry III had it a lot better than either his father or Richard III.

Henry VII had to deal with an armed rebellion almost every year for the first 15 years or so of his reign but he was relatively secure in the last part. Before Bosworth, there are a few things pointing to Richard having problems: Buckingham's rebellion, having to declare he wasn't going to marry his niece (he wouldn't dignify remarks like that and only did so because of the threat of losing support in the his power base the North) and many of the nobles disobeying summons for Bosworth.

There were very few attempts to take Henry VIII off the throne in favour of someone else. Perhaps there were others, but I can think of Buckingham's try, which didn't even go to arms. Also Henry VIII ruled for a very long time and things are much different from the War of The Roses (I can understand them not looking at it that way).
 
Believe me, male line extinction is on my radar. I think divorcing Katherine makes perfect sense if your 35 or younger, or even younger than 40 to give any son a chance to grow up. If the proceedings for an annulment are dragging on well past the age of 40, perhaps other options can be considered. If anything near history points to the dangers of regency; monarchs growing up under regencies being incapable (Henry VI) or not getting the chance to rule (Princes in the Tower) and other families taking over the throne.

Richard II: Problems, but again related to his misrule and not his regents.

Henry VI: Would have been a weakling anyway.

Edward V: Disappeared into the Tower.

Considering regencies responsible for the first two is a bit much, and it's not as if their regencies were without conflict.

But in regards to the male line thing being on one's radar or not - well, you did mention marrying Mary off and hoping for grandsons.
 
Richard II: Problems, but again related to his misrule and not his regents.

Henry VI: Would have been a weakling anyway.

Edward V: Disappeared into the Tower.

Considering regencies responsible for the first two is a bit much, and it's not as if their regencies were without conflict.

But in regards to the male line thing being on one's radar or not - well, you did mention marrying Mary off and hoping for grandsons.

I pointed out the last 2 examples because there were contemporary examples of things going very badly after regency situations - either the monarch being deposed or ending up incapable. We look at Henry VI today and are fairly sure he would have suffered from mental illness no matter the circumstance but I'm not sure they would have... Either way from the Lancastrian POV, things were going very well in Henry V's era but fell apart in Henry VI's time.

As Henry VIII ages, even if he produces a son, there's a high likelihood of the son being a minor on Henry's death and England going into a regency situation. This likelihood gets higher if Henry VIII is tied up longer and longer in a divorce. The alternate is to marry Mary as soon as possible and have a son sooner (than you can get divorced). Is it better to end the male line and be succeeded by an older grandson or continue the male line with a younger son and take England into regency?
 
I pointed out the last 2 examples because there were contemporary examples of things going very badly after regency situations - either the monarch being deposed or ending up incapable. We look at Henry VI today and are fairly sure he would have suffered from mental illness no matter the circumstance but I'm not sure they would have... Either way from the Lancastrian POV, things were going very well in Henry V's era but fell apart in Henry VI's time.

I'm not sure why they would have thought a regency had anything to do with it. Henry VI's madness occurred over a decade after the end of the regency.

England's main problem with regencies has been the situation during one, and of that, Edward V is the only example in the last century (of course, there's been all of five examples of English kings coming to the throne as minors since William the Conqueror - Henry III, Edward III*, Richard II, Henry VI, Edward V).

As Henry VIII ages, even if he produces a son, there's a high likelihood of the son being a minor on Henry's death and England going into a regency situation. This likelihood gets higher if Henry VIII is tied up longer and longer in a divorce. The alternate is to marry Mary as soon as possible and have a son sooner (than you can get divorced). Is it better to end the male line and be succeeded by an older grandson or continue the male line with a younger son and take England into regency?
Speaking for myself, as someone who has no concern for the House of Tudor: The former. Speaking for Henry, where the male line matters: The latter.


* Fifteen on his father's abdication.
 
5 child monarchs of the Plantagenets

Henry III: almost lost his crown twice, luckily William Marshal saves it for him as a child, later in life his son saves it
Edward III: regency starts at 15, at 18 he takes command and becomes one of the country's most effective monarchs
Richard II: deposed post regency
Henry VI: deposed post regency
Edward V: deposed during regency

The exception is Edward III, who went through regency more as an adolescent than a child. The rest become particularly poor rulers or are deposed (either during or after the regency). In the case of Henry VI, we know he's likely to turn our poorly, but you could argue your more likely to end up with a poor monarch if they become a monarch as a child and go through a regency (the pressure, dealing with different interests, factionalism, nobles-feuding) than even if they come to the throne as an adolescent.

Henry VI's madness occurred after the regency, but he never had the ability to make effective decisions and assume command. Was that his inherent character, or did his upbringing (ie the regency) contribute?
 
Last edited:
5 child monarchs of the Plantagenets

Henry III: almost lost his crown twice, luckily William Marshal saves it for him as a child, later in life his son saves it
Edward III: regency starts at 15, at 18 he takes command and becomes one of the country's most effective monarchs
Richard II: deposed post regency
Henry VI: deposed post regency
Edward V: deposed during regency

The exception is Edward III, who went through regency more as an adolescent than a child. The rest become particularly poor rulers or are deposed (either during or after the regency).

So out of 14 Plantagents, a little more than a third were underage at the time of their ascension.

However, Henry III reigned until he was sixty-five - the second longest of any of those, and Henry VI and Richard II were deposed a long time after their majority.

In the case of Henry VI, we know he's likely to turn our poorly, but you could argue your more likely to end up with a poor monarch if they become a monarch as a child and go through a regency (the pressure, dealing with different interests, factionalism, nobles-feuding) than even if they come to the throne as an adolescent.

One could argue anything, including that being named Henry is bad luck (Henry I dying without male issue, Henry II having to fight his own sons, Henry III having trouble with his son and more serious rebels, Henry IV and Henry V dying young, Henry VI being mad). That would make more sense than the idea that a regency is going to produce a poor monarch (of the classic examples of the Plantagents, neither Edward II or John were underage).

Henry VI's madness occurred after the regency, but he never had the ability to make effective decisions and assume command. Was that his inherent character, or did his upbringing (ie the regency) contribute?

It's pretty clear it wasn't his upbringing. He had as good an education in the kingly arts as he would have had with dad still alive, the regency council may have bickered over what to do with France but that can hardly be blamed for Henry being a gullible simpleton who should have become a monk.
 
So out of 14 Plantagents, a little more than a third were underage at the time of their ascension.

However, Henry III reigned until he was sixty-five - the second longest of any of those, and Henry VI and Richard II were deposed a long time after their majority.

Henry III can hardly be considered a model monarch. And all 3 did have disastrous reigns.


It's pretty clear it wasn't his upbringing. He had as good an education in the kingly arts as he would have had with dad still alive, the regency council may have bickered over what to do with France but that can hardly be blamed for Henry being a gullible simpleton who should have become a monk.

There are 2 big things at play here. Regents and those on the council usually have a conflict of interest with a young monarch. It's in the regents best interest to keep the monarch from responsibility as long as possible so they don't lose power and the financial perks of being in power. Even if they can't hold onto power forever, it's in their best interests to have a weak monarch or one they can control. So they keep the child monarch away from responsibility and decision making as long as possible until they take over power someday as a full adult, take on everything and don't know how to handle it.... Not every regent does it, but many go along that tract.

Also the young monarch usually loses out on graded responsibility in warfare. When you look at the decisive Plantagenet Kings, as teens most got the chance to play small roles in campaigns, learn from their mistakes, accumulate experience and find out what works for them. By the time they hit the big leagues, they have relevant experience. Examples are: Henry II, Richard I, Edward I, Henry IV, Henry V, Edward IV and Richard III. If you already a monarch as a teenager, most regents are reluctant to let you do these things because they don't want to risk the monarch getting hurt or killed. And then all of a sudden you an adult with no practical experience in warfare. At the end of the day, a father may not be heavily involved in day to day education, but they usually want their sons to succeed, so they generally give them chances to learn practically about warfare.

There's a general pattern here. 4 out of the 6 (let's add in Edward II and John) incompetent Plantagenet monarchs were child-monarchs. Only 1 child monarch made an effective ruler (and he was much older during the regency).
 
Henry III can hardly be considered a model monarch. And all 3 did have disastrous reigns.

Neither can William II (not a Plantagent admittedly, but Henry II's claim comes via the Norman line), Richard I, Henry IV, and I'm iffy about Edward IV.

There are 2 big things at play here. Regents and those on the council usually have a conflict of interest with a young monarch. It's in the regents best interest to keep the monarch from responsibility as long as possible so they don't lose power and the financial perks of being in power. Even if they can't hold onto power forever, it's in their best interests to have a weak monarch or one they can control. So they keep the child monarch away from responsibility and decision making as long as possible until they take over power someday as a full adult, take on everything and don't know how to handle it.... Not every regent does it, but many go along that tract.

The whole point of a regency is to govern the kingdom while the king is unable to. And given that "of age" is usually at the minimum point a king would be giving his son any responsibility or close to - the Black Prince was fifteen at Crecy for example - I don't think regents keeping down their charges is as much of an issue as you're presenting.

Also the young monarch usually loses out on graded responsibility in warfare. When you look at the decisive Plantagenet Kings, as teens most got the chance to play small roles in campaigns, learn from their mistakes, accumulate experience and find out what works for them. By the time they hit the big leagues, they have relevant experience. Examples are: Henry II, Richard I, Edward I, Henry IV, Henry V, Edward IV and Richard III. If you already a monarch as a teenager, most regents are reluctant to let you do these things because they don't want to risk the monarch getting hurt or killed. And then all of a sudden you an adult with no practical experience in warfare. At the end of the day, a father may not be heavily involved in day to day education, but they usually want their sons to succeed, so they generally give them chances to learn practically about warfare.

See above, and none of Henry IV, Edward IV, and Richard III were raised to be king. In particular, Edward IV or Richard III having early experience is more a consequence of their father's death than anyone's plans.

And in Henry VI's case, there's also the problem of him being an heir without a spare (unlike his father, who had several brothers), which makes endangering him rather more precarious.

There's a general pattern here. 4 out of the 6 (let's add in Edward II and John) incompetent Plantagenet monarchs were child-monarchs. Only 1 child monarch made an effective ruler (and he was much older during the regency).

Bolding those who came to the throne underage:

John, Henry III, Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI - who is #6? Edward V wasn't on the throne long enough to prove anything.

There's also a pattern that being named Henry is bad luck, with all six up to Henry VII having trouble involving their sons or their subjects or both.
 
Henry VII had to deal with an armed rebellion almost every year for the first 15 years or so of his reign but he was relatively secure in the last part.

Henry VII did very well compared with the founders of the last two dynasties.

Henry IV seized the throne in 1399, and spent a decade (the first two-thirds of his reign) fighting civil wars to keep it. Not until the defeat of the Percies in 1408 and the Welsh in 1409 was he secure on the throne.

Ditto for Edward IV. It took six years of on and off fighting to install the Yorkists on the throne, and then a further decade before Edward was firmly established.

By this standard the Tudors got off light. There was the usual initial sputter of rebellion in 1485-7, but then not much for several years. Perkin Warbeck wandered around the courts of Europe making a diplomatic nuisance of himself, but not until 1497 did he dare to actually land anywhere - and then his troops melted away at the approach of the Royal forces. Indeed, the most serious rising Henry VII had to cope with (Cornwall 1496) was a spontaneous one provoked by his taxation policies, and conducted without "benefit" of any pretender at all. For a new dynasty, the Tudors had a relatively easy ride.
 
Last edited:
Eventual claims from the children of Edward IV's daughters are not a problem for the Tudors' rule: they can never be stronger than theirs because Henry VII marry Edward IV's oldest daughter, then any of hisa children will surely have a claim stronger of that of the children of their mother's younger sisters... the danger from the Tudors line can be only from someone who pretended to be Elizabeth's brothers or from other Yorkist heirs (who can pretend who Edward IV was a bastard or his marriage with Elizabeth Woodville bigamous and invalid and thus their children illegitimate) or from other Lancasterian descendent (who can say who the Beauforts legitimacy is questionable or who Margaret was a woman and must be excluded) but never from someone who is indubitably a junior heir then them and thus can nbot challenge the legitimacy of their rule
 
Top