4th Duke of Exeter

[jefferypendragon]

In 1461 Henry Holland has a son let say named, John Holland, with his wife Anne of York. Richard still usurps the Throne 1483. Now we have a Nephew of Richard who has a strong Yorkish claim to throne, who also has a stronger Lancastrian claim then Henry Tudor.

Does he support his usurping uncle Richard III? Does Henry Tudor still make an armed claim to the throne, and if yes would he still succeed with a stronger Lancatrian claimant? Does this put enough doubt that Richard would continue to Reign until natural death? Or is homage given to a John II?

 

[Jonathan]

Would John Holland be as cruel, savagely temperamental or unpredictable, as his father, Henry?

Or does Anne of York and her brother, King Edward have Henry murdered and Thomas St. Leger raise the young Duke.

 

[Amelikite]

Being the heir in closest line to the throne, doesn't make a person the leading claimant. There were a number of possible Lancastrian candidates who had a right to cclaim the Throne. Even Richard, besides being a Yorkist, also had a Lancastrian claim.
At the time of Bosworth, Richard was in negotiations to put one of the best candidates on the throne as his consort, if he had succeeded this would have made it as difficult for Lancastrian claimants as Elizabeth of York made it for Yorkists.
So John Holland if he was going to launch a bid would need to be quick about it.

 

[Amelikite]

The other relevant point here is the battle of Bosworth itself. Richard was reasonably successful at not disrupting his Brothers administration when he took over, which meant that he had the larger force at Bosworth and he had the assistance of the Howard's, and of Henry Percy,
The problem however was the Stanley's who were present and chose to be neutral during the early stages of the battle.
Margaret Beaufort was of course Henry's mother and Baron Stanley's s wife. If The Duke of Exeter, rises in rebellion, a problem would be, what would King Thomas do, support the Holland claimant, stay neutral or support Richard?

 

[jefferypendragon]

Would John Holland be as cruel, savagely temperamental or unpredictable, as his father, Henry?

Or does Anne of York and her brother, King Edward have Henry murdered and Thomas St. Leger raise the young Duke.

Let us assume he is more like his mother's family.

Being the heir in closest line to the throne, doesn't make a person the leading claimant. There were a number of possible Lancastrian candidates who had a right to cclaim the Throne. Even Richard, besides being a Yorkist, also had a Lancastrian claim.
At the time of Bosworth, Richard was in negotiations to put one of the best candidates on the throne as his consort, if he had succeeded this would have made it as difficult for Lancastrian claimants as Elizabeth of York made it for Yorkists.
So John Holland if he was going to launch a bid would need to be quick about it.

Richard's claim is worse then Henry Tudor's. What specific lancastrian consort was he looking at?

The other relevant point here is the battle of Bosworth itself. Richard was reasonably successful at not disrupting his Brothers administration when he took over, which meant that he had the larger force at Bosworth and he had the assistance of the Howard's, and of Henry Percy,
The problem however was the Stanley's who were present and chose to be neutral during the early stages of the battle.
Margaret Beaufort was of course Henry's mother and Baron Stanley's s wife. If The Duke of Exeter, rises in rebellion, a problem would be, what would King Thomas do, support the Holland claimant, stay neutral or support Richard?

Your forgot to mention the Woodvilles would they support Exeter? Would of he ended up married to his cousin just like Henry Tudor did? Would Henry Tudor of supported his adult male Lancastrian with a superior claim? Henry only got Lancastrian support because he was the only adult male with a viable Lancastrian claim, with a 4th Duke of Exeter he wouldn't be. So would he have supported Exeter to get his title and lands back ?

 

[Tyler96]

Richard's claim is worse then Henry Tudor's. What specific lancastrian consort was he looking at?

At the time of his death Richard was pursuing a marriage with Joanna, Princess of Portugal, who was a great-great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt by his eldest daughter Blanche. As such, the Portuguese House of Aviz were the senior (legitimate) Lancastrian claimants- the Exeters descended from Gaunt's second daughter Elizabeth and the Castilian Trastamaras from his third daughter Catherine.

The other relevant point here is the battle of Bosworth itself. Richard was reasonably successful at not disrupting his Brothers administration when he took over, which meant that he had the larger force at Bosworth and he had the assistance of the Howard's, and of Henry Percy

Isn't Henry Percy's loyalty in doubt, considering he failed to engage in the battle at all? Though it has been theorised that he didn't have time to commit his troops before Richard went off on his brave, albeit foolish' charge.

 

[Janprimus]

(...)

Richard's claim is worse then Henry Tudor's. What specific lancastrian consort was he looking at?
(...)

He had a weaker Lancastrian/Beaufort claim, but he certainly had the stronger legitimate Plantagenet claim (the Beaufort claim is more disputable than the undisputed legitimate Lancastrian claim).

 

[jefferypendragon]

At the time of his death Richard was pursuing a marriage with Joanna, Princess of Portugal, who was a great-great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt by his eldest daughter Blanche. As such, the Portuguese House of Aviz were the senior (legitimate) Lancastrian claimants- the Exeters descended from Gaunt's second daughter Elizabeth and the Castilian Trastamaras from his third daughter Catherine.



Isn't Henry Percy's loyalty in doubt, considering he failed to engage in the battle at all? Though it has been theorised that he didn't have time to commit his troops before Richard went off on his brave, albeit foolish' charge.

The marriage to Joanna might of went through but I would put two arguments against her claim: She was descendant and princess of a foreign house, you might argue that Blanche gave up her claim upon becoming the Queen of Portugal; Joanne was not the heir to Blanche, her brother was.

At this point in time there was no precedent to a foreign claim to the throne, and a woman, at least in the Lancastrian view, had no right to throne in her own right, her son did. So, Lancastrian might not of accepted her as a valid Lancastrian, therefore not increasing Richard's claim at all. Then again they might of accepted, it all would of depended on how hard they were looking for an alternative to Richard.

 

[Just a Rube]

Yeah, the Portuguese claim was never taken seriously. By that point, the Lancastrians more or less had accepted the Beaufort claim, which, if valid, clearly trumps a descent from John of Gaunt's daughter. And no one would rally to a foreign princess (especially when there was no precedent for female rulers in England to that point).

If Holland wanted to stake his own claim, the presence or absence of a Portuguese claimant wouldn't make a difference. That's doubly true since, like Henry Tudor, his army would almost certainly be made up mostly of alienated former Yorkists with a beef with Richard, rather than Lancastrian diehards (of whom there were very few left by the 1480s).

 

[jefferypendragon]

Yeah, the Portuguese claim was never taken seriously. By that point, the Lancastrians more or less had accepted the Beaufort claim, which, if valid, clearly trumps a descent from John of Gaunt's daughter. And no one would rally to a foreign princess (especially when there was no precedent for female rulers in England to that point).

If Holland wanted to stake his own claim, the presence or absence of a Portuguese claimant wouldn't make a difference. That's doubly true since, like Henry Tudor, his army would almost certainly be made up mostly of alienated former Yorkists with a beef with Richard, rather than Lancastrian diehards (of whom there were very few left by the 1480s).

Then my fictional John Holland's Yorkish claim would of helped him a lot with alienated Yorkists. He would of been considered Heir Presumptive to Richard III considering his cousin Edward Earl of Warwick was considered barred from the throne do to his father's attainder.

 

[Amelikite]

At the time of his death Richard was pursuing a marriage with Joanna, Princess of Portugal, who was a great-great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt by his eldest daughter Blanche. As such, the Portuguese House of Aviz were the senior (legitimate) Lancastrian claimants- the Exeters descended from Gaunt's second daughter Elizabeth and the Castilian Trastamaras from his third daughter Catherine.



Isn't Henry Percy's loyalty in doubt, considering he failed to engage in the battle at all? Though it has been theorised that he didn't have time to commit his troops before Richard went off on his brave, albeit foolish' charge.

I don't think any one knows where Henry Percy's loyalties lay. Accounts of the battle were written after Richard was dead, and its reasonable to think that Percy was probably trying to play down any signs of loyalty to Richard. The story of the battle has Northumberland, with his forces to the rear of Richard, it would have been hard for him to maneuver his troops around or through the middle of Richards forces towards the enemy, this seems unlikely as wikipedia puts it "due to the standards of drill at the time".
What can be said, is that Percies forces turned up at Richards command, and marched to battle with his army.
Richards charge, was due to the peculiar behaviour of Henry Tudor, it would have seemed a good idea at the time.

 

[Tyler96]

The marriage to Joanna might of went through but I would put two arguments against her claim: She was descendant and princess of a foreign house, you might argue that Blanche gave up her claim upon becoming the Queen of Portugal; Joanne was not the heir to Blanche, her brother was.

I don't think anyone expected all Lancastrians to just go 'yeah, well Joanna's a senior Lancastrian claimant, so we're cool with her being Queen' and, y'know, stop plotting and live happily ever after with Richard. There were people who were implacably opposed to Richard III and would cause trouble no matter what.
It was more that it couldn't hurt to bolster Richard's claim with a wife of Lancastrian blood (the same principle that saw Tudor marry Elizabeth of York), and allow him to say 'look, my wife is a legitimate Lancastrian whilst Henry Tudor is some base born Welsh nobody'.

At this point in time there was no precedent to a foreign claim to the throne, and a woman, at least in the Lancastrian view, had no right to throne in her own right, her son did. So, Lancastrian might not of accepted her as a valid Lancastrian, therefore not increasing Richard's claim at all. Then again they might of accepted, it all would of depended on how hard they were looking for an alternative to Richard.

Whether or not a woman has any right to the throne is kinda irrelevant (though Matilda and the anarchy does set a negative precedent)- Joanna was being brought over to be a Queen-Consort who would bear royal children that could plausibly claim to be scions of both Lancaster and York.

As for the foreign claim thing- yes, England was insular and xenophobic. But Henry Tudor was pretty foreign- he was Welsh patrileaneally, a quarter French, had spent half his life overseas in France and Brittany, and was backed by foreign mercenaries- yet he succeeded in taking the throne.

And, in any case, the Iberians still have a better claim than Henry Tudor- sure, maybe you could say Blanche and Catherine implicitly renounced their rights when they married overseas (though the inverse certainly wasn't true- Isabella of France certainly wasn't considered to have renounced her claim to the French throne when she married a foreign monarch, and the English spent 116 years pushing her claim), but Henry Tudor's Beaufort line had been explicitly barred from the throne by letters-patent of Henry IV.

 

[jefferypendragon]

I don't think anyone expected all Lancastrians to just go 'yeah, well Joanna's a senior Lancastrian claimant, so we're cool with her being Queen' and, y'know, stop plotting and live happily ever after with Richard. There were people who were implacably opposed to Richard III and would cause trouble no matter what.
It was more that it couldn't hurt to bolster Richard's claim with a wife of Lancastrian blood (the same principle that saw Tudor marry Elizabeth of York), and allow him to say 'look, my wife is a legitimate Lancastrian whilst Henry Tudor is some base born Welsh nobody'.



Whether or not a woman has any right to the throne is kinda irrelevant (though Matilda and the anarchy does set a negative precedent)- Joanna was being brought over to be a Queen-Consort who would bear royal children that could plausibly claim to be scions of both Lancaster and York.

As for the foreign claim thing- yes, England was insular and xenophobic. But Henry Tudor was pretty foreign- he was Welsh patrileaneally, a quarter French, had spent half his life overseas in France and Brittany, and was backed by foreign mercenaries- yet he succeeded in taking the throne.

And, in any case, the Iberians still have a better claim than Henry Tudor- sure, maybe you could say Blanche and Catherine implicitly renounced their rights when they married overseas (though the inverse certainly wasn't true- Isabella of France certainly wasn't considered to have renounced her claim to the French throne when she married a foreign monarch, and the English spent 116 years pushing her claim), but Henry Tudor's Beaufort line had been explicitly barred from the throne by letters-patent of Henry IV.

Henry Tudor was an English Nobleman.

Elizabeth of York was the Heiress of a Edward IV, different the being heiress presumptive to the Heir apparent to the Heir of Blanche. Big difference, Henry would of never of been accepted as king without her.

The Beaufort children were all specifically fully legitimized by act of Parliament and only barred from the throne by letters patent ten years later, their claim was tainted, but the letters patent might of been illegally barring them from the throne.

Just because the French throne allows foreign succession didn't mean the English throne did, two separate legal systems. And you might not consider the English king might not of been foreign under french law, him being a french nobleman and all. Obviously the french saw him that way, but legally even if the french outlawed foreign succession the english king's claim could of still been valid. This is probably why the french made up the rule barring transmission of succession through females, even though traditional law allowed it.

 

[Amelikite]

Henry Tudor was an English Nobleman.

Elizabeth of York was the Heiress of a Edward IV, different the being heiress presumptive to the Heir apparent to the Heir of Blanche. Big difference, Henry would of never of been accepted as king without her.

The Beaufort children were all specifically fully legitimized by act of Parliament and only barred from the throne by letters patent ten years later, their claim was tainted, but the letters patent might of been illegally barring them from the throne.

Just because the French throne allows foreign succession didn't mean the English throne did, two seperate legal systems.

Actually Henry Tudor never claimed the throne in right of his wife, as a Lancastrian claimant, that would have undermined his claim.

 

[jefferypendragon]

Yeah he claimed the throne by right of conquest, but he still wouldn't of been accepted as king without her, and he knew it.

 

[Amelikite]

Where is that written? Does that mean that if Henry had invaded and discovered that Richard had already married her off to some one else that Henry would have turned around and gone back to France?
Also regardless of any claim about the Beaufort children. the Portuguese Royal family were still the senior Gaunt line, and as tyler points out any children would have had a better claim to the throne than Henry, as well as undermining any Legalest support for Henry's bid.

 

[Tyler96]

To return to the topic at hand- if we say John is more like his mother's family, and stays in Anne's custody following her separation from Exeter, it is reasonable to suggest that they will inculcate some loyalty to the House of York.

Then, the big issue is where his loyalties lie in 1483- his uncle Richard or his cousins- and this, in large part, rests on his relationship with the Woodvilles (who had a habit of pissing people off).

Is it possible that he has a Woodville marriage forced upon him? IOTL his sister Anne wed to Thomas Grey Marquess of Dorset and the Woodvilles did manage to snap up basically every marriage opportunity they could. The youngest Woodville sister, Catherine (IOTL Duchess of Buckingham) was born in 1458 so... If such a thing happens it could turn him off the Woodville clan (IOTL Buckingham nursed a lifelong resentment for being forced to marry the lowly Catherine), or he might actually like his in-laws.

It's probably worth noting that Anne's second husband Thomas St Leger was executed for participating in Buckingham's rebellion. So, if John is close with his step-father (assuming Anne and Thomas still marry ITTL) that could push him away from Richard.

Now, if he doesn't get along with Richard he might claim the throne himself (did Exeter show any royal pretensions in the fees years between 1471 and his own death IOTL?). He is, perhaps, a better bet than Henry- both because of his stronger claim and the fact that he's spent his life in England building up contacts/friendships/clients whatever (whereas Tudor's spent the last 14 years in exile), there might also be a marriage alliance somewhere (any candidates, other than Woodville's?). That said, if people remember his...tempestuous father that might count against him.

He might also get drawn into whatever the hell Buckingham was doing- initially rebelling in favour of the princes, then when they're (allegedly) killed having to make up a new plan. Though such a haphazard rebellion is unlikely to be successful (it turned out terribly IOTL).

If he stays loyal to Richard he might be given some responsibilities (as his similarly-aged cousin Lincoln was) and Henry Tudor will still make a play- between his remorselessly ambitious mother and all the out of favour Woodvilles and other disaffected Yorkists who need a new horse to hitch themselves to.

Now, IOTL Richard kinda-sorta named Lincoln his heir, but does he still go for this if he has another adult nephew (and a son of his eldest sister). If he bumbles this it could alienate both of them to some degree. That said, butterflies could easily dictate that Edward of Middleham survives and that makes this a non-issue.

Does having another major peer onside change Richard's fate? If it doesn't and Richard still dies John could very well be involved in the rebellions and plots of the de la Poles and various impostors and such (though they might not get along if they dispute who should be Richard's heir). He could submit to Tudor, but Henry's likely to treat him coldly and see him as a threat and perhaps take any possible opportunities to eliminate him (Tudor had no qualms about executing poor, helpless Warwick on dubious pretences).

 

[jefferypendragon]

The reason Henry got some Yorkist support was because of his betrothal to Edward IV's daughter. The reason he didn't have constant rebellions was because he was married the senior Yorkish heiress.

I believe at the time in history having heirs in front heirs in her own line with superior claim then her would of made her claim cloudy, she was not representative heir of Philippa, her brother was. Henry Tudor was the representative heir of John Beaufort, a clear line. You could still argue that Henry Tudor's claim was superior to Joanna, if not the King of Portugal -- unless it was illegal for foreigner's to claim the throne, or Philippa de facto renounced her claim be marrying a foreign king.

My part is it might slightly, very slightly undermind Henry legalist claim, but not much.

 

[jefferypendragon]

He might also get drawn into whatever the hell Buckingham was doing- initially rebelling in favour of the princes, then when they're (allegedly) killed having to make up a new plan. Though such a haphazard rebellion is unlikely to be successful (it turned out terribly IOTL).

Could of Buckingham's rebellion of been successful if he had a senior male royal, who could of immediately been declared King upon the Princes in the Towers deaths? It might of stemmed the tide of desertions and attracted a few lancastrians? The rebellion might of been a lot stronger with a secondary plan of John II instead of Henry Tudor marrying Elizabeth of York and becoming King.

 

[Tyler96]

Could of Buckingham's rebellion of been successful if he had a senior male royal, who could of immediately been declared King upon the Princes in the Towers deaths? It might of stemmed the tide of desertions and attracted a few lancastrians? The rebellion might of been a lot stronger with a secondary plan of John II instead of Henry Tudor marrying Elizabeth of York and becoming King.

I think that depends on what Buckingham's motives are- and they're murky as hell. I mean, they has to be some overarching ambition here- Richard had rewarded him very lavishly and he was essentially the king's right hand man- if said ambition was to attain the throne himself, using the princes as a pretext, then having a fellow adult male rebel with a superior claim is unwelcome.

If it was a matter of genuinely wanting to liberate/restore the princes, and then when he finds out they're dead he desperately casted around for another claimant and eventually settled on Tudor, then supporting John is reasonable because he's a better candidate than Henry.

Whether it's successful probably depends on how personable and competent John is and whether he can actually hold an army together long enough to actually face the king in the field. Though if there is a battle you'd expect the older, more militarily experienced Richard to be successful (though that was true of Bosworth as well).

The reason he [Henry] didn't have constant rebellions was because he was married the senior Yorkish heiress.

Look, I agree that marrying Elizabeth did smooth over Henry's assumption of power and gain him the support (or tolerance) of many Yorkists (particularly the Woodvilles and their affinity).

But he was still massively insecure- and he did face constant rebellions and plots. There's Lambert Simnel and Stoke; Perkin Warbeck, who launched multiple rebellions and was a massive nuisance for the entirety of the 1490s; Richard de la Pole was making abortive invasion plans with his buddy Francis I as late as 1523.

At least initially, these were far from impossible and had the support of notable figures like Lincoln and Thomas Fitzgerald (brother to the Earl of Kildare) in Simnel's rebellion; Viscount Lovell and the Stafford brothers rebelled in 1486; William Stanley, who had (probably) saved Henry by his intervention at Bosworth was executed in 1495; Maurice Fitzgerald Earl of Desmond supported Warbeck at the siege of Waterford in 1495(?); James IV invaded (ostensibly, he was self-interested) in Warbeck's favour in 1497; you had Margaret of York Dowager Duchess of Burgundy supporting anyone challenging Tudor. Some of these, arguably, were no less likely to succeed than Tudor's own invasion in 1485.

The fact that people (ostensibly) bought and plotted on behalf of the impostors shows that Elizabeth wasn't necessarily considered the Yorkist heir[ess]. So, Henry's marriage to Elizabeth certainly didn't prevent Yorkist plotting and he did face several rebellions- hell, if Henry VIII believed he was the legitimate Yorkist heir through his mother he wouldn't of ruthlessly persecuted the Pole family whose only crime was being friendly with Mary and being related to the exiled Reginald (indeed Henry went after anyone with Plantagenet blood- Buckingham in 1520, Edmund de la Pole in 1513). Beheading a harmless 67-year old who had committed no crime is hardly the action of someone who was secure in their belief in their own right to the throne.