WI/PC: Henry VI REINSERTS the Beauforts Into the Succession?

[Kellan Sullivan]

Forgive the title if the phrasing is wrong.
But could Henry VI at some point have clearly named that, in default of his own line, the Beauforts were to be his heirs?

Results? Changes? War of the Roses fought for the reason of the duke of York and his supporters refusing to accept the demotion?

@The Professor @VVD0D95 @isabella @Zulfurium @Tyler96 @desmirelle @BlueFlowwer

 

[VVD0D95]

Personally, I think he could, he could introduce an Act of Parliament to reinstate them in, just as Henry IV had an Act of Parliament exclude them from the succession in the first place. Whether or not York would agree to it is another thing.

 

[isabella]

Forgive the title if the phrasing is wrong.
But could Henry VI at some point have clearly named that, in default of his own line, the Beauforts were to be his heirs?

Results? Changes? War of the Roses fought for the reason of the duke of York and his supporters refusing to accept the demotion?

@The Professor @VVD0D95 @isabella @Zulfurium @Tyler96 @desmirelle @BlueFlowwer

I can not see any reason for doing that on Henry VI's side, really. Exasperating the conflict between York and Beaufort would be a very bad idea AND that would push York and his supporters in starting a civil war, calling the Lancasters as usurpers likely BEFORE the Parliament approved the Act for reinstating the Beaufort and without any guaranty of having it approved

 

[VVD0D95]

I can not see any reason for doing that on Henry VI's side, really. Exasperating the conflict between York and Beaufort would be a very bad idea AND that would push York and his supporters in starting a civil war, calling the Lancasters as usurpers likely BEFORE the Parliament approved the Act for reinstating the Beaufort and without any guaranty of having it approved

Interesting, what was the reason Henry IV decided to exclude them from the line of succession to begin with, despite them being legitimated

 

[isabella]

Interesting, what was the reason Henry IV decided to exclude them from the line of succession to begin with, despite them being legitimated

The Beauforts were legitimized not legimate and that made them quite unsuitable (more or less like Louis XIV's children by La Valliere and by Montespan). They were not proper Gaunts or Lancasters (plus I do not know when exactly the Lancasters started to pretend who Edmund Crouchback was the elder brother of Edward I instead of the younger, and that claim limited the line of succession ahead of Richard II and the Mortimers to the heirs of John of Gaunt's first wife). Plus fact who they had the Beaufort surname instead of Plantagenet because they were born before their parent's wedding was more than enough for excluding them if Philippa of Clarence was excluded (or counted as eldest female heir of Edward III so after all his sons but before the daughters) only because her father died before her grandfather

 

[Tyler96]

Much depends on when, and what the precise domestic situation looks like.

Probably, York and co. get even more incensed at the influence and rapacity of the Beauforts, and become doubly determined to remove them?

Also, would meek and peaceable Henry really do something so flagrant? Maybe after bridges have been conclusively burnt and the conflict has kicked off in earnest, but by that point Ed of Westminster exists so it's not really worth it.

 

[FalconHonour]

Much depends on when, and what the precise domestic situation looks like.

Probably, York and co. get even more incensed at the influence and rapacity of the Beauforts, and become doubly determined to remove them?

Also, would meek and peaceable Henry really do something so flagrant? Maybe after bridges have been conclusively burnt and the conflict has kicked off in earnest, but by that point Ed of Westminster exists so it's not really worth it.

What if Edward of Westminster died as a baby? Then he's left without a clear heir anyway, so reinstating his half-brothers into the Succession may not seem so odd. Also, the Beauforts were legitimised by Richard II when John of Gaunt married Katherine Swynford. This made them as legitimate as the future Henry IV and his younger brothers. Richard laid no bar on their ability to inherit the throne. It was the usurping Henry IV who did that, because he didn't want his younger half-brothers being used against his shaky fledgling dynasty. But if Henry VI doesn't have a clear heir, unlike Henry IV who had a Prince of Wales in Henry V - and younger sons too -, then he might well be persuaded to allow Richard's version of their legitimisation to stand, rather than his grandfather's.

 

[The Professor]

It's going to depend on Henry VI and what heirs he has.
The default of legitimisation would be behind all other legitimate sons.
The issue here is whether they are behind other existing heirs too and usually requires an Act of Parliament for the Royal Succession and Royal Assent for nobility.
Can anyone recall whether Richard's Act put them ahead of York etc or behind?

 

[isabella]

What if Edward of Westminster died as a baby? Then he's left without a clear heir anyway, so reinstating his half-brothers into the Succession may not seem so odd. Also, the Beauforts were legitimised by Richard II when John of Gaunt married Katherine Swynford. This made them as legitimate as the future Henry IV and his younger brothers. Richard laid no bar on their ability to inherit the throne. It was the usurping Henry IV who did that, because he didn't want his younger half-brothers being used against his shaky fledgling dynasty. But if Henry VI doesn't have a clear heir, unlike Henry IV who had a Prince of Wales in Henry V - and younger sons too -, then he might well be persuaded to allow Richard's version of their legitimisation to stand, rather than his grandfather's.

That legitimisation of the Beauforts and their being reinstated in the succession would still mean less than zero if Henry IV's claim was through Blanche of Lancaster as is most likely because the Yorks would still be higher than the Beauforts with the Mortimer claim...
If Henry IV's claim was through John of Gaunt instead then the reasons for the exclusion of Philippa's line make indispensable excluding the Beauforts...
During the reign of Richard II the rights of successions of the Beauforts were not a problem but the Lancastrian Kings NEEDED TO EXCLUDE THEM for being able to keep their crown.
Insulting the Mortimer/Yorks who have a better claim than the Lancasters is not the right way to go for keeping the crown without a civil war.
Plus is pretty likely who the Beauforts would still come after the fully legitimate issues of their uncles (and maybe also aunts).

 

[Decatur]

What if Edward of Westminster died as a baby? Then he's left without a clear heir anyway, so reinstating his half-brothers into the Succession may not seem so odd.

Until the birth of Prince Edward, Richard, Duke of York, was Henry VI's heir presumptive in all but name. He was Henry's nearest relative with royal ancestry. (On his father's side, Richard was descended from Edward III's fourth son.) Even if he hadn't yet been officially acknowledged as heir, everyone expected him to take the throne if Henry died. There's absolutely no reason to insert the Beauforts into the line of sucession except as an attempt to keep Richard from eventually becoming king. Try putting the Beauforts into the line of succession, and the War of the Roses begins immediately.

 

[Mikestone8]

The Beauforts were legitimized not legimate and that made them quite unsuitable

OTOH, when Margaret of Anjou's favourite the Duke of Suffolk, fell from power in 1450, one of the charges against him was of plotting to marry his son to Margaret Beaufort "presuming and pretending her to be the next inheritable to the crown". So there were clearly some who saw a Beaufort claim as at least possible.

 

[Tyler96]

For a rather different take on this scenario, if...

• Thomas of Clarence takes the throne (i.e. he doesn't die at Bauge, Henry V still dies young, and Henry VI either doesn't exist or dies in infancy); and
• Both John of Bedford and Humphrey of Gloucester predecease Thomas; and
• None of Thomas, John, and Humphrey have legitimate issue.

Could sentiment induce Thomas to try and amend the succession in favour of his Beaufort stepsons?

 

[VVD0D95]

For a rather different take on this scenario, if...

• Thomas of Clarence takes the throne (i.e. he doesn't die at Bauge, Henry V still dies young, and Henry VI either doesn't exist or dies in infancy); and
• Both John of Bedford and Humphrey of Gloucester predecease Thomas; and
• None of Thomas, John, and Humphrey have legitimate issue.

Could sentiment induce Thomas to try and amend the succession in favour of his Beaufort stepsons?

I think it's possible, though o course that would require him to pacify York with something I think.

 

[FalconHonour]

I think it's possible, though o course that would require him to pacify York with something I think.

Marry one of York"s daughters/sisters to his heir maybe?

 

[VVD0D95]

Marry one of York"s daughters/sisters to his heir maybe?

That makes sense