Marrying Hier Presumptive

Has any noble or royal in Western Europe (count Hapsburgs as the east most) ended up marrying their heir presumptive? Or alternately, has a consort for (insert title) ended up becoming the heir presumptive due to untimely deaths before the couple had a kid (in which case that kid obviously becomes the heir, unless it's a seniority succession which is not western Europe sounding to me). I would imagine the only case being something like a ruler from a family dearth of branches in the known royal family or something like that, so the next heir is a distant relative.
 
I'm thinking of the succession to James II of England. By male-favored primogeniture, his heirs were
1. his son James
2. his daughter Mary
3. his daughter Anne
4. his nephew William

and William and Mary took the throne. So arguably William III was married to his heir presumptive, even though he took the throne in a deviation from hereditary succession (and left no descendants of his own).
 
Ummm... wouldn't the succession be William > James> James > Mary > Anne? I don't exactly count the Settlement Act until post Mary's reign as part of "regular succession" since as you mentioned William III took the throne from a deviation of what was the "normal" rules for England. His consort was only heir presumptive by something they made up to get him to be king in the first place (if they made that rule up and then Will became king I could accept this example). Good try though.

That's why if an example exists, it's probably going to be something similar to what I said in the OP.
 
Plenty of cases in medieval France of female heiresses marrying their patrilineal cousins, who are next in line. To prevent conflict and to unite family lands.
 
The line of succession in 1689 would have been the infant James Stuart, the Princess of Orange, Anne Stuart, the Prince of Orange. William's army certainly helped "elevate" his cause. Future legislation recognized his 'ordinary' position though: any children he had with a wife other than Mary II would come AFTER Anne. After Mary died, Anne was the heiress apparent; not merely heiress presumptive.

In terms of the question at hand, I found two possible examples:
  • Although he claimed the throne by right of conquest, Henry VII viewed himself as the senior Lancastrian heir. Unless someone can correct me, he was the senior heir by virtue of being the last heir. If I am right, his presumptive heir by ordinary succession (assuming a proper Lancastrian inheritance) would have been the heir of the next younger brother of Edward III. That person being Elizabeth of York, Henry's Queen.
  • I remember reading, though never confirming, that during the Schleswig-Holstein crisis in the 1860s, the daughter and heiress-presumptive to the Danish throne renounced her inheritance rights, as did her son. Her daughter, now in possession of the claim married the new king. While the issue at hand was keeping Denmark and Schleswig together, I have never confirmed if female inheritance was then possible in Denmark. (It certainly wasn't in Schleswig and hence the crisis)
 
Although he claimed the throne by right of conquest, Henry VII viewed himself as the senior Lancastrian heir. Unless someone can correct me, he was the senior heir by virtue of being the last heir. If I am right, his presumptive heir by ordinary succession (assuming a proper Lancastrian inheritance) would have been the heir of the next younger brother of Edward III. That person being Elizabeth of York, Henry's Queen.


If Beauforts count (and H7 himself has no claim if they don't) there are several more Lancastrian heirs, the nearest being Edward Stafford, the young son of the late Duke of Buckingham.

Also, if Henry married into the Portuguese, Burgundian/Austrian or Spanish royal family, his bride would be descended from John of Gaunt's eldest daughter, and so would have an arguable claim to be a Lancastrian heir.
 
Istr reading in a biography of Queen Christina of Sweden that she was urged to marry her cousin Charles Gustavus ((later King Charles X) who was her heir-presumptive. But she chose to abdicate instead.
 
If Beauforts count (and H7 himself has no claim if they don't) there are several more Lancastrian heirs, the nearest being Edward Stafford, the young son of the late Duke of Buckingham.

Also, if Henry married into the Portuguese, Burgundian/Austrian or Spanish royal family, his bride would be descended from John of Gaunt's eldest daughter, and so would have an arguable claim to be a Lancastrian heir.

If we're working male-line only then Edward III> John of Gaunt> Henry IV> Henry V> Henry VI> Edward of Westminster> Henry V's brothers> Henry IV's brothers> the Beauforts> Edmund of Langley> 2e & 3e dukes of York> Edward IV> Elizabeth of York.

The Portuguese married Maria I to her uncle (although admittedly he wasn't her heir presumptive), and the Habsburgs married Maria Teresa of Spain to Louis XIV (whose mom was MT's heiress presumptive if one held that Anne of Austria's renunciation of her inheritance rights was invalid), and then again with Margarita Teresa, who married her uncle (who would've been her heir presumptive if her older half-sister's renunciation WERE binding).

The Wittelsbach Elector Palatine did a similar thing in the 1740s - although you could argue Salic Law and that it doesn't apply: his eldest granddaughter he married to his heir presumptive; second granddaughter to the heir presumptive to Bavaria, and third granddaughter to her elder sister's hubby's heir presumptive.
 
If Beauforts count (and H7 himself has no claim if they don't) there are several more Lancastrian heirs, the nearest being Edward Stafford, the young son of the late Duke of Buckingham.

Also, if Henry married into the Portuguese, Burgundian/Austrian or Spanish royal family, his bride would be descended from John of Gaunt's eldest daughter, and so would have an arguable claim to be a Lancastrian heir.

His claim was by right of conquest, not through heredity (hence why Henry was king even though his mother (through whom he had inherited the rights) outlived him). Stafford was descended through a cousin of Margaret Beaufort, Henry's mother.

If we're working male-line only then Edward III> John of Gaunt> Henry IV> Henry V> Henry VI> Edward of Westminster> Henry V's brothers> Henry IV's brothers> the Beauforts> Edmund of Langley> 2e & 3e dukes of York> Edward IV> Elizabeth of York.

Liz wasn't heir presumptive to the house of York, that position fell first to her younger brother until both Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury disappeared/died. Then it went to Edward, Earl of Warwick, son and heir of the late duke of Clarence, as last York standing. It was only once Warwick was dead that Elizabeth was archbannerbearer (TMK).
 
His claim was by right of conquest, not through heredity (hence why Henry was king even though his mother (through whom he had inherited the rights) outlived him). Stafford was descended through a cousin of Margaret Beaufort, Henry's mother.

He may have claimed by conquest, but he would never have had the following needed to conquer anything had he not been blood-related tot he House of Lancaster.



Liz wasn't heir presumptive to the house of York, that position fell first to her younger brother until both Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury disappeared/died. Then it went to Edward, Earl of Warwick, son and heir of the late duke of Clarence, as last York standing. It was only once Warwick was dead that Elizabeth was archbannerbearer (TMK).

How do you work that out? There was no Salic Law in England.

And had Elizabeth not been widely seen as heiress of the House of York, there would have been no point in Henry marrying her.
 
Istr reading in a biography of Queen Christina of Sweden that she was urged to marry her cousin Charles Gustavus ((later King Charles X) who was her heir-presumptive. But she chose to abdicate instead.

This example is so close... but she didn't do it so not quite.

Doesn't need to be a royal, a count (ess)/ earl counts too.
 
As others have noted, it was most common in cases where one inheritance was male-only and one wasn't, so as to prevent the lands from splitting.

A good example would be the Anne of Brittany, who was duchess of Brittany in her own right. She was married first to Charles VIII of France, and had no living issue. On his death, she was then almost immediately married to Louis XII of France (the next king of France and a cousin of Charles VIII) to keep Brittany in French hands. They only had daughters (who couldn't inherit the French crown, but could inherit Brittany), so Louis XII had their eldest daughter (Claude of France) marry his cousin and heir presumptive (the future Francois I).

It could also be used to settle inheritance disputes (Henry VII and Elizabeth of York have already been mentioned; Henry VII claimed the throne by right of conquest, but also due to Lancastrian descent, and made a major propaganda push to emphasize their marriage as uniting the two houses and ending the Wars of the Roses). To take another example, Charles of Bourbon (constable of France and later leader of the Imperial troops in the 1527 sack of Rome) married his second cousin, Suzanne of Bourbon to settle the inheritance of the duchy of Bourbon (she was the senior descendant, he was the senior descendant in the male line); after her death, Louise of Savoy (another cousin, the Queen Mother of France, and 14 years his senior) proposed another marriage for the same reasons; when he refused she had his estates confiscated, leading him to betray France and ally with the Holy Roman Empire instead in an effort to get his lands back.
 
How do you work that out? There was no Salic Law in England.

And had Elizabeth not been widely seen as heiress of the House of York, there would have been no point in Henry marrying her.

There was no Salic Law, but Elizabeth was only seen as heiress of the last rightful king (Edward IV/V) to those not on Tudor's side. Why do you think Henry kept Warwick out of the public eye? Because Warwick was shy? No, it was because Warwick was the last heir (male) of York, and it was only on his death that it defaulted to Elizabeth. Had Richard III won Bosworth or had his son not died, or both, Lizzie would never have been an heiress at all, much less heiress presumptive.
 
There was no Salic Law, but Elizabeth was only seen as heiress of the last rightful king (Edward IV/V) to those not on Tudor's side. Why do you think Henry kept Warwick out of the public eye? Because Warwick was shy? No, it was because Warwick was the last heir (male) of York, and it was only on his death that it defaulted to Elizabeth. Had Richard III won Bosworth or had his son not died, or both, Lizzie would never have been an heiress at all, much less heiress presumptive.

You have a source for any of this?

If Edward IV's children were legitimate, then Elizabeth was next after her brothers. Warwick would precede her only if English succession followed the Salic Law, which it didn't. Incidentally, even if it did, Warwick's nearest female relative would have been his sister Margaret, not EoY.

As for why Warwick was kept out of the public eye, I'd have thought that was obvious. With EoY now committed to Henry's side, Warwick was the obvious figurehead for any opponents of the regime to rally around, as Richard's son would have been if still alive. They had to have some pretender. No doubt a totally phoney one would do at a pinch, but a real prince would be better. The problem about EoY was not that she wasn't the rightful heiress, but that her marriage to Henry made her useless to his opponents.
 
Last edited:
The Earl of Warwick was not Richard III's heir. John de la Pole, the Earl of Lincoln was Richard's designated successor and his nephew (sister's son). The Earl of Warwick as the son of an attained traitor had no succession rights. The son of the king's sister did.

Not that any of that mattered. Young Lincoln reconciled with Henry Tudor, briefly, before joining the rebellion in support of Lambert Simnel aka his cousin "the Earl of Warwick." What Lincoln's case does illustrate is that female line inheritance was a meaningful concept. While I was wrong about additional Lancastrians, the daughter of the late Edward IV was seen as heir and was a meaningful match for the Tudors.
 
You have a source for any of this?

If Edward IV's children were legitimate, then Elizabeth was next after her brothers. Warwick would precede her only if English succession followed the Salic Law, which it didn't. Incidentally, even if it did, Warwick's nearest female relative would have been his sister Margaret, not EoY.

As for why Warwick was kept out of the public eye, I'd have thought that was obvious. With EoY now committed to Henry's side, Warwick was the obvious figurehead for any opponents of the regime to rally around, as Richard's son would have been if still alive. They had to have some pretender. No doubt a totally phoney one would do at a pinch, but a real prince would be better. The problem about EoY was not that she wasn't the rightful heiress, but that her marriage to Henry made her useless to his opponents.
The Earl of Warwick was not Richard III's heir. John de la Pole, the Earl of Lincoln was Richard's designated successor and his nephew (sister's son). The Earl of Warwick as the son of an attained traitor had no succession rights. The son of the king's sister did.

Not that any of that mattered. Young Lincoln reconciled with Henry Tudor, briefly, before joining the rebellion in support of Lambert Simnel aka his cousin "the Earl of Warwick." What Lincoln's case does illustrate is that female line inheritance was a meaningful concept. While I was wrong about additional Lancastrians, the daughter of the late Edward IV was seen as heir and was a meaningful match for the Tudors.

My apologies. I had my facts wrong.
 
My apologies. I had my facts wrong.

No prob. It's easy to overlook these finer points. You should see how many people think that the Speaker of the House or the Secretary of State would have become POTUS had Andrew Johnson been killed with Lincoln.

Incidentally, it would have been a great joke for Yorkists to invoke the Salic Law, as the whole justification of their cause rested on a claim that descent in the female line from Lionel of Clarence took precedence over a claim through the male line from his younger brother. Not that that would necessarily have stopped them doing it. By the 1480s "rights" of succession were little more than excuses for "They should take who have the power, and they should keep who can".
 
Last edited:
Not that any of that mattered. Young Lincoln reconciled with Henry Tudor, briefly, before joining the rebellion in support of Lambert Simnel aka his cousin "the Earl of Warwick." What Lincoln's case does illustrate is that female line inheritance was a meaningful concept. While I was wrong about additional Lancastrians, the daughter of the late Edward IV was seen as heir and was a meaningful match for the Tudors.

Elizabeth of York was a meaningful match, but if you go by Lancastrian succession logic, I think there are a few people before her, so her marriage with henry Tudor doesn't quite count, although I don't dispute the utility of the pairing.
 
Top