• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Henry VI dead without heir

OwenM

The patronising flippancy of youth
Moderator
Location
Colwyn Bay/Manchester
Pronouns
He/him
Fairly sure there was a thread on this on AH.com, but can't remember details.
What happens if Henry dies in one of his episodes before Edward's conception, (or before his birth leading to a the Queen miscarrying)?
Presumably York claims the throne, and the Queen and Somerset look for someone, anyone else (the obvious choice being Somerset himself), but what next?
 
Fairly sure there was a thread on this on AH.com, but can't remember details.
What happens if Henry dies in one of his episodes before Edward's conception, (or before his birth leading to a the Queen miscarrying)?
Presumably York claims the throne, and the Queen and Somerset look for someone, anyone else (the obvious choice being Somerset himself), but what next?
York is the obvious claimant (and the legal heir), but the Queen won't wear that, and Somerset is indeed the obvious person to head "The Queen's Party", even if the Beaufort line are barred from inheritance (don't tell Harry Tudor).

Richard of York is a prickly so and so, and can turn friends into enemies very quickly. One of my lecturers summed it up as "people work with Richard; nobody actually likes him" with the Salisbury.

However, Somerset is incredibly unpopular. Not only is he hated as grasping and over-promoted by Henry, he's also the one who lost France for the final time. This makes him incredibly unpopular with nobles and commons alike. The fall of Normandy cost a lot of the aristocracy quite a lot of money. Henry was widely rumoured to have made sure to compensate the likes of Somerset. If he did this, he did before paying what he owed to Richard of York from his time as Captain of Normandy.

Unless one side can force the issue with a fait accompli, there'll be some sort of struggle. Maybe a First St Albans analogue; maybe a war.

We can't look at England in isolation though. James of Scotland isn't going to let this chance slide. Moreover, France and Burgundy need to be considered. Every time the throne changes hands in the WotR, one of those powers is involved, to some extent. One would assume that France would back the Queen, and Burgundy York, but if we're in the period of bickering between Charles VII and Louis the Dauphin, it may not be that simple.

Interesting thoughts. Maybe Henry collapses and dies when he hears news of Castillon, rather than collapsing into catatonia? Maybe that's too neat, though. Dieing the moment his father's glories are finally destroyed feels very cliche.
 
Interesting thoughts. Maybe Henry collapses and dies when he hears news of Castillon, rather than collapsing into catatonia? Maybe that's too neat, though. Dieing the moment his father's glories are finally destroyed feels very cliche.

I mean he collapsed into catatonia historically, so clearly it did really affect him, and that's borderline cliché as it is.
 
I mean he collapsed into catatonia historically, so clearly it did really affect him, and that's borderline cliché as it is.
One of my lecturers summed up the period thus:

"A national crisis occurred when news of Castillon reached the king; he collapsed into a catatonic state."

He then explained the regency, and the bickering between Margaret and York, before continuing,

"Then, the crisis became a fully blown disaster. Henry recovered."
 
It's worth noting here the chain of events that led to there being no heir to hand in 1453 closer than Richard of York - ie the failure of Henry V's brothers (Henry VI's uncles) to provide any heirs. If they had done so, there could have been a different form of civil war after 1453. For that matter, if Henry V had lasted longer than August 1422, aged 35 or 36, and not died in an epidemic during a minor siege in France he could well have provided a younger brother for Henry VI. The latter was born a year after his parents, Henry V and Catherine of Valois, married and Catherine was to have at least four, possibly five children by her second husband Owen Tudor so she was evidently fertile. Also, the peace-treaty between England and the beleagured regime of Charles VI of France at Troyes in 1420 that arranged the Henry/ Catherine marriage was supposed to end the war so if Henry had not faced unexpected resistance from French dissidents and been away from court leading a siege he would have been unlikely to die so soon after his wedding.

More children would probably be born; a second son, born c. 1423, could then succeed Henry VI in 1453 and though England (and France) had never had an accepted female ruler as of the 1420s a daughter could arguably pass on her rights to England to her son as the English crown passed via females to a male - Henry II in 1154, and Edward VI tried to do this (to Jane Grey) in 1553. The French crown could not pass to a woman, but Edward III and Henry V had both claimed it as passing via a woman to a man, ie via Edward III's mother Isabella (sister of king Charles IV, d 1328). If Henry V had a daughter alive in 1453, would this have caused chaos in the law-courts over her , or her son's, claim to both realms? If Henry V had had only a son (H VI) and a daughter and the latter had been married off to a European ally of his (in the Holy Roman Empire as his real-life ally?) in the 1430s or 1440s and had a son by 1453, would this have led to a different sort of English civil war in the 1450s? English barons would then resist an overseas heir, launch a coup, and choose York as the new king instead? if so, York's wife's kin the Nevilles under her brother Lord Salisbury were the likely leaders for this.

Henry V's next brother Thomas, Duke of Clarence, was married (Margaret Holland) but was killed aged 24 in the Anglo-French war at Bauge in 1421 before he could have sons; if he had had any they would have been Henry VI's heirs. Similarly, the third brother, Duke John of Bedford (d 1435 aged 46), had no children by either his first wife Anne of Burgundy or his second, Jacquetta of St Pol (of the semi-royal house of Luxembourg). He was probably infertile, as Jacquetta then had ten or eleven children by her next husband Sir Richard Woodville (including York's son Edward IV's future wife Elizabeth and Richard III's future victim Anthony, Earl Rivers). Similarly, Henry V's youngest brother Duke Humphrey of Gloucester (1390 - 1448) had no children by his first wife, Countess Jacqueline of Holland, or his second, Eleanor Cobham. But if he had done so and they had been Henry VI's heirs, these would have faced a legal challenge (from York?) and possible civil war - Jacqueline's divorce from her previous husband was disputedly legal and Humphrey's enemies at court forced him to divorce the 'socially inferior' ex-lady-in-waiting Eleanor after she was convicted and exiled to the Isle of Man on a dubious charge of witchcraft. So if Humphrey had left an heir this could have led to a different civil war in the 1450s as his enemies, led by the Beauforts, tried to insist that any child of his was a bastard.

Another possibility - what if Henry V has two sons before he dies, at a later date than OTL such as during the real-life siege of Orleans in 1428-9 or in an exhausting attempt to overrun the anti-English French enclave S of the Loire after taking Orleans? Does one (Henry VI) have England and the other France, to reassure English elite objections to a merger of the two crowns causing England to have to pay for and send troops to prop up an unpopular and shaky regime in Paris? And if the English king of France is then driven out by the French , as in OTL happened to Henry VI's government there in 1450-3, does he blame England for abandoning him, return to England, and when Henry has his catatonic attack in 1453 demand the regency and later try to depose him?
 
Henry V's next brother Thomas, Duke of Clarence, was married (Margaret Holland) but was killed aged 24 in the Anglo-French war at Bauge in 1421 before he could have sons; if he had had any they would have been Henry VI's heirs.

Also worth noting that any sons of Thomas and Margaret Holland would be younger half-brothers of the Beauforts, so there could be some interesting dynamics there.
 
I can't recall if Arthur , Humphrey's 'illegitimate' son, was by Eleanor or not. However at the time of her trial the wise-woman who she was accused of consulting about a potion to improve her chances of conceiving, Margaret Jourdan, was accused or a plot to provide Humphrey with a legitimate heir. This would mean that if Arthur was her son she and Humphrey were not married at the time he was born, and any son that Humphrey had by this point (by her or anyone else) was legally a bastard.

Legally, Humphrey could have had a bastard son of his legitimated by Act of Parliament and so enabled to inherit property, had he had enough elite support and the approval of King Henry to let such an Act be passed - as his grandfather John of Gaunt had got Parliament to legitimate his Beaufort bastards in 1396. But the latter had been excluded from any right to the Crown, so it is unlikely that any illegitimate son of Humphrey would have been given such a right in law, even before his relations with Henry deteriorated in the early 1440s - and York and the Beauforts would probably have tried to block it. By the time Eleanor was apparently trying to get pregnant in the early 1440s Humphrey was regarded with hostility by the King, who is said to have feared a coup or murder by him, and this was being encouraged by H's Court foes.
 
Unless one side can force the issue with a fait accompli, there'll be some sort of struggle. Maybe a First St Albans analogue; maybe a war.

The difference being that Richard is the rightful King in this scenario, so it might be his enemies who disperse at the most inopportune moments because it wouldn't do to raise up arms against the king himself.
 
Another possible scenario for the succession to Henry Vi ending in a civil war arises from the 'What Ifs' of his replacement Edward IV's overthrow by Warwick 'the Kingmaker' in autumn 1470 on Henry's behalf. By this point Henry (now aged 48/9), always known for being suggestible and strongly influenced by overbearing court favourites such as the Duke of Suffolk in the 1440s, seems to have lost any sense of political initiative and been seen as a 'puppet' of his Queen and advisers. He had been out of court affairs and any need to show leadership since his overthrow in March 1461, initially shunted off to Lancastrian- held Northumberland castles while his wife Margaret ran their defence and sought French/ Scots aid in 1461-2, then 'on the run' in the North of England in disguise in 1462-5, and then captured by Edward IV and shut up in the Tower of London. Possibly his mental condition had worsened, due to the stress of prolonged insecurity in fear of capture in 1462-5 then being shut up; after his recall to the throne in aut 1470 he did not make any impact on politics and was seen as the puppet of the domineering Warwick and the latter's brothers, John Neville the Marquis of Montague and Archbishop George Neville of York. So there's little liklihood of him being an effective ruler even if Warwick defeats and kills Edward IV as the latter invades in March 1471 - in OTL Edward killed Warwick at the battle of Barnet, Archbishop Neville handed Henry over to him to save his own skin and his future employment, and Henry was found dead in suspicious circumstances once Edward had defeated and captured Henry's wife Margaret at Tewkesbury on 4 May.

In reality Edward thus disposed of both Warwick and Margaret, the likely leaders of a surviving and victorious Lancastrian regime had one of them defeated and killed Edward instead. Edward only had a few hundred men and was vastly outnumbered when he landed despite being a good general , so his victory was due to Lancastrian desertions - first the earl of Northumberland (head of the Percies, hereditary rivals of Warwick's Nevilles) and Warwick's own brother Montague failed to tackle him quickly after he landed in Yorkshire, then he was rejoined by his previously defecting brother Duke George of Clarence. Had any of these three intercepted Edward before he had raised many men or had Clarence joined Warwick, his father-in-law, then Edward would probably have lost to Warwick at Barnet. He nearly did in real life, but one wing of Warwick's army under the Earl of Oxford chased Edward's opposite wing off the battlefield then returned in thick fog and were shot at by Warwick's men who mistook their flag (a star) for Edward's ( a sun). Alternatively, the victorious but exhausted Yorkists could have then failed to catch Margaret as she returned to England with her French army (too late to help Warwick due to adverse winds earlier) and she could have joined up with the Welsh Lancastrians under Jasper Tudor in time - instead Edward caught her up and dealt with her alone. Two unlikely victories?

So if Warwick wins at Barnet and kills Edward, he is left in control of the ailing Henry's regime but with problems. He and Margaret are old foes and hate each other, not least as Margaret's men killed his father, brother and uncle at Wakefield in 1460 and he helped to kill Margaret's close ally (and alleged ex-lover) Somerset at St Albans in 1455. The latter and other killings put him at feud with Margaret's allies the Beauforts. His elder daughter Isabel is married to the unreliable and greedy Clarence, who broke with Edward in 1470 presumably over his trying to insist on being Edward's heir rather than E's daughter (Elizabeth) by Elizabeth Woodville. (Edward's son Edward V was born while Edward IV was in exile.) With Henry VI restored that means that Henry's son Edward of Westminster, disinherited in1460-1 as a bastard in an Act of Parliament that alleges Margaret is an adulteress - another reason why she hates Warwick -is restored as heir, and that stops Clarence's hopes of the crown. At best Clarence is 'reserve heir' after Edward. But Edward is a strong-willed and allegedly violent young man , married to Warwick's younger daughter Anne, and he and Clarence are likely to end up at odds.

Also, once Henry becomes totally unable to govern he needs a regent/ Protector - and once Margaret's son
Edward, born autumn 1453, becomes fully adult (18?) he is the legal next adult male heir and so can claim this role. He is likely to struggle for control of power with Clarence , and Margaret will back her son and could use this to get rid of her rival Warwick for good. So which of his sons-in-law does Warwick back - Clarence or Prince Edward? And who do the Beauforts back? What of Jasper Tudor, now strongman in Wales, and his nephew Henry Tudor , b 1457 (OTL Henry VII) - he claims the earldom of Richmond and the next Lancastrian heir rights after Prince Edward so he's a rival to Clarence, and the latter is holding some of his earldom's estates which he will want back.

So when Henry dies or becomes totally incapacitated, do we end up with a civil war or a war-preventing coup that involves Warwick, Prince Edward , Clarence and Henry/ Jasper Tudor? Does Edward (or Margaret on his behalf) get rid of Warwick, or Warwick get rid of them and install 'King George' (Clarence) and Queen Isabel? And if Edward IV's brother Richard (OTL Richard III) was not killed in the 1471 invasion but is lurking abroad in Flanders with his sister Duchess Margaret of Burgundy , does Clarence or Warwick recall him and appeal to the other surviving Yorkists for help? And if Clarence wins ,aided by Warwick as W fears Margaret more, does his death later (1490s or 1500s?) leave his allegedly 'mentally weak' son Edward of Warwick (b 1475) on the throne at risk of another power-struggle?
 
Going back to this, which would be more likely to back Margaret?
I'm perfectly happy to be corrected, but I suspect Louis would back whoever Charles doesn't, simply because Charles is on the other side. Bit Hannoverian, those two.
 
To add to the possible long-term complications for the Plantagenet dynasty, as the cash-strapped government of Henry VI was trying to buy Charles VII off from invading Normandy in 1442-4 - the negotiations which eventually led to Henry marrying Charles' niece Margaret of Anjou- Richard of York intervened with his own offer. At this point he was the English commander-in-chief and governor in Normandy, had successfully fought back the recent French attempts to attack it, but was short of men and money and under no illusions about Normandy's likely fate if Henry (which also meant Henry's overbearing and greedy principal minister, the Duke of Suffolk, and his allies the Beauforts) put more money into the war. They were unwilling to do this, preferring to spend it on court extravagance and buying support in the English elite, and the weak-willed Henry was spending too much money on building King's College Chapel (Cambridge) and Eton College to pay for a major war too. The Beauforts were not yet inclined to abandon the war and give up Normandy to France, which Charles was clearly aiming at in the long term, but their own separate military command in Maine (S of Normandy, currently held by England too) in the early 1440s was keeping troops and money from going to York and reducing his chances of holding out - and they had Henry on their side to insist they not York got the majority of men and money.

York's solution was to propose to Charles that C marry off his only suitable unmarried younger daughter, Jeanne (born prob. 1430), to York's son and heir Edward (born April 1442, later King Edward IV), either as part of or separately from Henry VI marrying Margaret of Anjou. This - which Charles did not follow through - would hopefully ally York and Charles; it seems unlikely to have come to fruition given that Charles wanted to regain Normandy and York to hold onto it, but once Henry recalled York from Normandy and sent him off to Ireland as governor in 1448 York was 'out of the loop' in court politics and could not interfere as Henry and Suffolk tried to buy Charles off with Maine but later faced him o
 
Cont from above...

later faced him invading and taking Normandy too (1449-50). This would have broken any alliance between York, who was now a ferocious critic of Charles VII for attacking Normandy despite his earlier promises of peace and of Henry/ Suffolk for not supplying Normandy with more men in time to stop the invasion, and France. As of 1450, York's son Edward was too young (7-8) to have married Jeanne (possibly as old as 19, but one source has her born in 1434 do only 15) before the crisis. The marriage would be in cold storeage if not cancelled, and in real life Jeanne was married off to Duke John of Bourbon in 1452.

But it is possible that either York would seek a new alliance with Charles once he was in control of the English government as 'Protector' in 1454-5, to stop Charles from using his link to York's foe Queen Margaret to back his rivals the Beauforts and send French troops to help a revolt. Or he would do this in 1460 once he had escaped Margaret's attack on him at Ludlow in 1459, fled abroad with Edward, and returned to power in 1460 as Protector/ regent. The fewer powerful allies Margaret had the better, and York could have revived the marital alliance plan by asking for Charles' remaining unmarried daughter Marguerite (b Dec 1443) who was more Edward's age anyway. The main prop of Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou's overseas allies, James II of Scotland (son of a Beaufort), had recently been killed by an exploding cannon besieging Roxburgh Castle, his son's regency only gave them minor help, and French aid to Henry would be more risky and costly. Could Charles, always cautious (eg in not risking Church criticism by trying to have his saviour Joan of Arc posthumously exonerated of heresy for many years) and wary of spending cash, have agreed - to cut his losses or at least put out a feeler to York in case the latter was now in power long-term and Henry VI, now in hiding in Northumberland/ Cumbria, was a lost cause?. That way, Edward probably marries Marguerite either before York is killed by the Lancastrians (Dec 1460) or after Edward has defeated them and seized power (March -April 1461), when as Charles was dead his son Louis XI would have to approve the match.

Long-term results: Edward is married before he meets Elizabeth Woodville so the latter cannot hope to be Queen and is at best his mistress. There is no question of him having what Richard III and his partisans denounced in June 1483 as an 'illegal secret marriage' to EW in 1464 - supposedly due to a 'legally valid betrothal ceremony to Eleanor Talbot that makes any subsequent marriage to EW illegal' c. 1462. There is no question-mark over the legitimacy of Edward's children when he dies in 1483; therefore Richard has no reason to hope that he can depose Edward's son Edward V and bastardise him and his siblings. At best, R is Protector and regent - and if he has been targeting his court rivals (who in this scenario do not include his nephew's kin, as the new King is not half-Woodville but half-French) he could end up executed by their allies later.

Arguably, as there is no rumour that the Woodville marriage is illegal Edward's next brother George of Clarence has no reason to go around in 1477 hinting loudly that Edward's children are bastards and he is the legal heir to the throne; therefore he is unlikely to be arrested for treason, condemned and quietly murdered (in a vat of wine or not). Only if Clarence is angry enough at Edward banning him from marrying Mary, the heiress of Burgundy, after his wife Isabel Neville dies does he challenge Edward and end up dead; if he is alive he, not Richard, has the right to be regent in 1483. So do we end up with him and Richard fighting over the regency?
Or if Edward IV has married as early as 1455 (aged 13 - just possible) or more likely in 1460-2, he could have a son by Marguerite born c. 1463. (Edward V was born Nov 1470 in OTL). The 'alternative Edward V' is thus an adult by 1483, there is no need for a regency and the Yorkist cause is not fractured into pro- and anti-Ricardians. Edward V stays on the throne, and Henry Tudor stays in exile permanently; and would Richard have been side-tracked into a larger version of his real-life 1482 invasion of Scotland to replace James III with his brother Alexander and have been out of politics in London long-term as he tries and fails to subdue Scotland for his puppet-king?
 
Back
Top