WI: John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset lives?

[RedKing]

John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset was the Father of Lady Margaret Beaufort and Grandfather of Henry VII. He died in 1444 of unknown causes (some speculate through suicide) his death saw his lands pass to his daughter and his Earldom to his brother Edmund (later the Duke of Somerset) who arguably doomed Henry VI’s reign.

But what if John Beaufort lived? Let’s say he survived whatever illness he gets (or chooses to live). Would he take his brother’s place as Henry VI’s principal advisor? If he did I don’t think it would be that much of an improvement, though. Also would his survival prevent Suffolk’s rise to prominence? I’d imagine the Beaufort-York rivalry wouldn’t be much different from OTL either. More interestingly, what effect would any further children he had have? Any sons could be seen as potential Lancastrian claimants if things play out similarly to how they did in OTL.

 

[material_boy]

Suffolk was already the most prominent figure at court by 1444, so we're well past the point at which his rise can be prevented. Cardinal Beaufort was an old man and Gloucester was a political pariah, reduced to little more than giving bombastic speeches in parliament. Somerset had been ruined by the 1443 campaign and so I don't see how he could gain the support to dislodge Suffolk and become Henry's principal advisor.

Somerset's widow remarried several years after his death and had another child when she was in either her late 30s or early 40s, so Somerset likely could have had several more children with her if he'd lived. I suspect that Henry would have preferred them as his heirs, considering the attention that was given to Margaret Beaufort's child marriage to Suffolk's son in its day and also the fact that parliament refused to recognize York as heir to the throne around the same time in OTL.

Somerset's survival could rewrite the Lancastrian-Yorkist web of alliances. Somerset's 1443 campaign had, among other things, blown up York's diplomatic dealings as lieutenent of France with the dukes of Alençon and Brittany. This imperiled English Normandy and York despised Somerset as a result, so you'd see a Somerset-York feud coming into existence a good five years before it did in OTL, when Somerset's brother Edmund surrendered Rouen. I wonder if perhaps York would come to support Suffolk in ATL as a way to keep his hated rival Somerset out of power, possibly prolonging Suffolk's government (and, you know, life) while also possibly tainting York by association should Suffolk become as unpopular in ATL as he did in OTL.

 

[RedKing]

Somerset's widow remarried several years after his death and had another child when she was in either her late 30s or early 40s, so Somerset likely could have had several more children with her if he'd lived. I suspect that Henry would have preferred them as his heirs, considering the attention that was given to Margaret Beaufort's child marriage to Suffolk's son in its day and also the fact that parliament refused to recognize York as heir to the throne around the same time in OTL.

Margaret Beauchamp was about 40 when she had the Viscount of Welles so her managing two or three more kids is likely. If John were to die sometime in the 1450s they wouldn’t be be bad choices for heirs (since anyone could get their wardship). Plus if Henry VI or whoever his puppeteer chief advisor is smart they’d use them as leverage to control York.

Somerset's survival could rewrite the Lancastrian-Yorkist web of alliances. Somerset's 1443 campaign had, among other things, blown up York's diplomatic dealings as lieutenent of France with the dukes of Alençon and Brittany. This imperiled English Normandy and York despised Somerset as a result, so you'd see a Somerset-York feud coming into existence a good five years before it did in OTL, when Somerset's brother Edmund surrendered Rouen. I wonder if perhaps York would come to support Suffolk in ATL as a way to keep his hated rival Somerset out of power, possibly prolonging Suffolk's government (and, you know, life) while also possibly tainting York by association should Suffolk become as unpopular in ATL as he did in OTL.

Now this is really interesting! I have a feeling York would simply set up a third faction against Suffolk and Somerset here or they’d become allies of convenience. But if York were to support Suffolk to spite Somerset, then it really leaves England in a pick your poison situation. Though I feel like York would have the smarts do abandon ship as soon as he realises that Suffolk his hurting his image, unless he really doesn’t want to risk Somerset getting power. Also, didn’t Margaret Beaufort’s marriage to Suffolk’s son play a part in his downfall? Might the lack of said marriage help butterfly/delay his downfall as a result?

 

[material_boy]

Margaret Beauchamp was about 40 when she had the Viscount of Welles so her managing two or three more kids is likely. If John were to die sometime in the 1450s they wouldn’t be be bad choices for heirs (since anyone could get their wardship). Plus if Henry VI or whoever his puppeteer chief advisor is smart they’d use them as leverage to control York.

This sort of thing could have happened with a marriage between Edward of York and Margaret Beaufort, but it was never considered in OTL for whatever reason. (At least, I can't recall that is was considered.) So, I'm not sure that we can expect those in power to play these sorts of games with the possible heirs to the throne in ATL.

Now this is really interesting! I have a feeling York would simply set up a third faction against Suffolk and Somerset here or they’d become allies of convenience. But if York were to support Suffolk to spite Somerset, then it really leaves England in a pick your poison situation.

I think the politics of ATL depend largely on what version of history you choose to believe with regard to Somerset's death and the POD from which you're working. Some accounts say Somerset was ill in 1443, which could explain both why the campaign was a meandering disaster and also why the duke died at a fairly young age the following spring. Other accounts say Somerset had been so disgraced by his failures in 1443 that he retreated from court and took his own life the following year.

Suffolk was more or less already the third party in the early to mid 40s. He came up in the 30s as a favorite of Catherine de Valois's and was perhaps the only figure at court to consistently find favor with both Cardinal Beaufort and Gloucester. This made Suffolk the most obvious person to fill the leadership vacuum created as these two figures slowly faded from power. In ATL, Somerset's continued survival provides another high-ranking man who can compete for the king's attention. So, if you choose to believe Somerset was ill and your POD is that he simply recovered from whatever disease he was battling then he may still be recovering, and thus removed from court, long enough that Suffolk is sent down the disastrous path of negotiations that leads to the Treaty of Tours. This would certainly shatter Suffolk's credibility in the long run, as it did in OTL and maybe nothing much changes at all.

But if you believe that Somerset was healthy, but enormously incompetent, in 1443 then you may see him return to court sooner in ATL. This would probably cause great distress for York, which may cause him to seek out some sort of alliance with Suffolk. Perhaps we see the war party morph into something of a "peace with dignity" -- or a "let's negotiate before the Beauforts F it all up even more" -- party, which could in turn completely change the terms of Tours and the whole political situation in England and Normandy.

 

[RedKing]

This sort of thing could have happened with a marriage between Edward of York and Margaret Beaufort, but it was never considered in OTL for whatever reason. (At least, I can't recall that is was considered.) So, I'm not sure that we can expect those in power to play these sorts of games with the possible heirs to the throne in ATL.

Lauren Johnson speculates that Henry VI wanted to set up an alternate line of succession to keep York in check, hence why Margaret Beaufort was married to Edmund Tudor, so that could be why it never happened. Maybe here, Henry VI gives some grants to alt Beaufort kids as a sign that they could be seen as alternatives to York?

Suffolk was more or less already the third party in the early to mid 40s. He came up in the 30s as a favorite of Catherine de Valois's and was perhaps the only figure at court to consistently find favor with both Cardinal Beaufort and Gloucester. This made Suffolk the most obvious person to fill the leadership vacuum created as these two figures slowly faded from power. In ATL, Somerset's continued survival provides another high-ranking man who can compete for the king's attention. So, if you choose to believe Somerset was ill and your POD is that he simply recovered from whatever disease he was battling then he may still be recovering, and thus removed from court, long enough that Suffolk is sent down the disastrous path of negotiations that leads to the Treaty of Tours. This would certainly shatter Suffolk's credibility in the long run, as it did in OTL and maybe nothing much changes at all.

So here effectively nothing changes until Suffolk's fall when Somerset gets to be Henry VI's chief advisor.

But if you believe that Somerset was healthy, but enormously incompetent, in 1443 then you may see him return to court sooner in ATL. This would probably cause great distress for York, which may cause him to seek out some sort of alliance with Suffolk. Perhaps we see the war party morph into something of a "peace with dignity" -- or a "let's negotiate before the Beauforts F it all up even more" -- party, which could in turn completely change the terms of Tours and the whole political situation in England and Normandy.

Interesting, could York's involvement see better terms for the Treaty of Tours or would it end up being as bad as OTL or even be butterflied? I could see York's more conciliatory stance with France cause Somerset take a more aggressive stance against France in a bid to try and snatch power from the Suffolk-York alliance, which could be very interesting.

 

[isabella]

This sort of thing could have happened with a marriage between Edward of York and Margaret Beaufort, but it was never considered in OTL for whatever reason. (At least, I can't recall that is was considered.) So, I'm not sure that we can expect those in power to play these sorts of games with the possible heirs to the throne in ATL.

There is a big chance who Margaret Beaufort was seen by many in that period as the next-in-line for the crown, considering her first two weddings and York’s insistence in being officially acknowledged as heir-presumptive by Henry VI

 

[The Professor]

There is a big chance who Margaret Beaufort was seen by many in that period as the next-in-line for the crown, considering her first two weddings and York’s insistence in being officially acknowledged as heir-presumptive by Henry VI

I think that given the establishment had no support for Holland, who'd be the natural focus for heir, then they'd be split over the Beaufort line and the York line.

 

[material_boy]

I think that given the establishment had no support for Holland, who'd be the natural focus for heir, then they'd be split over the Beaufort line and the York line.

Let's consider the butterflies, though.

I think it's really instructive that in OTL parliament flatly refused to consider York as heir 1450, but then rallied to him as protector in 1453. Clearly there was no real sense that York was heir to the throne in the former instance -- or else why would parliament so needlessly insult a possible future king in this way? -- but three years later, he's just handed an office that has basically all the powers of king and is rather clearly considered the next in line. Something (or somethings) changed in those three years. We know the 2nd duke of Somerset proved himself wholly unfit to govern the realm during this time, and the 3rd duke of Exeter must have already earned his reputation as a cruel and violent thug for him to have not been considered.

But in ATL, the 1st duke of Somerset survives. I think this fast-forwards the Beaufort-York rivalry by several years. So does this also fast forward the country's conversation over who the next in line should be? Because, if so, we're not dealing with the 3rd duke of Exeter -- his father, the 2nd duke, is still alive and is an altogether different character. A total dud as a military commander, but this doesn't seem to have been held against him. He appears to have been a generally rather popular figure and his chief ally within the peerage was the duke of Buckingham, who is the most famous "third party" figure in the era, having never fully aligned with Cardinal Beaufort or Gloucester in the 30s or 40s and being the head of a pro-reform, but anti-violence group of lords (i.e., supported York as a political reformer, but reformed to join York's in armed rebellion) in the 50s. The 2nd duke of Exeter could be exactly the sort of figure that people turn to as next in line if Beaufort and York are at each other's throats early in ATL.

 

[The Professor]

Let's consider the butterflies, though.

I think it's really instructive that in OTL parliament flatly refused to consider York as heir 1450, but then rallied to him as protector in 1453. Clearly there was no real sense that York was heir to the throne in the former instance -- or else why would parliament so needlessly insult a possible future king in this way? -- but three years later, he's just handed an office that has basically all the powers of king and is rather clearly considered the next in line. Something (or somethings) changed in those three years. We know the 2nd duke of Somerset proved himself wholly unfit to govern the realm during this time, and the 3rd duke of Exeter must have already earned his reputation as a cruel and violent thug for him to have not been considered.

But in ATL, the 1st duke of Somerset survives. I think this fast-forwards the Beaufort-York rivalry by several years. So does this also fast forward the country's conversation over who the next in line should be? Because, if so, we're not dealing with the 3rd duke of Exeter -- his father, the 2nd duke, is still alive and is an altogether different character. A total dud as a military commander, but this doesn't seem to have been held against him. He appears to have been a generally rather popular figure and his chief ally within the peerage was the duke of Buckingham, who is the most famous "third party" figure in the era, having never fully aligned with Cardinal Beaufort or Gloucester in the 30s or 40s and being the head of a pro-reform, but anti-violence group of lords (i.e., supported York as a political reformer, but reformed to join York's in armed rebellion) in the 50s. The 2nd duke of Exeter could be exactly the sort of figure that people turn to as next in line if Beaufort and York are at each other's throats early in ATL.

2nd Exeter died in 1447 nearly 3 years after Somerset so it all depends whether Somerset's survival brings the rivalry forward before that date.