Yes I agree with the legitmization bit, was it not more common for kings to legitimize their own bastards rather than some individual that they definitely were not the father of?
Richard II legitimising the Beauforts is your precedent.De facto control don't mean nothing here, he wasn't crowned, and as such had no right to legitimize a bastard. It wouldn't be realistic either, as has been noted.
Also, Somerset is untitled here, so we've gotta keep that in mind.
Also, where is a precedent? If a living king never legitimized bastards, I don't see a dead claimant legitimizing one flying.....
No. What matters is who has the PowerBut surely, their will mattered when it came to nominating their heirs, didn't it?
Not with english kings it wasn't.....I think. Some nobles have done it I thinkYes I agree with the legitmization bit, was it not more common for kings to legitimize their own bastards rather than some individual that they definitely were not the father of?
Nope, Henry VI appointed Richard of York as his heir, but the war continuedBut surely, their will mattered when it came to nominating their heirs, didn't it?
Were they included in the line of succession tho? (This is a question, not an insult or something)Richard II legitimising the Beauforts is your precedent.
AIUI, they were in 1399, not in 1403 once Henry IV had taken power and needed to limit the number of possible claimants who could rise against him/his son.Not with english kings it wasn't.....I think. Some nobles have done it I think
Nope, Henry VI appointed Richard of York as his heir, but the war continued
Were they included in the line of succession tho? (This is a question, not an insult or something)
I don't agree with you on the legally binding part, but your other point is correct.I don't think so. I think you have to be of sound mind for your will to be legally binding. And besides, there are plenty of examples of a dead King's will being set aside. Edward IV and, Edward VI are two that spring to mind.
My objections:Wait a moment. While Jasper had no Lancastrian blood, he had enough standing among Lancastrians for being their candidate as King Consort to Elizabeth of York being not only Henry VII‘s uncle but also Henry V’s (maternal) half-brother. Sure he has no royal blood but is still the legitimate grandson of a King (of France) on his mother’s side and half-brother and uncle of another two (and Elizabeth of York, by the way, had Lancastrian/Beaufort blood from Cecily Neville). If Jasper and Elizabeth pledge to marry their heir(ess) to a Lancastrian (and we have Portugal, Spain and Austria-Burgundy plus Beauforts Scotland, Staffords, Nevilles, Stanleys and Percys)
The age comment is a personal thing.No-one in 1485 is going to raise an eyebrow at at a 54 year-old marrying a girl of 19, provided the politics works. As long as he's still hale enough to make heirs, it's no big deal. In fact, most of the magnates would prefer an older king who will likely die in few years and leave a minor heir to a young, vigorous one who will spend the next 20-30 years entrenching his dynasty.
The real problems for Jasper + Elizabeth are:
- To loyal Lancastrians, this looks a lot like the Yorkists losing on the battlefield but winning in the bedchamber. The putative heir to England will be a grandson of the hated traitor Edward IV and no relative at all of either the Beauforts or the sainted Henry VI.
- It makes Elizabeth (technically) Queen Regnant. England has never had a reigning Queen before and the preference for male heirs - particularly in unstable times - is very very strong (c.f. OTL Henry VIII)
- It makes Jasper Tudor a bedchamber King. Now his dad may have bonked Henry V's widow, but to most English nobles he's still a Welsh nobody without a drop of (English) royal blood. Bowing down to him would be a very bitter pill for men like Oxford and Stanley.
So my money's on a Recency Council for the boy King Edward VI (Stafford). The question is whether he is betrothed to Elizabeth on the unite-the-houses principle or if one of his Guardians makes a play to become royal in-law.
(Incidentally, I've has a quick dig-around for other Beaufort claimants. There aren't many. There's Eleanor Beaufort, Countess of Ormonde, but she's married to a nobody and only has daughters. It's possible that Thomas St Lawrence is a grandson of Edmund Beaufort (via his daughter Joan) but he's five years old and so obscure his maternity is unclear. Apart from Margaret (Stafford's grandma) none of Edmund Beaufort's daughters seem to have married very highly. The senior adult male Beaufort claimant I can find is actually James III of Scotland, via his grandfather's marriage to Joan Beaufort.)
Or they could full: "I don't care if he's a bastard, blood of John of Gaunt still flows through his veins" and crown Charles Somerset, he's an adult and proven battle commander.So my money's on a Recency Council for the boy King Edward VI (Stafford). The question is whether he is betrothed to Elizabeth on the unite-the-houses principle or if one of his Guardians makes a play to become royal in-law.