Two Deaths at Bosworth

Who becomes King?


  • Total voters
    52
  • Poll closed .
certainly no t

How so? There are a whole platoon of Beaufort descendants out there, plus a few from Elizabeth of Lancaster. They may not have impeccably Lancastrian records, but how many do beyond the few die-hards who chose exile rather than accept the verdict of Tewkesbury? Certainly not the Staffords. It's only two years since Buckingham assisted Richard II on to the throne - veen if he did change his mind later. And have either Oxford or Jasper any close ties with the House of Stafford?
Well among the Beaufort descendants are the already married sons of Stanley by his first wife, but also all the Yorks descendants from Cecily Neville (so Warwick and Margaret of Clarence who have Beaufort blood from both their parents), Elizabeth of York and her sisters, Lincoln and his siblings, Anne St. Ledger) and James III of Scotland and his children plus the Duke of Albany...
And Stafford has at least two female cousins with a stronger claim than hers
 
What platoon? Bearing in mind that the Lancastrians were originally following the agnatic descent of Edward's entail.

The Act of 1406, laying down the Lancastrian succession, referred only to the descendants of Henry IV, and did not place any Beaufort in the line of succession. Nor had they ever been acknowledged as having a claim to the throne by any of the Lancastrian kings.

There's a reason why the Titulus Regius Act of 1486, while acknowledging Henry VII as King, quietly passed over all questions regarding his hereditary right. Everyone knew that he didn't really have one. He was on the throne because the army victorious at Bosworth had put him on it.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
The Act of 1406, laying down the Lancastrian succession, referred only to the descendants of Henry IV, and did not place any Beaufort in the line of succession. Nor had they ever been acknowledged as having a claim to the throne by any of the Lancastrian kings.

There's a reason why the Titulus Regius Act of 1486, while acknowledging Henry VII as King, quietly passed over all questions regarding his hereditary right. Everyone knew that he didn't really have one. He was on the throne because the army victorious at Bosworth had put him on it.
So the. Doesn’t that discount Somerset then?
 
So the. Doesn’t that discount Somerset then?

It leaves him with no better claim than any other Beaufort - but arguably little if any worse either. It would be a question of whether he was acceptable to the leaders of the victorious army at Bosworth. The Professor is convinced that he wouldn't be. I'm not so sure. But my main point here was that one Beaufort claim was about as strong as any other - though in the circs of August 1485 it would need to be one whose branch of the family were seen as at least leaned toward Lancaster.
 
Last edited:
Well among the Beaufort descendants are the already married sons of Stanley by his first wife, but also all the Yorks descendants from Cecily Neville (so Warwick and Margaret of Clarence who have Beaufort blood from both their parents), Elizabeth of York and her sisters, Lincoln and his siblings, Anne St. Ledger) and James III of Scotland and his children plus the Duke of Albany...
And Stafford has at least two female cousins with a stronger claim than hers

Not to mention the entire Percy family.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
It leaves him with no better claim than any other Beaufort - but arguably little if any worse either. It would be a question of whether he was acceptable to the leaders of the victorious army at Bosworth. The Professor is convinced that he wouldn't be. I'm not so sure. But my main point here was that one Beaufort claim was about as strong as any other - though in the circs of August 1485 it would need to be one whose branch of the family were seen as at least leaned toward Lancaster.

This is true though one wonders if they’d not prefer an adult who was
Legitimate to a bastard
 
It leaves him with no better claim than any other Beaufort - but arguably little if any worse either. It would be a question of whether he was acceptable to the leaders of the victorious army at Bosworth. The Professor is convinced that he wouldn't be. I'm not so sure. But my main point here was that one Beaufort claim was about as strong as any other - though in the circs of August 1485 it would need to be one whose branch of the family were seen as at least leaned toward Lancaster.
But it's not just about having a claim though. My point is that EVEN IF the Beaufort Lancastrians were considered to have acceptable rights in the succession, Charles Somerset is a bastard, and a commoner, which thus renders him unacceptable.
This is why the original legitimisation of the Beauforts raised questions about where in the succession they were because bastards are automatically excluded.

Now, if the Lancastrians had noone else only them would they consider a bastard (compare the Portuguese succession).
But they don't. If we only count male line descendants of daughters of the line then we have Edward Stafford, grandson of Margaret Beaufort the daughter of Edmund Beaufort 2nd Duke Somerset.
If we include female line descendants of daughters (which there's no precedent for btw) then we have more. The latter being complicated in that sisters were held equal under noble inheritance as strict primogeniture isn't a thing yet.

Now, one could claim legitimisation of Charles would be possible. But even if convincing, and I personally doubt it would be, the Staffords are now in the position of the Mortimers following Henry IV's usurption of the throne. Since HenryxElizabeth was supposed to resolve the War of the Roses all CharlesxElizabeth does is defer it onto Stafford's line. If Warwick is still a threat, you've now added Stafford too.
 
This is true though one wonders if they’d not prefer an adult who wasLegitimate to a bastard

Agreed. They undoubtedly will if one is readily available. But he must be of a suitable age to be an active King, and either unmarried or have a son who is - preferably a son in his teens or older so that the desired grandson of Ed IV can be produced with a minimum of dellay. That's the point I was uncertain about.
 
Since HenryxElizabeth was supposed to resolve the War of the Roses all CharlesxElizabeth does is defer it onto Stafford's line. If Warwick is still a threat, you've now added Stafford too.

He was a threat anyway, or at least enough of one for Henry VIII to be concerned. No prizes for guessing what Henry's solution was.
 
Agreed. They undoubtedly will if one is readily available. But he must be of a suitable age to be an active King, and either unmarried or have a son who is - preferably a son in his teens or older so that the desired grandson of Ed IV can be produced with a minimum of dellay. That's the point I was uncertain about.
Waiting is a lesser threat to the succession than illegitimacy. Being young is only a problem when there are legitimate adults who could threaten the regency. Here the only legitimate adult with a precedent blood claim is the Ricardian Yorkist Lincoln.
(And by precedent I mean only via one daughter not two successive daughters.)
He was a threat anyway, or at least enough of one for Henry VIII to be concerned. No prizes for guessing what Henry's solution was.
Henry VII had no way of knowing his son wouldn't produce a male heir. Stafford only became a greater threat then. Here you're adding it straight off the bat.
 
Top