Discussion:
British Royal succession if the Tudors not usurped the crown in 1487
(too old to reply)
The Bensham Cunt
2007-07-06 04:18:55 UTC
Permalink
This little fantasy has tickled me that past few days. As I only have
intermittent access to the www it is tough one for me to crack.

Any help would be appreciated.

The Bensham Cunt
Mike Stone
2007-07-06 07:51:12 UTC
Permalink
"The Bensham Cunt" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:***@z28g2000prd.goog
legroups.com...
Post by The Bensham Cunt
This little fantasy has tickled me that
past few days. As I only have
Post by The Bensham Cunt
intermittent access to the www it is tough
one for me to crack.
Post by The Bensham Cunt
Any help would be appreciated.
Well, the anti-Richard elements (assuming no
changes before that) have to find another
candidate. Iirc there were several Beaufort
descendants still around [1], and in any
case a weak claim could be reinforced, as
OTL, by marriage to Elizabeth of York.
OTOH, if Richard survives the challenges he
may remarry and have another son, but unless
he lives long enough for the son to come of
age, then on his death we get a rerun of
1483. Who the candidates are them depends on
whether the young Earl of Warwick has
survived, and who Edward IV's daughters get
married off to. Frankly, your guess is as
good as mine.

[1] See Alison Weir _Britain's Royal
Families_ for the most detailed list.

--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

My father rode a camel.
I drive a Rolls-Royce.
My son flies a jet aircraft.
My grandson will ride a camel.

Saudi Arabian proverb.
Rich Rostrom
2007-07-08 09:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bensham Cunt
This little fantasy has tickled me that past few days. As I only have
intermittent access to the www it is tough one for me to crack.
1487?

Henry Tudor was crowned in 1485.

What prevents Henry's triumph?

If Henry is defeated at Bosworth, then
Richard stays on. He will marry again,
and possibly beget a son.

If not... His designated heir in 1485 was his
nephew John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln. Pole
submitted to Henry VII after Bosworth, and
renounced his claim, but in 1487 he joined
a rebellion in the name of Edward, son of
the Duke of Clarence, who was impersonated
by Lambert Simnel. Pole was KIA. His two
younger brothers maintained

By strict primogeniture, the succession went
to the daughters of Edward IV, then the son
and daughter of Clarence, then any children
of Richard III, then John de la Pole, whose
mother was the eldest daughter of Richard of
York, i.e. Richard III's eldest sister.

Clarence's son Edward was imprisoned in the Tower,
and was apparently retarded. His daughter Margaret
was married to Sir Richard Pole, who was nobody
much (and not related to the de la Poles, Dukes
of Suffolk).

Shakespeare asserted that Richard planned to
marry Edward IV's eldest daughter Elizabeth
(his niece!).

There is no evidence for this, but rumors were
contemporary, possibly initiated by Edward's
widow, to promote the marriage and thus secure
the succession for her descendants.

Sir George Buck, antiquarian and Master of the
Revels to James I, claimed to have found a letter
from Elizabeth to the Duke of Norfolk, declaring
her love for King Richard and her hope of becoming
his wife with Norfolk's assistance. The letter did
not survive and no one else saw it; however Buck
did make several notable discoveries of ancient
documents.

If Richard dsp, and John succeeds, then there is
the chance of another round of succession wars,
unless perhaps John marries Elizabeth or one of
her sisters, and merges that claim with his own.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2007-07-09 10:15:17 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Rich Rostrom
What prevents Henry's triumph?
Well by all accounts Bosworth was a fairly close run thing. It was
decisive because Richard died. Henry could have been killed or Richard
survive even a defeat.

Ken Young
Mike Stone
2007-07-09 13:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
<rrostrom.21stcentury-8DB576.04323508072007@
news.isp.giganews.com>,
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Rich Rostrom
What prevents Henry's triumph?
Well by all accounts Bosworth was a
fairly close run thing. It was
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
decisive because Richard died. Henry could
have been killed or Richard
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
survive even a defeat.
Of course, it only settles things if Richard
either

1) Survives long enough to leave a grown-up
son

2) Finds a competent regent to look after an
under age one.

Henry VII managed both, lasting until Henry
VIII was 18 and having Margaret Beaufort in
reserve as a suitable regent should he fail
to do so. Had Richard died heirless, no
doubt the De La Poles would have claimedf
the succession, but it would have been
contested. Richard's own right was so
dubious that his designation would be of
little value. In that case, it's 1483 come
again.


--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

My father rode a camel.
I drive a Rolls-Royce.
My son flies a jet aircraft.
My grandson will ride a camel.

Saudi Arabian proverb.
The Bensham Cunt
2007-07-10 08:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Rich Rostrom
What prevents Henry's triumph?
Well by all accounts Bosworth was a fairly close run thing. It was
decisive because Richard died. Henry could have been killed or Richard
survive even a defeat.
Ken Young
I guess my original question revolves around that very point. if
Richard had of fact been the victor at Bosworth how would the
succession have panned out ? Who would have succeeded Richard > Would
it have been Katherine of Devon, sister to Edward V ? Katherine had
children with the Earl of Devon.

The Bensham Cunt
David
2007-07-10 13:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bensham Cunt
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Rich Rostrom
What prevents Henry's triumph?
Well by all accounts Bosworth was a fairly close run thing. It was
decisive because Richard died. Henry could have been killed or Richard
survive even a defeat.
Ken Young
I guess my original question revolves around that very point. if
Richard had of fact been the victor at Bosworth how would the
succession have panned out ? Who would have succeeded Richard > Would
it have been Katherine of Devon, sister to Edward V ? Katherine had
children with the Earl of Devon.
The Bensham Cunt
If Richard III had won, and had been able to beat down the many
subsequent rebellions that would have arisen against his unpopular
rule, then his successors would probably have been his children by his
second wife, whoever she would have been.

Had Richard III remained childless, the plan was for the succession to
go to the Earl of Lincoln, John de la Pole, his sister's son. In
order to make his succession legal, Richard had had to pretend that
all of the children of his brother were illegitimate, so succession
through any of them was out (as it would have delegitimized him).
That left his siblings' children.

The first in line, theoretically, were the children of George, Duke of
Clarence: Edward, Earl of Warwick, and Margaret Pole, Css. of
Salisbury. Edward was in line for the succession for awhile, but
Richard eventually deemed him unfit and excluded him from the
sucession; he also passed over Margaret.

Then there was the daughter of Anne, Dss. of Exeter: Anne St. Leger,
Lady de Ros, who was also skipped.

Then there were the children of Elizabeth, Dss. of Suffolk, whose
eldest son was John de la Pole.

The evidence shows that Richard III was prepared to allow the
succession to go *through* a woman (his own claims, like all the
Yorkist claims, depended upon that theory) but not to let the
succession go *to* a woman. I suspect he was a misogynist.
AGw. (Usenet)
2007-07-10 14:49:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
The evidence shows that Richard III was prepared to allow the
succession to go *through* a woman (his own claims, like all the
Yorkist claims, depended upon that theory) but not to let the
succession go *to* a woman. I suspect he was a misogynist.
While that observation may be true, it's also worth remembering that
England had never had a female ruler, and I suspect there was doubt
(amongst the men, anyway) that a woman *could* succeed to the throne.
There were also practical considerations: recent history had
demonstrated that succession by force of arms was still a goer, which
must have been a factor in choosing an heir; and there was also the fact
that a female sovereign could well marry a foreign prince and thus see
the realm subordinated to another, or at the very least see it obliged
to go to war in pursuance of another's interest. Such concerns saw
legislative action for Mary I's marriage (1 Mar. Sess. 3 c. 2) and as
part of the Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Will. 3 c. 2), for example. Even
as recently as the 1930s it was possible for a respectable author to
assert that the succession was partible in the event of female
succession (see Google Groups' archives for alt.talk.royalty).
--
AGw.
address in header goes nowhere; replace "bottomless_pit" with "devnull"
Kelbert Hawsing
2007-07-10 16:03:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by AGw. (Usenet)
Post by David
The evidence shows that Richard III was prepared to allow the
succession to go *through* a woman (his own claims, like all the
Yorkist claims, depended upon that theory) but not to let the
succession go *to* a woman. I suspect he was a misogynist.
While that observation may be true, it's also worth remembering that
England had never had a female ruler, and I suspect there was doubt
(amongst the men, anyway) that a woman *could* succeed to the throne.
There was the Empress Matilda, though she may not have been thought of
as a positive precedent, and she never quite did get herself crowned.
However she did manage to rule over chunks of England.
Post by AGw. (Usenet)
There were also practical considerations: recent history had
demonstrated that succession by force of arms was still a goer, which
must have been a factor in choosing an heir; and there was also the
fact that a female sovereign could well marry a foreign prince and thus
see the realm subordinated to another, or at the very least see it
obliged to go to war in pursuance of another's interest. Such concerns
saw legislative action for Mary I's marriage (1 Mar. Sess. 3 c. 2) and
as part of the Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Will. 3 c. 2), for example.
Even as recently as the 1930s it was possible for a respectable author
to assert that the succession was partible in the event of female
succession (see Google Groups' archives for alt.talk.royalty).
--
Kelbert Hawsing
Stan Brown
2007-07-10 23:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:03:44 +0100 from Kelbert Hawsing <{$news$}
Post by Kelbert Hawsing
Post by AGw. (Usenet)
While that observation may be true, it's also worth remembering that
England had never had a female ruler, and I suspect there was doubt
(amongst the men, anyway) that a woman *could* succeed to the throne.
There was the Empress Matilda, though she may not have been thought of
as a positive precedent, and she never quite did get herself crowned.
However she did manage to rule over chunks of England.
I think that example goes either way. During their lifetimes Stephen
controlled as much territory as she, if not more. And people (the
men, anyway) could argue from that example that civil war was the
inevitable result of a female reign.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Alan Williams
2007-07-11 09:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
I think that example goes either way. During their lifetimes Stephen
controlled as much territory as she [Matilda], if not more. And people (the
men, anyway) could argue from that example that civil war was the
inevitable result of a female reign.
Or of trying to usurp a rightful heiress :-)
David
2007-07-11 17:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Williams
Post by Stan Brown
I think that example goes either way. During their lifetimes Stephen
controlled as much territory as she [Matilda], if not more. And people (the
men, anyway) could argue from that example that civil war was the
inevitable result of a female reign.
Or of trying to usurp a rightful heiress :-)
Even admitting her right, at the end of the day, Matilda was still
alive when Stephen died, and yet the crown passed not to her but to
her son Henry II -- just as Henry VII's crown passed to Henry VIII,
though the "rightful heir", Elizabeth of York, was still alive. It
might be argued on that basis that the legal precedent was that the
crown could pass *through* a woman if and only if she had a male heir
of the body living, but not *to* a woman or any female heir; which
precedent would not be clearly overturned until the accession of
Victoria, unmarried and without offspring, all previous successions of
women (Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II and Anne) having occurred under
special provisions enacted by Parliament.

It would be interesting to try that rule out in various cases of
controversial succession. It takes a bit more care than the actual
rule, because you have to check who was actually alive at the death of
each potential claimant; a son born to a next-in-line woman *after*
the death of the previous king or claimant wouldn't count.

The line from Lionel of Clarence to the Yorkist claimants seems to
work out well enough, as there was a male claimant alive upon the
death of each incumbent: Richard II 1400 > cousin 2ce removed Edmund
Mortimer 1425 > nephew Richard of York 1460 > son Edward IV.

After the deaths of Edward V and Richard of York, the succession would
indeed pass to Edward, Earl of Warwick, as none of Edward IV's
daughters had yet borne male children in 1483 (assuming this is the
date of the deaths of the King and Duke). On Warwick's death in 1499,
it would have passed to his sister's son, Henry Pole, Lord Montagu.
Where the line goes after that I don't know.

The main Lancastrian line seems to have gone extinct in 1471. Leaving
aside Henry IV's legitimized offspring, the Lancastrian succession
would, AFAICT, have gone to Affonso V of Portugal if non-English
claimants are allowed, otherwise to the Dukes of Exeter of the Holland
family.

The succession of Henry VII is difficult. After the death of Edward
VI in 1553, the succession could not have gone to or through either
Mary I or Elizabeth, as neither had male offspring. The succession
could have gone through Margaret Tudor to James V of Scotland, had he
survived, but as he died in 1542 leaving an infant daughter, that line
of succession would be ruled out -- even if his daughter Mary (as she
did) eventually had male offspring.

In 1553, of the descendants of Mary Tudor, Duchess of Suffolk, Henry
Brandon was dead; Frances Brandon had only daughters, none of whom had
male children; Eleanor Brandon also had only a daughter, who had not
yet borne male children. As a result, there were no male heirs of
Henry VII alive in 1553, and going further abroad in search of a male
heir would have involved precisely determining Henry VII's claim to
the throne, which was always questionable. If the claims of his
children were (ex post facto) held to be in fact from Elizabeth of
York and Edward IV, then the succession would have gone to Edward
Courtenay, Earl of Devon, descended from Catherine of York, Edward
IV's youngest daughter.
David
2007-07-11 23:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Further succession differences under the precedent of allowing
succession through, but not to, a female heir:

On the exclusion of James II and his Catholic offspring, the
succession would have passed, not to Mary nor to Anne (since the Duke
of Gloucester was not yet born), but to William of Orange (that he did
not attempt to claim the crown by hereditary right shows that this
precedent was defunct by this time). Upon William's death in 1702,
the next male heir was, AFAICT, Vittorio Amedeo of Piedmont (d.
1715). The descent then passes through the other Savoyards as in the
usual Jacobite lists, only skipping over the two Marys, as both of
them had male heirs at the time of the death of the previous
incumbent.

If the succession from the Hanoverians onward were governed by this
rule, there would be little change except that George Louis would have
been the heir from the first, Sophia herself not being eligible. The
successors would have been the same down to Victoria, who not having
any male children at the time of William IV's death would have been
out of the succession; the succession would therefore have continued
with the Hanoverian line, through the Duke of Cumberland.

If applied among the descendants of Victoria, the succession would be
the same, except that Elizabeth II would have been skipped over in
favor of the three-year-old Prince of Wales, upon the death of George
VI.
David
2007-07-11 23:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by Alan Williams
Post by Stan Brown
I think that example goes either way. During their lifetimes Stephen
controlled as much territory as she [Matilda], if not more. And people (the
men, anyway) could argue from that example that civil war was the
inevitable result of a female reign.
Or of trying to usurp a rightful heiress :-)
Even admitting her right, at the end of the day, Matilda was still
alive when Stephen died, and yet the crown passed not to her but to
her son Henry II -- just as Henry VII's crown passed to Henry VIII,
though the "rightful heir", Elizabeth of York, was still alive.
Whoops! Egg on my face -- I got this wrong, as Elizabeth predeceased
her husband by some six years, and only in legitimist fantasy was
Henry VIII already king in 1503...
Stan Brown
2007-07-12 01:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Even admitting her right, at the end of the day, Matilda was still
alive when Stephen died, and yet the crown passed not to her but to
her son Henry II. ... It might be argued on that basis that the
legal precedent was that the crown could pass *through* a woman if
and only if she had a male heir of the body living,
I don't see how the Matilda-Henry situation would support that.

Henry succeeded Stephen by treaty, and no one pretended that they
were following any general rules of succession.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
David
2007-07-12 03:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by David
Even admitting her right, at the end of the day, Matilda was still
alive when Stephen died, and yet the crown passed not to her but to
her son Henry II. ... It might be argued on that basis that the
legal precedent was that the crown could pass *through* a woman if
and only if she had a male heir of the body living,
I don't see how the Matilda-Henry situation would support that.
Henry succeeded Stephen by treaty, and no one pretended that they
were following any general rules of succession.
It's not the Stephen > Henry succession that's at issue; it's the
Matilda > Henry succession. Henry *could* have bargained with Stephen
on behalf of his mother; I'm sure it was all the same to Stephen --
and if this had been the law-conscious 17th or 18th century, he would
doubtless have deferred his claims to his mother's and been content to
be her de facto regent. But he didn't. This situation, while not
flowing *from* established law, could be held to be *precedent for*
later law.
Stan Brown
2007-07-12 22:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by Stan Brown
It might be argued on that basis that the legal precedent was
that the crown could pass *through* a woman if and only if she
had a male heir of the body living,
I don't see how the Matilda-Henry situation would support that.
Henry succeeded Stephen by treaty, and no one pretended that they
were following any general rules of succession.
It's not the Stephen > Henry succession that's at issue; it's the
Matilda > Henry succession.
You're missing the point, IMHO: There *was* no Matilda-Henry
succession.

Either she was legitimate Queen and gave up her rights in the treaty,
or whether she was never legitimate Queen and ended her rebellion.
Either way, if I am not mistaken, by the time of his death Stephen
was undisputed King.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Shake hands with the monkey
2007-07-13 00:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by David
Post by Stan Brown
It might be argued on that basis that the legal precedent was
that the crown could pass *through* a woman if and only if she
had a male heir of the body living,
I don't see how the Matilda-Henry situation would support that.
Henry succeeded Stephen by treaty, and no one pretended that they
were following any general rules of succession.
It's not the Stephen > Henry succession that's at issue; it's the
Matilda > Henry succession.
You're missing the point, IMHO: There *was* no Matilda-Henry
succession.
Either she was legitimate Queen and gave up her rights in the treaty,
or whether she was never legitimate Queen and ended her rebellion.
Either way, if I am not mistaken, by the time of his death Stephen
was undisputed King.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
1.http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2.http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs:http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Stan I am not sure if you know the best source for the Stephen-Matilda
discussion, and the most recent is Jim Bradbury's "Stephen and
Matilda: The Civil War of 1139-53. Even though Bradbury concurs that
Stephen was the original perpetrator of the conflict, he views the
endgame as one of compromise on both sides. It is a concise and
enjoyable read.

The Monkey
The Horny Goat
2007-07-12 02:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Even admitting her right, at the end of the day, Matilda was still
alive when Stephen died, and yet the crown passed not to her but to
her son Henry II -- just as Henry VII's crown passed to Henry VIII,
though the "rightful heir", Elizabeth of York, was still alive. It
might be argued on that basis that the legal precedent was that the
crown could pass *through* a woman if and only if she had a male heir
of the body living, but not *to* a woman or any female heir; which
precedent would not be clearly overturned until the accession of
Victoria, unmarried and without offspring, all previous successions of
women (Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II and Anne) having occurred under
special provisions enacted by Parliament.
Was there any doubt that Victoria (who was 18 if I recall correctly)
planned to marry and bear children? (Which she certainly did...)

What there any doubt that either of the Tudor queens were expected to
marry and bear children?

Both Mary II and Anne DID bear children and the realm was quite
unpleasantly surprised when none survived them.
Post by David
The succession of Henry VII is difficult. After the death of Edward
VI in 1553, the succession could not have gone to or through either
Mary I or Elizabeth, as neither had male offspring. The succession
could have gone through Margaret Tudor to James V of Scotland, had he
survived, but as he died in 1542 leaving an infant daughter, that line
of succession would be ruled out -- even if his daughter Mary (as she
did) eventually had male offspring.
Certainly Henry VIII was far more worried about civil war than about
the realm falling into the hands of a foreign monarch.
David
2007-07-12 03:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Was there any doubt that Victoria (who was 18 if I recall correctly)
planned to marry and bear children? (Which she certainly did...)
None at all -- but if you had a law or custom that women could not sit
on the throne, you couldn't very well sit around waiting for them to
have children who might or might not be male. *Somebody* needs to be
king, and kings generally don't give up their thrones to younger, even
if lineally senior, claimants.
Post by The Horny Goat
Certainly Henry VIII was far more worried about civil war than about
the realm falling into the hands of a foreign monarch.
His policies were not very well calculated toward avoiding either
eventuality (and indeed would eventually *cause* both); but avoiding
putting the throne into non-English hands does seem to have been
toward the top of his list.
Dr Shaft
2007-07-12 04:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by The Horny Goat
Was there any doubt that Victoria (who was 18 if I recall correctly)
planned to marry and bear children? (Which she certainly did...)
None at all -- but if you had a law or custom that women could not sit
on the throne, you couldn't very well sit around waiting for them to
have children who might or might not be male. *Somebody* needs to be
king, and kings generally don't give up their thrones to younger, even
if lineally senior, claimants.
Post by The Horny Goat
Certainly Henry VIII was far more worried about civil war than about
the realm falling into the hands of a foreign monarch.
His policies were not very well calculated toward avoiding either
eventuality (and indeed would eventually *cause* both); but avoiding
putting the throne into non-English hands does seem to have been
toward the top of his list.
Just getting back to the original thread for a short spell, I am
assuming there is no legitimate Plantaganent line in existence ? I
know there are many many bastard lines. However what about the
Beauforts ? I know they were legitimised during the 1390's, but does
not the present Duke of Somerset descend from an illegitimate line of
one of the Beauforts ?

Dr Shaft
David
2007-07-12 06:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr Shaft
Post by David
Post by The Horny Goat
Was there any doubt that Victoria (who was 18 if I recall correctly)
planned to marry and bear children? (Which she certainly did...)
None at all -- but if you had a law or custom that women could not sit
on the throne, you couldn't very well sit around waiting for them to
have children who might or might not be male. *Somebody* needs to be
king, and kings generally don't give up their thrones to younger, even
if lineally senior, claimants.
Post by The Horny Goat
Certainly Henry VIII was far more worried about civil war than about
the realm falling into the hands of a foreign monarch.
His policies were not very well calculated toward avoiding either
eventuality (and indeed would eventually *cause* both); but avoiding
putting the throne into non-English hands does seem to have been
toward the top of his list.
Just getting back to the original thread for a short spell, I am
assuming there is no legitimate Plantaganent line in existence ? I
know there are many many bastard lines. However what about the
Beauforts ? I know they were legitimised during the 1390's, but does
not the present Duke of Somerset descend from an illegitimate line of
one of the Beauforts ?
Dr Shaft
I don't think the Seymours, the current Dukes of Somerset, have any
notable connection with the Beauforts (though doubtless there's a
genealogical connection some way or other); perhaps you're thinking of
the Dukes of Beaufort, who use the family name of Somerset? They are
descended from a bastard branch of the Beauforts.
Shake hands with the monkey
2007-07-12 07:48:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by Dr Shaft
Post by David
Post by The Horny Goat
Was there any doubt that Victoria (who was 18 if I recall correctly)
planned to marry and bear children? (Which she certainly did...)
None at all -- but if you had a law or custom that women could not sit
on the throne, you couldn't very well sit around waiting for them to
have children who might or might not be male. *Somebody* needs to be
king, and kings generally don't give up their thrones to younger, even
if lineally senior, claimants.
Post by The Horny Goat
Certainly Henry VIII was far more worried about civil war than about
the realm falling into the hands of a foreign monarch.
His policies were not very well calculated toward avoiding either
eventuality (and indeed would eventually *cause* both); but avoiding
putting the throne into non-English hands does seem to have been
toward the top of his list.
Just getting back to the original thread for a short spell, I am
assuming there is no legitimate Plantaganent line in existence ? I
know there are many many bastard lines. However what about the
Beauforts ? I know they were legitimised during the 1390's, but does
not the present Duke of Somerset descend from an illegitimate line of
one of the Beauforts ?
Dr Shaft
I don't think the Seymours, the current Dukes of Somerset, have any
notable connection with the Beauforts (though doubtless there's a
genealogical connection some way or other); perhaps you're thinking of
the Dukes of Beaufort, who use the family name of Somerset? They are
descended from a bastard branch of the Beauforts.
Thanks David....my mistake.
The Horny Goat
2007-07-12 09:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by The Horny Goat
Certainly Henry VIII was far more worried about civil war than about
the realm falling into the hands of a foreign monarch.
His policies were not very well calculated toward avoiding either
eventuality (and indeed would eventually *cause* both); but avoiding
putting the throne into non-English hands does seem to have been
toward the top of his list.
Henry was clearly thinking in terms of avoiding a renewed War of the
Roses - I very much doubt he was thinking of the decapitation of a
reigning king or even the less violent "Glorious Revolution" of 1688.

If Henry could have seen ahead 100 years, he would have been even more
shocked to find a Cromwell being involved in the overthrow and
execution of the crown since the only Cromwell HE knew was very much a
King's man particularly with respect to religious matters.
Crown-Horned Snorkack
2007-07-16 06:35:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by David
Post by The Horny Goat
Certainly Henry VIII was far more worried about civil war than about
the realm falling into the hands of a foreign monarch.
His policies were not very well calculated toward avoiding either
eventuality (and indeed would eventually *cause* both); but avoiding
putting the throne into non-English hands does seem to have been
toward the top of his list.
Henry was clearly thinking in terms of avoiding a renewed War of the
Roses - I very much doubt he was thinking of the decapitation of a
reigning king or even the less violent "Glorious Revolution" of 1688.
The decapitation of Charles I with a crown on his head was an
extremely unusual and hard to expect move!

But remember, Henry VI was declared deposed, and eventually slain in
prison - the pure melancholy thing was not widely credited! Edward II
and the hot iron in arse was widely known. Richard II was also
murdered shortly after he had been captured and persuaded to abdicate.

Richard III succeeded in dying as a King. But his carcass was then
displayed naked by Henry VII. As for the rest of royalty, Edward
Prince of Wales was taken alive in Battle of Tewkesbury and killed in
cold blood immedialely after having been brought before his captors -
no attempt to conceal his fate appears to have been made, though it
was also not advertised by prepared public execution.

If Richard III had been grabbed alive on the field of Bosworth, or
picked up wounded and alive, would Henry VII have considered public
beheading of Richard? What would Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck have
done to Henry VII if taken prisoner?

Did Henry VIII have to fear losing another War of Roses and falling
alive at the hands of enemies?
The Horny Goat
2007-07-16 06:55:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:35:17 -0700, Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
If Richard III had been grabbed alive on the field of Bosworth, or
picked up wounded and alive, would Henry VII have considered public
beheading of Richard? What would Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck have
done to Henry VII if taken prisoner?
Did Henry VIII have to fear losing another War of Roses and falling
alive at the hands of enemies?
I don't think Henry particularly feared LOSING another War of the
Roses so much as he feared his death without a male heir INITIATING
another civil war.

That such a civil war occured 100 years later cannot reasonably be put
to Henry's charge as the reasons were not directly dynastic in nature
- a monarch with the smarts of Henry himself or his youngest daughter
would have had no difficulty retaining his head!
Crown-Horned Snorkack
2007-07-16 14:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:35:17 -0700, Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
If Richard III had been grabbed alive on the field of Bosworth, or
picked up wounded and alive, would Henry VII have considered public
beheading of Richard? What would Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck have
done to Henry VII if taken prisoner?
Did Henry VIII have to fear losing another War of Roses and falling
alive at the hands of enemies?
I don't think Henry particularly feared LOSING another War of the
Roses so much as he feared his death without a male heir INITIATING
another civil war.
That such a civil war occured 100 years later cannot reasonably be put
to Henry's charge as the reasons were not directly dynastic in nature
- a monarch with the smarts of Henry himself or his youngest daughter
would have had no difficulty retaining his head!
Henry did, however, do certain things which caused the civil war 100
years later. Such as his handling of Crown finances.
The Horny Goat
2007-07-17 05:43:01 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:43:07 -0700, Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by The Horny Goat
That such a civil war occured 100 years later cannot reasonably be put
to Henry's charge as the reasons were not directly dynastic in nature
- a monarch with the smarts of Henry himself or his youngest daughter
would have had no difficulty retaining his head!
Henry did, however, do certain things which caused the civil war 100
years later. Such as his handling of Crown finances.
Do you mean his absolutist tendencies or do you specifically mean
something else?

Charles I was certainly no Henry VII or VIII and following the
Elizabethan era I seriously doubt the men of standing would have gone
for such a King in any case.
Crown-Horned Snorkack
2007-07-17 13:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:43:07 -0700, Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by The Horny Goat
That such a civil war occured 100 years later cannot reasonably be put
to Henry's charge as the reasons were not directly dynastic in nature
- a monarch with the smarts of Henry himself or his youngest daughter
would have had no difficulty retaining his head!
Henry did, however, do certain things which caused the civil war 100
years later. Such as his handling of Crown finances.
Do you mean his absolutist tendencies or do you specifically mean
something else?
Charles I was certainly no Henry VII or VIII and following the
Elizabethan era I seriously doubt the men of standing would have gone
for such a King in any case.
They almost did, in OTL. The crisis of 1625-1628 was neither
inevitable nor unforeseeable... it might have been averted or
resolved. Nor was the collapse of the absolutism of 1628-1640
inevitable.
The Horny Goat
2007-07-17 15:31:08 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:02:46 -0700, Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by The Horny Goat
Do you mean his absolutist tendencies or do you specifically mean
something else?
Charles I was certainly no Henry VII or VIII and following the
Elizabethan era I seriously doubt the men of standing would have gone
for such a King in any case.
They almost did, in OTL. The crisis of 1625-1628 was neither
inevitable nor unforeseeable... it might have been averted or
resolved. Nor was the collapse of the absolutism of 1628-1640
inevitable.
That's true on both counts. So do you agree that blaming Henry VIII
for the downfall of Charles I is a MAJOR stretch?
Crown-Horned Snorkack
2007-07-20 09:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:02:46 -0700, Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by The Horny Goat
Do you mean his absolutist tendencies or do you specifically mean
something else?
Charles I was certainly no Henry VII or VIII and following the
Elizabethan era I seriously doubt the men of standing would have gone
for such a King in any case.
They almost did, in OTL. The crisis of 1625-1628 was neither
inevitable nor unforeseeable... it might have been averted or
resolved. Nor was the collapse of the absolutism of 1628-1640
inevitable.
That's true on both counts. So do you agree that blaming Henry VIII
for the downfall of Charles I is a MAJOR stretch?
Not quite.

A source of the crisis of James I and Charles I was poor financial and
constitutional position of the English crown compared to the French
and Spanish crowns. Henry VIII was a big contributor here.
Tim
2007-07-22 03:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:35:17 -0700, Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
If Richard III had been grabbed alive on the field of Bosworth, or
picked up wounded and alive, would Henry VII have considered public
beheading of Richard? What would Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck have
done to Henry VII if taken prisoner?
Did Henry VIII have to fear losing another War of Roses and falling
alive at the hands of enemies?
I don't think Henry particularly feared LOSING another War of the
Roses so much as he feared his death without a male heir INITIATING
another civil war.
That such a civil war occured 100 years later cannot reasonably be put
to Henry's charge as the reasons were not directly dynastic in nature
- a monarch with the smarts of Henry himself or his youngest daughter
would have had no difficulty retaining his head!
Henry did, however, do certain things which caused the civil war 100
years later. Such as his handling of Crown finances.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
King Stephen's claim to the throne of England derived from his mother
Adela, daughter of William the Conqueror.
The Bensham Cunt
2007-08-13 09:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:35:17 -0700, Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
If Richard III had been grabbed alive on the field of Bosworth, or
picked up wounded and alive, would Henry VII have considered public
beheading of Richard? What would Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck have
done to Henry VII if taken prisoner?
Did Henry VIII have to fear losing another War of Roses and falling
alive at the hands of enemies?
I don't think Henry particularly feared LOSING another War of the
Roses so much as he feared his death without a male heir INITIATING
another civil war.
That such a civil war occured 100 years later cannot reasonably be put
to Henry's charge as the reasons were not directly dynastic in nature
- a monarch with the smarts of Henry himself or his youngest daughter
would have had no difficulty retaining his head!
Henry did, however, do certain things which caused the civil war 100
years later. Such as his handling of Crown finances.
Naturally everything we today had an effect on tomorrow.

The Bensham Cunt
David
2007-07-16 14:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
That such a civil war occured 100 years later cannot reasonably be put
to Henry's charge as the reasons were not directly dynastic in nature
Not directly, though lack of respect for a Scottish-born monarch by
the English Parliament may have played a small part in exacerbating
the tensions of '41-'42. However, the real culprit here is Henry's
religious revolution, and the consequent division of English society
into Catholic, Anglican, and various stripes of Puritan segments.
Factionalizing your society on issues that are ultimately not to be
decided by either logic or fact is an excellent recipe for civil war.
The wonder is that Elizabeth I and James I managed to keep a lid on
things for so long.

The political skills of James I are woefully underestimated by
historians, who seem as a class to have an aversion to that strange
man. He was mercilessly mocked in his own time, and history has been
no less kind; his priggishness, his eccentric displays of learning,
his weakness in matters of handsome young men, and of course his
Scottishness, all make him an easy target. What's rarely pointed out
is that he was by far the smartest and luckiest of the Stuarts; where
the rest of them were losing battles, getting blown up, being exiled,
or having their heads chopped off, James acquired two kingdoms four
times the size of his own, kept them at peace, and died in bed with
his crown on. And what more can one expect from a king?
AGw. (Usenet)
2007-07-16 16:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by The Horny Goat
That such a civil war occured 100 years later cannot reasonably be put
to Henry's charge as the reasons were not directly dynastic in nature
Not directly, though lack of respect for a Scottish-born monarch by
the English Parliament may have played a small part in exacerbating
the tensions of '41-'42. However, the real culprit here is Henry's
religious revolution, and the consequent division of English society
into Catholic, Anglican, and various stripes of Puritan segments.
Factionalizing your society on issues that are ultimately not to be
decided by either logic or fact is an excellent recipe for civil war.
The wonder is that Elizabeth I and James I managed to keep a lid on
things for so long.
It's entirely possible of course that the monarchies could've tried
retaining both countries as Roman Catholic and thus ended up causing a
different sort of civil war as an oppressed (and possibly radicalised)
Protestant minority revolted.
Post by David
James acquired two kingdoms four
times the size of his own, kept them at peace, and died in bed with
his crown on. And what more can one expect from a king?
Of course he also had a bash at governing without Parliament, something
his son is rightly lambasted for doing. So he sowed some of the seeds.
But 'tis true, that by no means necessitated civil war some years later.

Given the nature of religious division in the Europe of the day, I
suspect that almost whatever any given English or Scottish monarch had
done would've ended up with quite a bit of blood being spilled. The
only variables are whose, where, and when.
--
AGw.
address in header goes nowhere; replace "bottomless_pit" with "devnull"
The Horny Goat
2008-09-28 11:23:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by David
The succession of Henry VII is difficult. After the death of Edward
VI in 1553, the succession could not have gone to or through either
Mary I or Elizabeth, as neither had male offspring. The succession
could have gone through Margaret Tudor to James V of Scotland, had he
survived, but as he died in 1542 leaving an infant daughter, that line
of succession would be ruled out -- even if his daughter Mary (as she
did) eventually had male offspring.
Certainly Henry VIII was far more worried about civil war than about
the realm falling into the hands of a foreign monarch.
Equally it is likely Elizabeth might well have been less sanguine
about the son of Mary Queen of Scots had she given birth to an heir by
the French Dauphin. Scotland was somehow considered less foreign than
continental powers despite centuries of warfare between England and
Scotland. PARTICULARLY after Scotland became predominantly Protestant.
Mike stone
2008-09-28 12:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by David
The succession of Henry VII is difficult. After the death of Edward
VI in 1553, the succession could not have gone to or through either
Mary I or Elizabeth, as neither had male offspring. The succession
could have gone through Margaret Tudor to James V of Scotland, had he
survived, but as he died in 1542 leaving an infant daughter, that line
of succession would be ruled out -- even if his daughter Mary (as she
did) eventually had male offspring.
Certainly Henry VIII was far more worried about civil war than about
the realm falling into the hands of a foreign monarch.
Equally it is likely Elizabeth might well have been less sanguine
about the son of Mary Queen of Scots had she given birth to an heir by
the French Dauphin. Scotland was somehow considered less foreign than
continental powers despite centuries of warfare between England and
Scotland. PARTICULARLY after Scotland became predominantly Protestant.
In theory, persons of foreign birth were widely regarded as ineligible to
succeed to the Crown. Don't know what William the Conqueror would have said
to that, but so it was.

I'm not sure if it was a question of Scotland being thought less foreign, or
simply that it was a good deal smaller than England, so a union of crowns
would bring it under _our_ domination, rather than vice versa. The
interpretation of law depends an awful lot on whose ox is liable to be
gored.


--

Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

"Freddie experienced the sort of abysmal soul-sadness which afflicts one of
Tolstoy's Russian peasants when, after putting in a heavy day's work
strangling his father, beating his wife, and dropping the baby in the
reservoir, he turns to the cupboard, only to find the vodka bottle empty."

P G Wodehouse - Jill the Reckless

Graham
2007-07-13 21:33:06 UTC
Permalink
It might be argued on that basis that the legal precedent was that the
crown could pass *through* a woman if and only if she had a male heir
of the body living, but not *to* a woman or any female heir; which
precedent would not be clearly overturned until the accession of
Victoria, unmarried and without offspring, all previous successions of
women (Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II and Anne) having occurred under
special provisions enacted by Parliament.
It would be interesting to try that rule out in various cases of
controversial succession. It takes a bit more care than the actual
rule, because you have to check who was actually alive at the death of
each potential claimant; a son born to a next-in-line woman *after*
the death of the previous king or claimant wouldn't count.
The line from Lionel of Clarence to the Yorkist claimants seems to
work out well enough, as there was a male claimant alive upon the
death of each incumbent: Richard II 1400 > cousin 2ce removed Edmund
Mortimer 1425 > nephew Richard of York 1460 > son Edward IV.
After the deaths of Edward V and Richard of York, the succession would
indeed pass to Edward, Earl of Warwick, as none of Edward IV's
daughters had yet borne male children in 1483 (assuming this is the
date of the deaths of the King and Duke). On Warwick's death in 1499,
it would have passed to his sister's son, Henry Pole, Lord Montagu.
Where the line goes after that I don't know.
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00053951&tree=LEO
says he left a son, Henry (Junior), who 'was still in the
Tower at the end of September 1542, and, if not actually
executed, presumably died there, young and unmarried,
not long after.' The claim would then pass through Henry
Junior's elder sister Catherine Pole to her son, Henry Jun's
nephew, Lord Montagu's grandson and the Css of Salisbury's
great-grandson Henry Hastings, later 3rd Earl of Huntingdon.
All of whom lived to see him - there aren't all that many
cases of living great-grandparents in the royal family tree at
that time.
From him, see http://groups.google.co.za/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/ef8fa1f4712c2ee5?hl=en&
(though that post only covers the direct line, and ignores
now-extinct brothers.
There is a male line from the 3rd Earl's brother to the
death of the 10th Earl in 1789.
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00116215&tree=LEO
His nephew the 1st Marquess of Hastings was already
born, so the claim runs through the Mss's until the death
of the 4th in 1868. Again, the future 11th Earl of Loudon
was already born, so the claim goes to him till his death
in 1920. It then passes through his sister Paulyn Francis
Cuthbert Abney-Hastings (1856-1907) and her daughter
Edith Maud (12th) Countess (1883-1960) to the latter's
son Ian Huddleston Abney-Hastings, Lord Mauchline
(1918 - 1944). And by his death, the curent 'claimant'
Michael Edward 14th Earl of Loudoun (b. 1942) was alive.

So it all dovetails very neatly.
The main Lancastrian line seems to have gone extinct in 1471. Leaving
aside Henry IV's legitimized offspring, the Lancastrian succession
would, AFAICT, have gone to Affonso V of Portugal if non-English
claimants are allowed, otherwise to the Dukes of Exeter of the Holland
family.
The succession of Henry VII is difficult. After the death of Edward
VI in 1553, the succession could not have gone to or through either
Mary I or Elizabeth, as neither had male offspring. The succession
could have gone through Margaret Tudor to James V of Scotland, had he
survived, but as he died in 1542 leaving an infant daughter, that line
of succession would be ruled out -- even if his daughter Mary (as she
did) eventually had male offspring.
But NB that James V was not Margaret Tudor's only child.
She remarried after James IV's death, and produced Lady
Margaret Douglas, who in turn gave birth to a certain Lord
Darnley who was after Edward VI's death in 1553 HVII's only
male descendant. So the claim still goes to James VI of
Scots - just via his father rather than his mother.
In 1553, of the descendants of Mary Tudor, Duchess of Suffolk, Henry
Brandon was dead; Frances Brandon had only daughters, none of whom had
male children; Eleanor Brandon also had only a daughter, who had not
yet borne male children. As a result, there were no male heirs of
Henry VII alive in 1553, and going further abroad in search of a male
heir would have involved precisely determining Henry VII's claim to
the throne, which was always questionable. If the claims of his
children were (ex post facto) held to be in fact from Elizabeth of
York and Edward IV, then the succession would have gone to Edward
Courtenay, Earl of Devon, descended from Catherine of York, Edward
IV's youngest daughter.
Mike Stone
2007-07-14 06:53:47 UTC
Permalink
"Graham" <***@virgin.net> wrote
in message news:***@w3g2000hsg.goog
legroups.com...
On 11 Jul, 18:34, David
On Jul 11, 4:28 am, Alan Williams
It might be argued on that basis that
the legal precedent was that the
crown could pass *through* a woman if
and only if she had a male heir
of the body living, but not *to* a woman
or any female heir; which
precedent would not be clearly
overturned until the accession of
Victoria, unmarried and without
offspring, all previous successions of
women (Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II and
Anne) having occurred under
special provisions enacted by
Parliament.
It would be interesting to try that rule
out in various cases of
controversial succession. It takes a bit
more care than the actual
rule, because you have to check who was
actually alive at the death of
each potential claimant; a son born to a
next-in-line woman *after*
the death of the previous king or
claimant wouldn't count.
The line from Lionel of Clarence to the
Yorkist claimants seems to
work out well enough, as there was a
male claimant alive upon the
death of each incumbent: Richard II 1400
cousin 2ce removed Edmund
Mortimer 1425 > nephew Richard of York
1460 > son Edward IV.
After the deaths of Edward V and Richard
of York, the succession would
indeed pass to Edward, Earl of Warwick,
as none of Edward IV's
daughters had yet borne male children in
1483 (assuming this is the
date of the deaths of the King and
Duke). On Warwick's death in 1499,
it would have passed to his sister's
son, Henry Pole, Lord Montagu.
Where the line goes after that I don't
know.
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personI
D=I00053951&tree=LEO
says he left a son, Henry (Junior), who
'was still in the
Tower at the end of September 1542, and,
if not actually
executed, presumably died there, young and
unmarried,
not long after.' The claim would then
pass through Henry
Junior's elder sister Catherine Pole to
her son, Henry Jun's
nephew, Lord Montagu's grandson and the
Css of Salisbury's
great-grandson Henry Hastings, later 3rd
Earl of Huntingdon.
All of whom lived to see him - there
aren't all that many
cases of living great-grandparents in the
royal family tree at
that time.
Interestingly, istr that Huntingdon was
mentioed as a possible successor in 1562,
when Elizabeth I appeared to be dying of
smallpox. Of course he would have had at
least three other contenders to compete
with.


--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

My father rode a camel.
I drive a Rolls-Royce.
My son flies a jet aircraft.
My grandson will ride a camel.

Saudi Arabian proverb.
a***@hotmail.com
2007-07-19 23:52:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Even admitting her right, at the end of the day, Matilda was still
alive when Stephen died, and yet the crown passed not to her but to
her son Henry II --
Because she had, on leaving England in, I believe, 1147, renounced her
rights in his favor. Therefore it was not in her name but his own that
he led the invasion of 1153 that resulted in his being named Stephen's
heir, though Stephen had a living son.


just as Henry VII's crown passed to Henry VIII,
Post by David
though the "rightful heir", Elizabeth of York, was still alive.
No she wasn't. She died in 1503.

The fact is, with the exception of France and Scandinavia -- and
Aragon, but only after it had happened once and she herself had
abolished it -- every hereditary monarchy in Europe accepted female
succession at this time, and there was no reason to think England
would be different.

The situation was problematic because it meant she would probably
marry a foreign prince, which (to this day) is not a welcome thing in
any country, but it did happen.

Jean Coeur de Lapin
Don Aitken
2007-07-20 00:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by David
Even admitting her right, at the end of the day, Matilda was still
alive when Stephen died, and yet the crown passed not to her but to
her son Henry II --
Because she had, on leaving England in, I believe, 1147, renounced her
rights in his favor. Therefore it was not in her name but his own that
he led the invasion of 1153 that resulted in his being named Stephen's
heir, though Stephen had a living son.
just as Henry VII's crown passed to Henry VIII,
Post by David
though the "rightful heir", Elizabeth of York, was still alive.
No she wasn't. She died in 1503.
Indeed. But the Tudor claim was not traced through her at the time,
whatever later generations may have thought. It came through Henry
VII's mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, who survived her son by several
months, and was a spectator at her grandson's coronation procession.
She died on 5 July 1509. So the principle that the throne could pass
through but not to a female was indeed accepted, or at least acted on.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Graham
2007-07-20 22:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Indeed. But the Tudor claim was not traced through her at the time,
whatever later generations may have thought. It came through Henry
VII's mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, who survived her son by several
months, and was a spectator at her grandson's coronation procession.
She died on 5 July 1509. So the principle that the throne could pass
through but not to a female was indeed accepted, or at least acted on.
Hard to see any logical basis for HVII's claim. If the
Crown could pass through a female it would have arrived
with the Yorks via Anne Mortimer, while if it could not,
the Earl of Warwick (a Yorkist) was by that time the
last male Plantagenet.

Of course, I realise that HVII was of the General von
Klinkerhoffen school - 'My authority comes from this gun'.
David
2007-07-21 06:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by Don Aitken
whatever later generations may have thought. It came through Henry
VII's mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, who survived her son by several
months, and was a spectator at her grandson's coronation procession.
She died on 5 July 1509. So the principle that the throne could pass
through but not to a female was indeed accepted, or at least acted on.
Hard to see any logical basis for HVII's claim. If the
Crown could pass through a female it would have arrived
with the Yorks via Anne Mortimer, while if it could not,
the Earl of Warwick (a Yorkist) was by that time the
last male Plantagenet.
Of course, I realise that HVII was of the General von
Klinkerhoffen school - 'My authority comes from this gun'.
Among the more bizarre Lancastrian claims was that the claim of Henry
IV to the crown came, not through his father John of Gaunt (Edward
III's son) but through *Blanche of Lancaster*, his mother. She was
the heiress of the line of Earls and Dukes of Lancaster that started
with Edmund, brother of King Edward I.

This Lancastrian argument claimed that Edmund was not, as generally
assumed, the younger brother of Edward, but rather the *elder* brother
-- and had for some reason been passed over for his brother, while
remaining the "rightful king".

This was, of course, fiction, but it was one way of maintaining the
Lancastrian title to the throne while dismissing the March-York claim.

However, curiously enough, if the idea that the kingdom cannot be held
independently by a woman without male descendants is maintained,
Blanche would not have inherited the claim, as she seems to have had
no living male children upon her father's death. Instead, as far as I
can tell, it would have passed to her cousin John, Lord Mowbray.

Of course the scenario is fantastic, as neither Blanche nor her
contemporary relatives ever made or thought to make any claim to the
English throne.
Mike Stone
2007-07-21 12:27:37 UTC
Permalink
"Graham" <***@virgin.net> wrote
in message news:***@m3g2000hsh.goog
legroups.com...
On 20 Jul, 01:43, Don Aitken
Post by Don Aitken
Indeed. But the Tudor claim was not
traced through her at the time,
Post by Don Aitken
whatever later generations may have
thought. It came through Henry
Post by Don Aitken
VII's mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort,
who survived her son by several
Post by Don Aitken
months, and was a spectator at her
grandson's coronation procession.
Post by Don Aitken
She died on 5 July 1509. So the
principle that the throne could pass
Post by Don Aitken
through but not to a female was indeed
accepted, or at least acted on.
Hard to see any logical basis for HVII's
claim. If the
Crown could pass through a female it would
have arrived
with the Yorks via Anne Mortimer, while if
it could not,
the Earl of Warwick (a Yorkist) was by
that time the
last male Plantagenet.
Of course, I realise that HVII was of the
General von
Klinkerhoffen school - 'My authority comes
from this gun'.
That's pretty much how things had been for
the last 60 years. Unless the abortive
"accession" of Edward V be counted there
hadn't been a normal succession to the
throne since 1422, and only two since 1377.

In 15C England, the crown went pretty much
by

The good old rule, the simple plan
That they should take who have the power
And they should keep who can

and only in the 16C did things begin to
stabilise a bit.

--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

My father rode a camel.
I drive a Rolls-Royce.
My son flies a jet aircraft.
My grandson will ride a camel.

Saudi Arabian proverb.
The Horny Goat
2007-07-22 01:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Stone
That's pretty much how things had been for
the last 60 years. Unless the abortive
"accession" of Edward V be counted there
hadn't been a normal succession to the
throne since 1422, and only two since 1377.
In 15C England, the crown went pretty much
by
The good old rule, the simple plan
That they should take who have the power
And they should keep who can
I'm working on a scenario which has Queen Elizabeth dying in 1603 as
per history but with the Stuarts disqualified from the throne. In the
absence of the Stuarts who would have been the heir?

I'm guessing it would have been one of the Seymours but who? Likely
some fairly heavy power politics - I don't see a foreign monarch -
does anyone see any other likely candidates?
William Reitwiesner
2007-07-22 01:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Mike Stone
That's pretty much how things had been for
the last 60 years. Unless the abortive
"accession" of Edward V be counted there
hadn't been a normal succession to the
throne since 1422, and only two since 1377.
In 15C England, the crown went pretty much
by
The good old rule, the simple plan
That they should take who have the power
And they should keep who can
I'm working on a scenario which has Queen Elizabeth dying in 1603 as
per history but with the Stuarts disqualified from the throne. In the
absence of the Stuarts who would have been the heir?
I'm guessing it would have been one of the Seymours but who? Likely
some fairly heavy power politics - I don't see a foreign monarch -
does anyone see any other likely candidates?
See http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/castlehaven.html
Rogered
2007-07-26 09:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Mike Stone
That's pretty much how things had been for
the last 60 years. Unless the abortive
"accession" of Edward V be counted there
hadn't been a normal succession to the
throne since 1422, and only two since 1377.
In 15C England, the crown went pretty much
by
The good old rule, the simple plan
That they should take who have the power
And they should keep who can
I'm working on a scenario which has Queen Elizabeth dying in 1603 as
per history but with the Stuarts disqualified from the throne. In the
absence of the Stuarts who would have been the heir?
I'm guessing it would have been one of the Seymours but who? Likely
some fairly heavy power politics - I don't see a foreign monarch -
does anyone see any other likely candidates?
Seehttp://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/castlehaven.html
Billy why did Henry VIII prefer descendants of his younger sister to
succeed as opposed to those of his elder sister ?

Rogered
Mike Stone
2007-07-26 09:42:12 UTC
Permalink
"Rogered" <***@bigpond.net.au> wrote in
message news:***@x35g2000prf.go
oglegroups.com...
On Jul 22, 11:53 am, William Reitwiesner
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
<***@4ax.com>
,
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by The Horny Goat
I'm working on a scenario which has
Queen Elizabeth dying in 1603 as
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by The Horny Goat
per history but with the Stuarts
disqualified from the throne. In the
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by The Horny Goat
absence of the Stuarts who would have
been the heir?
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by The Horny Goat
I'm guessing it would have been one of
the Seymours but who? Likely
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by The Horny Goat
some fairly heavy power politics - I
don't see a foreign monarch -
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by The Horny Goat
does anyone see any other likely
candidates?
Seehttp://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/ca
stlehaven.html
Billy why did Henry VIII prefer
descendants of his younger sister to
succeed as opposed to those of his elder
sister ?
He was probably just anti-Scottish - he had
been at war with Scotland twice in his
reign - and assumed that a Scots monarch
wouldn't bwe accepted by his xenophobic
subjects.


--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

My father rode a camel.
I drive a Rolls-Royce.
My son flies a jet aircraft.
My grandson will ride a camel.

Saudi Arabian proverb.
The Bensham Cunt
2007-07-27 13:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by Don Aitken
whatever later generations may have thought. It came through Henry
VII's mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, who survived her son by several
months, and was a spectator at her grandson's coronation procession.
She died on 5 July 1509. So the principle that the throne could pass
through but not to a female was indeed accepted, or at least acted on.
Hard to see any logical basis for HVII's claim. If the
Crown could pass through a female it would have arrived
with the Yorks via Anne Mortimer, while if it could not,
the Earl of Warwick (a Yorkist) was by that time the
last male Plantagenet.
Of course, I realise that HVII was of the General von
Klinkerhoffen school - 'My authority comes from this gun'.
Thank you Graham. That was the original precept for my query. Henry
VII had a claim to the throne but not in terms of the genealogical
succession. In which case he usurped the throne. Not that this
mattered much after decaded of the War of the Roses.

The Bensha Cunt
The Horny Goat
2007-07-20 02:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
The situation was problematic because it meant she would probably
marry a foreign prince, which (to this day) is not a welcome thing in
any country, but it did happen.
In the modern day this was solved by having Betty Windsor marry a
"Greek" but no one ever thought the Battenburgs were remotely in the
first rank of royal houses by then.
Stan Brown
2007-07-20 13:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
No she wasn't. She died in 1503.
The fact is, with the exception of France and Scandinavia -- and
Aragon, but only after it had happened once and she herself had
abolished it -- every hereditary monarchy in Europe accepted female
succession at this time,
Really? Even the German principalities?

And how do you list Scandinavia as an exception, with Margrethe I as
an example? Granted, she wasn't *titled* Queen, but she was the ruler
and had a unique title to connote it. (I think we might argue that
she wasn't called Queen because as far as Scandinavia knew, "Queen"
meant the non-ruling consort of a King.)
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
JennyB
2007-07-12 14:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by The Bensham Cunt
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Rich Rostrom
What prevents Henry's triumph?
Well by all accounts Bosworth was a fairly close run thing. It was
decisive because Richard died. Henry could have been killed or Richard
survive even a defeat.
Ken Young
I guess my original question revolves around that very point. if
Richard had of fact been the victor at Bosworth how would the
succession have panned out ? Who would have succeeded Richard > Would
it have been Katherine of Devon, sister to Edward V ? Katherine had
children with the Earl of Devon.
The Bensham Cunt
If Richard III had won, and had been able to beat down the many
subsequent rebellions that would have arisen against his unpopular
rule, then his successors would probably have been his children by his
second wife, whoever she would have been.
Had Richard III remained childless, the plan was for the succession to
go to the Earl of Lincoln, John de la Pole, his sister's son. In
order to make his succession legal, Richard had had to pretend that
all of the children of his brother were illegitimate, so succession
through any of them was out (as it would have delegitimized him).
That left his siblings' children.
The first in line, theoretically, were the children of George, Duke of
Clarence: Edward, Earl of Warwick, and Margaret Pole, Css. of
Salisbury. Edward was in line for the succession for awhile, but
Richard eventually deemed him unfit and excluded him from the
sucession; he also passed over Margaret.
There was a Channel 4 (UK) programme in 2003 based on the proposition
that Edward IV really was illegitimate. It traced the line of
succession from the Duke of Clarence down to the present-day "Micheal
I," of Jerilderie, New South Wales.

Of course, that assumes that everyone is born and dies as in OTL.

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/i-m/monarchtree.html
Crown-Horned Snorkack
2007-07-10 06:50:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by The Bensham Cunt
This little fantasy has tickled me that past few days. As I only have
intermittent access to the www it is tough one for me to crack.
1487?
Henry Tudor was crowned in 1485.
What prevents Henry's triumph?
If Henry is defeated at Bosworth, then
Richard stays on. He will marry again,
and possibly beget a son.
If not... His designated heir in 1485 was his
nephew John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln. Pole
submitted to Henry VII after Bosworth, and
renounced his claim, but in 1487 he joined
a rebellion in the name of Edward, son of
the Duke of Clarence, who was impersonated
by Lambert Simnel. Pole was KIA. His two
younger brothers maintained
By strict primogeniture, the succession went
to the daughters of Edward IV, then the son
and daughter of Clarence, then any children
of Richard III, then John de la Pole, whose
mother was the eldest daughter of Richard of
York, i.e. Richard III's eldest sister.
Clarence's son Edward was imprisoned in the Tower,
and was apparently retarded.
Suppose that Henry is defeated at Stoke.

Who are around to claim the crown?

The anointed and triumphant King of Ireland and obviously England,
Edward. Then in his early teens, inexperienced AND probably impostor
Lambert Simnel.

The REAL Edward of Clarence found in Tower. Also early teens,
inexperienced and probably retarded.

John de la Pole. 23 years old, appointed heir by Richard III and
leader of the triumphant army - BUT he had renounced his claims
repeatedly, on submitting to Henry and again by serving Lambert Simnel
instead of leading the rebellion in his own name.

And then there is Prince Arthur, the then ten month old son of dead
usurper.

Whan next?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...