Henry VI of England and Queen Margaret

WI: They had had more children. Perhaps 2 sons and a daughter or two? Could this prevent the eventual Tudor takeover?
 
Could do. Problem here is how they come to have so many children. Henry was not exactly the rutting acme of masculinity. I think one child was pushing it with him.
 
If Henry VI has more than one son, Henry Tudor has huge chances of losing his position as the main Lancastrian heir. After all, Henry Tudor would, in this scenario, go down in the order of succession, being preceded by the sons and daughters of Henry VI.

However, all will depend on how many children Henry and Margaret have and the fate of those children during the 1470-1471 Lancastrian invasion. Any son could suffer the same fate Prince Edward (only son of Henry VI OTL) did, meaning die if that invasion fails. Of course, if they're too young, it's possible they stay on the continent but that would need Margaret not to go herself on the other side of the channel and I'm not sure she would be the kind to sit back and watch or the kind to abandon her children (she was pretty shocked by her son's death OTL, which gives me the impression she was a very caring or protective mother)

If Henry VI has daughters, this could provide the Yorkist with an easy way of ending the Roses War if the situation goes as per OTL: the eldest will simply have to marry the future Edward V. That being said, this scenario can only work if Richard III doesn't take over.
 
Alternatively the young Lancastrian heiress either marries Henry Tudor (for a Lancastrian protector husband), a French prince (reigniting Hundred Years War type conflicts with France) or Richard himself.
 
If Henry VI has more than one son, Henry Tudor has huge chances of losing his position as the main Lancastrian heir. After all, Henry Tudor would, in this scenario, go down in the order of succession, being preceded by the sons and daughters of Henry VI.

However, all will depend on how many children Henry and Margaret have and the fate of those children during the 1470-1471 Lancastrian invasion. Any son could suffer the same fate Prince Edward (only son of Henry VI OTL) did, meaning die if that invasion fails. Of course, if they're too young, it's possible they stay on the continent but that would need Margaret not to go herself on the other side of the channel and I'm not sure she would be the kind to sit back and watch or the kind to abandon her children (she was pretty shocked by her son's death OTL, which gives me the impression she was a very caring or protective mother)

If Henry VI has daughters, this could provide the Yorkist with an easy way of ending the Roses War if the situation goes as per OTL: the eldest will simply have to marry the future Edward V. That being said, this scenario can only work if Richard III doesn't take over.

Eh, Henry Tudor only came to even consider himself as a Lancastrian heir when the Lancastrian party was devastated by the Wars of the Roses and essentially shorn of all leadership. His coming to power was a fluke, a total one-off. Pretty much any change to this era will probably write him out of the history books entirely...
 
If the POD is in the 1450s or earlier then Henry Tudor may even be butterflied away entirely. In any case as Falastur says it seems pretty pointless speculating on the fortunes of someone who only came to the throne decades after the POD, after a long train of events which would be radically altered.
 
Eh, Henry Tudor only came to even consider himself as a Lancastrian heir when the Lancastrian party was devastated by the Wars of the Roses and essentially shorn of all leadership. His coming to power was a fluke, a total one-off. Pretty much any change to this era will probably write him out of the history books entirely...

Tudor was still Henry VI's nephew, ensuring him a prominent role as the King's closest male kinsman, possibly Regent (if Henry VI stays on the throne or has a surviving son besides Edward of Westminster) or as the close kinsman and a potential heir of the defeated, rival/enemy Lancastrian king. The prominence of his father and uncle and of his mother's family the Beauforts further guarantee active participation in English politics no matter who ends up on the throne.
 
Tudor was still Henry VI's nephew, ensuring him a prominent role as the King's closest male kinsman, possibly Regent (if Henry VI stays on the throne or has a surviving son besides Edward of Westminster) or as the close kinsman and a potential heir of the defeated, rival/enemy Lancastrian king. The prominence of his father and uncle and of his mother's family the Beauforts further guarantee active participation in English politics no matter who ends up on the throne.

Nephew on his mother's side, however.

Jasper and Edmund were reasonably prominent (Earl of Pembroke and Richmond respectively) but hardly especially major figures, Henry isn't going to be any better than his father or uncle just by birth.
 

I really don't think you have much of a handle on this period. You seem to be viewing things through a teleological lense in which everything must terminate in political prominence for the Tudors. The Tudors were in fact a very minor scion of the Lancastrian nobility. The idea of them becoming regent for anyone is fanciful. IOTL Henry Tudor had no real political status until he became king, in fact he lived almost all of his life up until his accession in Brittany; he was closer to the French king than he was any English one. Jasper Tudor spent most of his time as an intinerant hired gun. Henry's father Edmund had lived his life in obscurity as a minor noble - which would have been Henry's fate if events hadn't intervened.

The salient point here which people keep ignoring is that the prestige family of the Lancastrian side was not the Tudors, its was the Beauforts, and they only went extinct on the male side IOTL - and thereby left both their claim to the throne and the political mantle of the Lancastrians on the floor, ready for a minor house like the Tudors to pick up - through a succession of deaths in military action - four of them - in the wars which could very easily be butterflied ITTL. In OTL the Tudors were a long-shot; in the event of a cushioned Lancastrian succession and probable divergence in the fate of the Beauforts they are going to be an irrelevance.

(Henry Tudor wasn't Henry VI's nephew btw; he was his half-nephew, and, most relevantly politically, on his mother's side)
 
Last edited:
Nephew on his mother's side, however.

Jasper and Edmund were reasonably prominent (Earl of Pembroke and Richmond respectively) but hardly especially major figures, Henry isn't going to be any better than his father or uncle just by birth.

Nephew on the father's side, cousin on the mother's. Edmund and Jasper were increasingly important Lancastrian grandees and could well aspire to the Regency if, for example, Henry VI left a minor or daughter as heir. Edmund's marriage to Margaret Beaufort, senior-line heiress of the Beauforts and Lancastrian heiress failing Henry VI's own issue, was no accident or mishap. Their union strengthened their respective claims and provided an avenue for legitimate Lancastrian heirs failing the main line.

I really don't think you have much of a handle on this period. You seem to be viewing things through a teleological lense in which everything must terminate in political prominence for the Tudors. The Tudors were in fact a very minor scion of the Lancastrian nobility. The idea of them becoming regent for anyone is fanciful. IOTL Henry Tudor had no real political status until he became king, in fact he lived almost all of his life up until his accession in Brittany; he was closer to the French king than he was any English one. Jasper Tudor spent most of his time as an intinerant hired gun. Henry's father Edmund had lived his life in obscurity as a minor noble - which would have been Henry's fate if events hadn't intervened.

The salient point here which people keep ignoring is that the prestige family of the Lancastrian side was not the Tudors, its was the Beauforts, and they only went extinct on the male side IOTL - and thereby left both their claim to the throne and the political mantle of the Lancastrians on the floor, ready for a minor house like the Tudors to pick up - through a succession of deaths in military action - four of them - in the wars which could very easily be butterflied ITTL. In OTL the Tudors were a long-shot; in the event of a cushioned Lancastrian succession and probable divergence in the fate of the Beauforts they are going to be an irrelevance.

(Henry Tudor wasn't Henry VI's nephew btw; he was his half-nephew, and, most relevantly politically, on his mother's side)

I think the one with a poor grasp on this era is not me. For starters, Henry Tudor was Henry VI's nephew on the father's side, given that Edmund Tudor was the eldest son of Catherine de Valois, Queen consort of England and princess of France. As I said above, his marriage to Margaret Beaufort was no mishap - together they united the Valois and Lancaster lineages represented in Henry VI, providing for a secondary line of legitimate heirs to the crowns of England and France which Henry VI intermittently held. Edmund Tudor was premier Earl and Earl of Richmond while Jasper ruled Pembroke, with fairly wide powers if I recall correctly. If Henry VI dies leaving an heir who isn't readily able to rule, his brothers Edmund and Jasper are guaranteed prominent rules in the Regency, if not the Regency itself, being close allies of their brother and his queen, Margaret of Anjou.

The prestige of the Tudors was not paternal, as you say, but maternal - principally from Queen Catherine, through whom they drew a direct proximity to the last Lancastrian sovereign (proximity of blood, á la William the Conqueror) and the Capetian dynasty. The glory of the Beauforts wasn't insignificant, but certainly inferior to the combined gravity of being King Henry's brother and the son of a Valois princess.

Anyone with a smattering of genealogical knowledge will be of course aware that Henry Tudor was the senior heir of the Beaufort branch (and, after Henry VI's demise) of the entire Lancastrian house. Whether or not junior members of the Beauforts survive is irrelevant to his claims, thanks to his combination of proximity of blood AND primogeniture.

At very least one can expect to see the Tudors as a ITTL major house akin to the Hollands and Nevilles. An irrelevance is simply impossible given the pedigree.
 
If you accept the Beaufort's as legitimate heirs despite their illegitimacy then the succession by our standards in 1457 would have been Edward Prince of Wales, Margaret Beaufort, Henry Tudor, and then Henry 3rd Duke of Somerset.
If you don't accept their legitimisation then the succession would have been - Edward Prince of Wales and then Alfonso V of Portugal - or if you discount foreigners from the succession (which was not barred by legal statute) it would have been Edward Prince of Wales, then Henry Holland 3rd Duke of Exeter.

Importantly though there was no reason to consider that Edward wouldn't live and produce heirs (even if many doubted he legitimacy).

Had Edward died suddenly then I think the Lancastrians would have been divided between who was the heir - with some opting for the adult male beaufort - Henry 3rd Duke of Somerset, others perhaps opting for Holland (who had little to recommend him)....a large party would have probably opted for Richard Duke of York who offered more security in terms of four living sons.

Just to clarify why in the 1450s the Lancastrian succession was so complicated and why many went on to accept the switch to York (which had no shortage of direct male line heirs)
Lancastrian succession at Henry VII's birth in 1457
Descendants of Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI
1) Edward Prince of Wales
Descendants of John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster: (legitimate line ignoring the later legitimisation of the Duke's illegitimate Beaufort descendants)
Line of Philippa of Lancaster Queen of Portugal
1) Alfonso V of Portugal
2) John of Portugal
3) Joanna of Portugal
4) Ferdinand of Portugal Duke of Viseu (only his eldest two sons alive at this point)
5) John of Viseu
6) Diogo of Viseu
7) Eleanor of Portugal Holy Roman Empress (no issue as of 1457 her son Maximilian I was born in 1459)
8) Catherine of Portugal (a nun)
9) Joan of Portugal Queen Consort of Castile.
10) Peter of Portugal (later King of Aragon)
11) John of Portugal Prince of Antioch (d 1457)
12) James of Portugal Cardinal and Archbishop of Lisbon
13) Isabella of Portugal Queen of Portugal by marriage to Afonso V
14) Beatrice of Portugal married Adolph of Cleves-Ravenstein.
15) Philip of Cleves
16) Philippa of Porgual a nun.
17) Henry 'the Navigator' of Portugal
18) Isabella of Portugal Queen of Castile
19) Alfonso Prince of Castile
20) Isabella of Castile (later Isabella I of Castile)
21) Beatrice of Portugal married Ferdinand of Portugal Duke of Viseu
22) Isabella of Portugal Duchess of Burgundy
23) Charles the Bold of Burgundy
Line of Elizabeth of Lancaster, Duchess of Exeter
24) Henry Holland, 3rd Duke of Exeter
25) Lady Anne Holland (b1455)
26) Lady Anne Holland married John Neville, Baron Neville
27) Ralph Neville later 3rd Earl of Westmorland
28) Edmund Grey later 1st Earl of Kent
29) Anthony Grey
30) George Grey
31) Thomas Grey
Line of Catherine of Lancaster, Queen of Castile
32) Henry IV of Castile
33) Alfonso of Castile
34) Isabella of Castile
35) Maria of Castile Queen of Aragon
The Beaufort line at Henry VII's birth was as follows:
1) Lady Margaret Beaufort
2) Henry Tudor
3) Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset
4) Edmund Beaufort
5) John Beaufort
6) Thomas Beaufort
7) Eleanor Beaufort
8) Elizabeth Beaufort
9) Margaret Beaufort
10) Anne Beaufort
11) Joan Beaufort
12) James II of Scotland
13) James Duke of Rothesay
14) Alexander Duke of Albany
15) David Earl of Moray
16) John Earl of Mar
17) Mary Stewart
18) Margaret Stewart
19) Isabella Stewart Duchess of Brittany
20) Margaret of Brittany
21) Marie of Brittany
22) Eleanor Stewart Archduchess of Austria
23) Elizabeth Stewart Countess of Buchan
24) Joan Stewart Countess of Morton
25) Annabella Stewart
26) John Earl of Atholl
27) James Stewart Earl of Buchan
28) Andrew Stewart Bishop of Moray
29) Thomas Courtenay, 14th Earl of Devon (1432 - 3 April 1461)
30) Henry Courtenay
31) John Courtenay
32) Joan Courtenay
33) Elizabeth Courtenay
34) Anne Courtenay
35) Eleanor Courtenay
36) Maud Courtenay
After these you have the descendants of Joan Beaufort who bore 14 children the principals in 1457 being
37) Richard Neville 5th Earl of Salisbury
38) Richard Neville 16th Earl of Warwick The Kingmaker
 
I think the one with a poor grasp on this era is not me. For starters, Henry Tudor was Henry VI's nephew on the father's side, given that Edmund Tudor was the eldest son of Catherine de Valois, Queen consort of England and princess of France.

I was talking about the king, not Henry Tudor. Henry VI's relationship to the Tudors was on his mother's side.

As I said above, his marriage to Margaret Beaufort was no mishap - together they united the Valois and Lancaster lineages represented in Henry VI, providing for a secondary line of legitimate heirs to the crowns of England and France which Henry VI intermittently held.

If you're claiming that Henry VI was explicitly creating potential heirs in the marriage of Margaret Beaufort, as opposed to simply building up a core of Lancastrian supporters, I'd like a source for that please.

If Henry VI dies leaving an heir who isn't readily able to rule, his brothers Edmund and Jasper are guaranteed prominent rules in the Regency, if not the Regency itself, being close allies of their brother and his queen, Margaret of Anjou.

The closest allies of Margaret and the king, and the OTL rivals to York for control of the regency when Henry lost his faculties in OTL, were the Beauforts. Amusingly for your argument, the Tudors reluctantly supported York's regency. We saw how a regency played out IOTL, and the Tudors were a sideshow; they were not even the principal opposition faction of it. It is ridiculous and ahistorical to keep asserting that they were potential regents. They were not magnates of the realm, they were not serious political players, they were minor nobility.

But this nicely highlights the central problem with your argument - you are working purely on the basis of an imagined order of political power by geneology which you have layed out on your own the terms, and are totally ignoring the actual power relations of the time. Quite simply, real politics did not actually work in the way you want it to. Real power did not derive from some imagined geneological prestige ranking, it was based on a mixture of wealth, land, title, closeness to the monarch, prestige of the house and its head, and, at varying degrees of relevancy at different times, blood. The House of York were able to seriously challenge the House of Lancaster because their standing was good in all of these categories. The House of Tudor was, broadly speaking, poor in all of them.

Quite simply, real life was a lot more complex than you want it to be.

Anyone with a smattering of genealogical knowledge will be of course aware that Henry Tudor was the senior heir of the Beaufort branch (and, after Henry VI's demise) of the entire Lancastrian house.

Whether or not junior members of the Beauforts survive is irrelevant to his claims, thanks to his combination of proximity of blood AND primogeniture.

The Tudors only had a Lancastrian claim higher than the later Beauforts on the basis of absolute primogeniture through the female line, which was a highly unusual method of succession, indeed, in a direct sense, was unknown in England at the time. (It isn't even the law of successsion now) This explains the simple fact of why the "junior" Beauforts were the Dukes of Somerset and the Tudors were not.

Indeed, the entire basis on which the House of Lancaster claimed the throne was that absolute primogeniture was invalid, and that claims could not pass through the female line - the House of York trumpeted the opposite argument. The Tudor claim was therefore, objectively-speaking, void by the terms of its own partisan allegiance.

To claim that the Tudors had either a better claim than the Beauforts by the standards of the time, or were in a better position to advance that claim in extremis, is quite wrong. Their claim only became active when the Beauforts had died off in the Wars of the Roses, by which time both sides were beginning to scrape the bottom of the claim barrel.

An irrelevance is simply impossible given the pedigree.

Once again, real power worked differently to the idiosyncratic geneological basis on which you want it to.
 
Last edited:
Nephew on the father's side, cousin on the mother's. Edmund and Jasper were increasingly important Lancastrian grandees and could well aspire to the Regency if, for example, Henry VI left a minor or daughter as heir. Edmund's marriage to Margaret Beaufort, senior-line heiress of the Beauforts and Lancastrian heiress failing Henry VI's own issue, was no accident or mishap. Their union strengthened their respective claims and provided an avenue for legitimate Lancastrian heirs failing the main line.

True. Worded it poorly - what I meant was, the only link of Edmund Tudor and Henry of Windsor is their mother (and Henry VI's grandfather/Henry Tudor's great-grandfather with the Beauforts - making them first cousins once removed)

"Increasingly important?"

Edmund died too young to matter much, but Jasper's main importance to Lancaster was as a solid and consistent loyalist to Lancaster, not as a major magnate.

I don't see where you're getting the idea that he was a bigshot. The Tudors might well do well here - kin of the king and all - but they're hardly the closest claimants until quite a few things are removed. And there's no sign OTL that they were unusually favored.
 
If you accept the Beaufort's as legitimate heirs despite their illegitimacy then the succession by our standards in 1457 would have been Edward Prince of Wales, Margaret Beaufort, Henry Tudor, and then Henry 3rd Duke of Somerset.
If you don't accept their legitimisation then the succession would have been - Edward Prince of Wales and then Alfonso V of Portugal - or if you discount foreigners from the succession (which was not barred by legal statute) it would have been Edward Prince of Wales, then Henry Holland 3rd Duke of Exeter.

Importantly though there was no reason to consider that Edward wouldn't live and produce heirs (even if many doubted he legitimacy).

Had Edward died suddenly then I think the Lancastrians would have been divided between who was the heir - with some opting for the adult male beaufort - Henry 3rd Duke of Somerset, others perhaps opting for Holland (who had little to recommend him)....a large party would have probably opted for Richard Duke of York who offered more security in terms of four living sons.

Just to clarify why in the 1450s the Lancastrian succession was so complicated and why many went on to accept the switch to York (which had no shortage of direct male line heirs)
Lancastrian succession at Henry VII's birth in 1457

---

As I understand it, their legitimization was never in question, just their right to the throne. The Papal Bull legitimizing them was never overturned, neither were the original Letters Patent which made them unconditionally able to 'receive, hold, bear and exercise' 'any kind of honours, dignities, preeminences' whatsoever. At very least Henry Tudor would have been in a position to present himself as the rightful heir of the Red Rose and claim the Lancastrian/de Bohun inheritance (the Palatinate of Lancaster, etc). The reception granted to him by the Bretons and French OTL would imply that even abroad his proximity to the royal dignity was well considered. I don't see Somerset or Holland have any any great shot at rallying Lancastrian support opposed to the senior heir by primogeniture and the late King's nephew.

As for the foreigners - wasn't there a whole ordeal with Margaret Douglas crossing the border to give birth on English soil to preserve her children's inheritance rights? I'm not sure. I think the chances of a Portuguese or Iberian infante securing the throne opposing so many native claimants would be decidedly slim, even if they were the senior genealogical claimants.

My point here is not that Henry Tudor was somehow destined to succeed Henry VI. My point is that, in a timeline where Henry VI has a number of children - either a second son to take Edward's place as heir, or a daughter - Edmund and Jasper would likely take the place Lancastrian kinsmen had taken in previous reigns. In a timeline where this ensures another Lancastrian reign or two, Henry Tudor and his heirs would also be, IMHO, the most likely to pacifically inherit upon that main line's extinction.
 
True. Worded it poorly - what I meant was, the only link of Edmund Tudor and Henry of Windsor is their mother (and Henry VI's grandfather/Henry Tudor's great-grandfather with the Beauforts - making them first cousins once removed)

"Increasingly important?"

Edmund died too young to matter much, but Jasper's main importance to Lancaster was as a solid and consistent loyalist to Lancaster, not as a major magnate.

I don't see where you're getting the idea that he was a bigshot. The Tudors might well do well here - kin of the king and all - but they're hardly the closest claimants until quite a few things are removed. And there's no sign OTL that they were unusually favored.

Increasingly important in that, with the brief time frame we have, we can see a steady flow of promotion coming Edmund and Jasper's way. When Henry VI was restored, Jasper immediately brought back young Henry Tudor to court. As I said in the previous post, with the Yorkists defeated or pacified, Henry Tudor would be the next Lancastrian heir failing Henry VI's own descendants.
 
If you're claiming that Henry VI was explicitly creating potential heirs in the marriage of Margaret Beaufort, as opposed to simply building up a core of Lancastrian supporters, I'd like a source for that please.

It's ludicrous to imagine otherwise.

The closest allies of Margaret, and the OTL rivals to York for control of the regency when Henry lost his faculties in OTL, were the Beauforts. Amusingly for your argument, the Tudors reluctantly supported York's regency. We saw how a regency played out IOTL, and the Tudors were a sideshow; they were not even the principal opposition faction of it. It is ridiculous and ahistorical to keep asserting that they were potential regents.

But this nicely highlights the central problem with your argument - you are working purely on the basis of an imagined order of political power by geneology which you have layed out on your own the terms, and are totally ignoring the actual power relations of the time. Quite simply, real politics did not actually work in the way you want it to. Real power did not derive from some imagined geneological prestige ranking, it was based on a mixture of wealth, land, title, closeness to the monarch, prestige of the house and its head, and, at varying degrees of relevancy at different times, blood. The House of York were able to seriously challenge the House of Lancaster because their standing was good in all of these categories. The House of Tudor was, broadly speaking, poor in all of them.

We are dealing here with a what-if in which Henry VI fathers a number of extra heirs. My point is that, if these heirs come to sit upon the throne, Edmund Tudor or (if he is dead) Henry Tudor would be the logical regents, or prime movers in a regency, following Lancastrian precedent. Henry VI's madness and the Wars of the Roses created exceptional circumstances, in which York - senior prince of the blood, mighty magnate, etc - forced his way into power.

All of that I know, and we can clear see OTL with the Wars of the Roses. However, with a peaceful Lancastrian succession, an adult and experienced Tudor uncle would be in a position to act as regent. In a scenario where Henry VI has been succeeded by his son or sons (i.e, a brief rule for Edward followed by the other son) Tudor would be the next heir along and could expect to benefit from that primacy in case of a minority.

I'm also not insinuating the Beauforts or Tudors would be enemies, simply that the remaining male Beauforts would recognize Henry Tudor as their dynastic superior.

The Tudors only had a Lancastrian claim higher than the later Beauforts on the basis of absolute primogeniture through the female line, which was a highly unusual method of succession, indeed, in a direct sense, was unknown in England at the time. (It isn't even the law of successsion now) This explains the simple fact of why the "junior" Beauforts were the Dukes of Somerset and the Tudors were not.

Indeed, the entire basis on which the House of Lancaster claimed the throne was that absolute primogeniture was invalid, and that claims could not pass through the female line - the House of York trumpeted the opposite argument. The Tudor claim was therefore, objectively-speaking, void by the terms of its own partisan allegiance.

To claim that the Tudors had either a better claim than the Beauforts by the standards of the time, or were in a better position to advance that claim in extremis, is quite wrong. Their claim only became active when the Beauforts had died off in the Wars of the Roses, by which time both sides were beginning to scrape the bottom of the claim barrel.

Once again, real power worked differently to the indiosyncratic geneological basis on which you want it to.

You might perhaps be aware that noble titles and property carry entails, which can restrict their passage to the male line. Margaret Beaufort's inability to inherit the Somerset title in no way bars her from the throne or Lancaster properties.

The basis in which Henry Bolingbroke claimed the throne on the basis of absolute primogeniture, tracing through the female line back to Henry II. A very interesting precedent a Tudor could use, in addition to conquest, Parliamentary "election", proximity of blood, etc. Look back through the family tree to the Lancasters, Nevilles and Bohuns and you will see absolute primogeniture, tracing and inheriting through females, was very much accepted. Do not forget that Richard II named Mortimer, tracing through the female line, his heir, instead of the male-line heir Gaunt.

I would challenge you to show me brothers and nephews of medieval monarchs who played negligible roles. Those in line to the throne necessarily played a major role in the affairs of a nation whose ultimate source of welfare and patronage was the Crown.
 
Increasingly important in that, with the brief time frame we have, we can see a steady flow of promotion coming Edmund and Jasper's way. When Henry VI was restored, Jasper immediately brought back young Henry Tudor to court. As I said in the previous post, with the Yorkists defeated or pacified, Henry Tudor would be the next Lancastrian heir failing Henry VI's own descendants.

What promotions before the Wars of the Roses? (Meaning, before the fact Jasper is a devoted loyalist is a big deal)

With the Yorkists defeated or pacified, Henry is only an heir after you exhaust the male line Beauforts and any of Henry's other kin.

Jasper bringing his nephew to court isn't exactly indicating the Tudors are big movers and shakers.
 
Last edited:
Velasco, the important point is that Henry Tudor was descended from royalty in the first place because of an illegal marriage. Widowed queens weren't allowed to just remarry at will - they were supposed to be at the discretion of the court and the new King - or they would be sent back to their home court and be at the discretion of their family. There's a reason Catherine of Aragon was forced to retire to a nunnery after Henry VIII divorced her - because legally he still had the power to control whether she married or not, and where she went. The point is, had there been no Wars of the Roses, and had Henry VI had a regular reign and passed on his crown to his children and grandchildren, Henry Tudor wouldn't have been allowed within earshot of the throne, let alone to sit upon it.
 
Yes I explained it poorly I think - their legitimisation was not in doubt - it was whether or not that meant they had a claim to the throne.

One point the Lancastrian claim to the throne was in part based on conquest (by Henry IV)
He also made a dubious Lancastrian claim of Absolute Primogeniture from Henry III based on the arguement that his ancester Edmund Crouchback was the older brother not the younger of Edward I - a claim no-one believed.
The reason people tolerated his claim was a) he was already in charge and b) that the direct male line (from Edward III) took precedent over a senior claim that was in the female line (the Mortimer and later York claim via Lionel of Clarence). And there was a view that Edward III had explicitly stated that in the event of RIchard II dying without heirs the throne was to pass through the male line - to John of Gaunt and his heirs male.

If you accept that and accept the Beaufort claim to the throne - then the succession in the late 1450s was - Edward Prince of Wales, Henry Beaufort Duke of Somerset, Edmund Beaufort, John Beaufort, Thomas Beaufort, Richard Duke of York (the next in male line succession from Edward III) and his sons.

Henry VI had two half brother's to provide for and in the 1450s the easiest way to do it without offending or attracting criticism was to marry them to heiresses - the richest unattached heiress was Margaret Beaufort - her marriage had nothing to do with any debateable claim to the throne she had but more to do with the fact she would make her husband rich at no cost to the crown.

Until the extinction of most of the obvious lancastrian heirs Henry Tudor was a bit of a nonentity - Edward IV during the 1470s and 1480s never felt particularly threatened by this supposed Lancastrian heir and whilst the BRetons and French used him as something to bait Edward with both were unwilling to back any serious attempt to claim the throne until the House of York imploded on itself and there looked like a chance he could win.
By the 1480s there were no male line descendants of John of Gaunt alive - Henry's mother Margaret was the senior female line descendant if and only if you accept the Beaufort's had a claim to the throne. Margaret's wealth and connections by then (she had remained popular with Edward IV despite her Lancastrian connections and her son's exile) meant Henry's position was raised for beyond what he would have been had Henry VI continued to reign and been survived by children.

Henry himself aware of how poor his claim was claimed the throne by conquest alone.

In any scenario with Henry VI having more children you would so alter the timeline (though i don't believe it would prevent a Yorkist coup at some point) that the Tudor's ultimate victory vanishes completely - as do almost any other twists - Lancastrian's failing to kill Richard of York, Edward IV's brother Rutland living, Edward IV never meeting Elizabeth Woodville etc.

Edmund (if he lived) and Jasper had obvious disadvantages in terms of becoming influential principally the dubious circumstances of their parents relationship. Edmund through his wife's wealth was going to be able to exercise some influence but say Henry VI's reign continues and Edmund's death happens as in OTL then the young Henry's wardship and marriage becomes a bargaining tool for greedy nobles.

In other words he becomes yet another Lancastrian noble but willing to sway with the wind like most of them.

Putting self-interest above dynastic alliances was common and expected.

Few other bits:

The issue in the 1450s I think that makes this more than just a who had the stronger claim is the dearth of obvious heirs - and in the 1450s they were in short supply and certainly weakened Henry VI's position politically (as had his health).

In fact the birth of more children with Margaret of Anjou may have helped stabilise his reign but his reliance on Edmund 2 Duke of Somerset in the early 50s had seriously put York's nose out of joint.
There was also the widespread accussation within the court that Edward Prince of Wales was not the King's son.

There was a significant power vacuum at the late Lancastrian court and a reliance on favourites which had offended many including many of the Neville's, ironically the ones descended from Joan Beaufort, and pushed them into Yorks camp.

York's fight initially had little to do with his claim to the throne (which on paper and by our standards was the stronger one) - it was to do with his and many others distaste for the way the government was being run, the defeat in France (where York had been dismissed as commander), the vast amount of money the crown owed York (for his French and Irish campaigns), and York's view of himself as the senior peer of the realm being largely excluded from court affairs.

Taking the two Somersets - Edmund (who died in 1455) and his son - although financially they were relatively poor for Duke's (as most of the Beaufort's unentailed wealth was held by Henry VII's mother Margaret not her uncle Edmund) - Edmund's court offices made up the bulk of his income - this is one reason they were both so willing to fight to hang on to power against the York party in the 1450s.

As to Holland he was richer, and rather vicious - he was also ironically married to the Duke of York's daughter Anne - despite his marriage he remained firmly in the court party and was widely regarded as having a strong claim to the throne at the time.

Reference Margaret Douglas a century later - her decision to bear her children in England was nothing to do with any concerns over their rights of succession - she was almost entirely educated in England at her uncle's court - her husband Lennox was a Scots exile due to his support for England and his long-running dispute with the Hamiltons.

The issue of foreign birth barring people from the throne is often raised but it is debatable - and on Margaret Tudor's marriage to James IV it was explicit to Henry VII that her children would have succession rights in England irrespective of their presumed Scots birth.


As I understand it, their legitimization was never in question, just their right to the throne. The Papal Bull legitimizing them was never overturned, neither were the original Letters Patent which made them unconditionally able to 'receive, hold, bear and exercise' 'any kind of honours, dignities, preeminences' whatsoever. At very least Henry Tudor would have been in a position to present himself as the rightful heir of the Red Rose and claim the Lancastrian/de Bohun inheritance (the Palatinate of Lancaster, etc). The reception granted to him by the Bretons and French OTL would imply that even abroad his proximity to the royal dignity was well considered. I don't see Somerset or Holland have any any great shot at rallying Lancastrian support opposed to the senior heir by primogeniture and the late King's nephew.

As for the foreigners - wasn't there a whole ordeal with Margaret Douglas crossing the border to give birth on English soil to preserve her children's inheritance rights? I'm not sure. I think the chances of a Portuguese or Iberian infante securing the throne opposing so many native claimants would be decidedly slim, even if they were the senior genealogical claimants.

My point here is not that Henry Tudor was somehow destined to succeed Henry VI. My point is that, in a timeline where Henry VI has a number of children - either a second son to take Edward's place as heir, or a daughter - Edmund and Jasper would likely take the place Lancastrian kinsmen had taken in previous reigns. In a timeline where this ensures another Lancastrian reign or two, Henry Tudor and his heirs would also be, IMHO, the most likely to pacifically inherit upon that main line's extinction.
 
Top