The Staffords replace the Tudors?

[Deleted member 204809]

Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester is the much forgotten fifth son of Edward III. Richard II would arrest Woodstock for plotting against him and he would be murdered awaiting trial. His only son Humphrey, 2nd Earl of Buckingham died of illness. However, like his brothers Clarence and Lancaster (and possibly York) his lineage did live on: his daughter Anne would marry the Earl of Stafford, whose son Humphrey Stafford campaigned with Henry V and was a key member of Henry VI's regency, being elevated to Duke of Buckingham for his efforts. He would be killed protecting Henry VI before he was captured after the Battle of Northampton.

His eldest son died of the plague two years earlier so the Buckingham dukedom passed onto his grandson. The 2nd Duke of Buckingham is perhaps more famous, allying himself with Richard III, being a primary suspect for the Princes in the Tower, before leading an unsuccessful rebellion in support of Henry Tudor in 1483 after which he was executed.

However, the 1st Duke of Buckingham had a second son named Henry Strafford who was the third husband of... Margaret Beaufort. Apparently they had quite a happy marriage. Obviously, they had no issue. Following the death of his father, he made peace with Edward IV, actually became a Yorkist, and fought at the Battle of Barnet despite suffering from a skin disease which made him extremely ill in the later years of his life. He would be severely injured in the battle and die of his wounds a couple months later.

Lets imagine an alternative scenario, in which Edmund Tudor does not choose to consummate his marriage with twelve year-old Margaret Beaufort. Therefore, Henry VII is never born and Margaret never goes through the traumatic pregnancy and birth which made her infertile. Moreover, lets say that the 2nd Duke of Buckingham dies as an infant, meaning Henry Stafford (without the skin condition) instead succeeds his father. In fact, lets have the Duke of Buckingham not die, and instead survive the Battle of Northampton. As a respected elder statesman, I suspect Edward IV would have trouble executing him or confiscating his lands. What's more, Henry Stafford's mother was Anne Neville, sister of Cecily Neville, which means Stafford is actually cousins with Edward IV.

Henry Stafford (b. 1425: d. (?) m. Margaret Beaufort (b. 1443: d. 1509) *
1. Edward Stafford b. 1463
2. Elizabeth Stafford b. 1464
3. Henry Stafford b. 1464
4. Anne Stafford b. 1468
5. Humphrey Stafford b. 1470
* based upon the children of the 2nd Duke of Buckingham OTL

There are a number of scenarios that could play out which see the Staffords get the throne. You could have it rest on the Battle of Barnet. They can side with the Lancasters, participate in the complete destruction of the Yorkists, and then presumably get the throne if Edward of Westminster dies prematurely; or they can side with the Yorkists, and similar events play out like in our timeline, except Buckingham's rebellion in 1483 is in fact a rebellion against Gloucester for Edward Stafford's claim on the throne. Or even further back before Edward IV takes the throne have the Lancasters triumph: with the Duke of Buckingham's influence on Henry VI the Staffords could possibly be placed in the line of succession. Or, in an alternate scenario to this one, Margaret Beaufort still manages to have a child with Stafford while still having Henry VII (you could even have Henry Stafford inherit nothing and keep OTL 2nd Duke of Buckingham alive), and presumably Henry Tudor's heir until he has children will be his half-brother.

 

[Tyler96]

Worth noting that in addition to their connection to the Yorkists and basically half the kingdom through the prolific Nevilles, the Staffords have some other important relations - by her second marriage Anne of Gloucester was mother to Cardinal and Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Bourchier and Earl of Essex and Treasurer Henry Bourchier, and her Bourchier descendants were in general quite prolific (her other two Bourchier sons nabbed Baronies, one by marriage and one by creation).

There are a number of scenarios that could play out which see the Staffords get the throne.
1) You could have it rest on the Battle of Barnet. They can side with the Lancasters, participate in the complete destruction of the Yorkists, and then presumably get the throne if Edward of Westminster dies prematurely;
2) or they can side with the Yorkists, and similar events play out like in our timeline, except Buckingham's rebellion in 1483 is in fact a rebellion against Gloucester for Edward Stafford's claim on the throne. 3) Or even further back before Edward IV takes the throne have the Lancasters triumph: with the Duke of Buckingham's influence on Henry VI the Staffords could possibly be placed in the line of succession.

1) Presumably you'd want Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter, to die at Barnet in this scenario. He was not particularly competent, well-liked or well-regarded, but as a legitimate English-born descendant of John of Gaunt his claim is not easy to disregard. If you dispose of him the claim of this line goes to the Neville Earls of Westmoreland (Ralph, 3rd Earl, being a son of Exeter's aunt Anne Holland), though they never seem to have raised this IOTL.

You could possibly circumvent this issue by having Exeter's daughter survive and marry *Edward Stafford, thus making their children the legitimate Lancastrian heirs (excluding foreigners) in the event of Edward of Westminster's death.

2) Would it, though? OTL Buckingham was Richard's major supporter in his play for the throne - there's no guarantee Richard's seizure of power goes the same with a different Duke of Buckingham.

And it would kinda be a bad look for *Edward to support Richard and then immediately turn on him to try and claim the throne for himself - though this may have been what Buckingham had in mind IOTL, and obviously you can spin it as being absolutely horrified at the murder of the Princes. Conversely, I'm not sure Richard would trust *Edward - arguably the premier Lancastrian candidate ITTL - to the same extent as he did Buckingham IOTL, and that could significantly effect the maneuvering.

If Richard doesn't have a Duke of Buckingham entirely onside, then he's making a play for power with an even more slender support base than OTL and will be even more reliant on his own northern clients.

3) The issue with this is that with Edward defeated before taking the throne there'll still be loads of male Beauforts around, high in Henry's favour, and perhaps angling for their own place in the succession. I know Margaret Beaufort represented the senior line - but not sure that counts for much when the line you're dealing with is illegitimate and previously barred from the throne.

Also Exeter is still around.

 

[Deleted member 204809]

1) Presumably you'd want Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter, to die at Barnet in this scenario. He was not particularly competent, well-liked or well-regarded, but as a legitimate English-born descendant of John of Gaunt his claim is not easy to disregard. If you dispose of him the claim of this line goes to the Neville Earls of Westmoreland (Ralph, 3rd Earl, being a son of Exeter's aunt Anne Holland), though they never seem to have raised this IOTL.

You could possibly circumvent this issue by having Exeter's daughter survive and marry *Edward Stafford, thus making their children the legitimate Lancastrian heirs (excluding foreigners) in the event of Edward of Westminster's death.

I did forget about Exeter: yes, he would have to die at Barnet.

2) Would it, though? OTL Buckingham was Richard's major supporter in his play for the throne - there's no guarantee Richard's seizure of power goes the same with a different Duke of Buckingham.

And it would kinda be a bad look for *Edward to support Richard and then immediately turn on him to try and claim the throne for himself - though this may have been what Buckingham had in mind IOTL, and obviously you can spin it as being absolutely horrified at the murder of the Princes. Conversely, I'm not sure Richard would trust *Edward - arguably the premier Lancastrian candidate ITTL - to the same extent as he did Buckingham IOTL, and that could significantly effect the maneuvering.

If Richard doesn't have a Duke of Buckingham entirely onside, then he's making a play for power with an even more slender support base than OTL and will be even more reliant on his own northern clients.

I hadn't considered how devious the Buckinghams would look in such a scenario and how they would be perceived by the Yorkists. Perhaps it would be interesting then if they thwart Gloucester's scheming and become the primary power behind the throne during the regency?

3) The issue with this is that with Edward defeated before taking the throne there'll still be loads of male Beauforts around, high in Henry's favour, and perhaps angling for their own place in the succession. I know Margaret Beaufort represented the senior line - but not sure that counts for much when the line you're dealing with is illegitimate and previously barred from the throne.

Also Exeter is still around.

I suppose the influence of the elder Duke of Buckingham would come into play there--as you wrote, we are dealing with a line which is illegitimate to the throne, and Margaret is both the heir of the senior line and by far has the most power in the kingdom with the backing of her husband (at least, I believe so). Again, culling Exeter would be beneficial.

Moreover, if we are going by purely agnatic succession, then wouldn't the Staffords have a strong claim, irrespective of Margaret Beaufort? If the Yorkists are totally wiped out (or claims of Richard of Conisburgh's bastardry are taken seriously) then wouldn't the agnatic claim pass to the Staffords, if the legitimate Lanacsters are all dead, as then all the male line Plantagenets are dead, and technically Humphrey, 2nd Earl of Buckingham (son of Thomas of Woodstock) lived a couple months longer than John of Gaunt, meaning the agnatic claim would pass to the children of his sister? Therefore, if Edward of Westminster were to die, then the agnatic claim would be inherited by the Staffords, as if there are no living males left it passes through the most recent males closest relative?
EDIT: No it wouldn't, actually, it would go through John of Gaunt's daughters as Henry IV would still inherit.
EDIT: Gaunt died in Feb 1399. 2nd Earl of Buckingham Sep 1399. Say Henry IV died childless immediately after being coronated, so Oct 14 1399. I think Buckingham's sister would actually be his heir. If you ignore the Yorks, agnatically Buckingham would have inherited the throne if he survived longer in such a scenario. Therefore, if Edward of Westminster died, then it would pass through the progeny of Buckingham's sister?

 

[Tyler96]

Moreover, if we are going by purely agnatic succession, then wouldn't the Staffords have a strong claim, irrespective of Margaret Beaufort? If the Yorkists are totally wiped out (or claims of Richard of Conisburgh's bastardry are taken seriously) then wouldn't the agnatic claim pass to the Staffords, if the legitimate Lanacsters are all dead, as then all the male line Plantagenets are dead, and technically Humphrey, 2nd Earl of Buckingham (son of Thomas of Woodstock) lived a couple months longer than John of Gaunt, meaning the agnatic claim would pass to the children of his sister? Therefore, if Edward of Westminster were to die, then the agnatic claim would be inherited by the Staffords, as if there are no living males left it passes through the most recent males closest relative?
EDIT: No it wouldn't, actually, it would go through John of Gaunt's daughters as Henry IV would still inherit.
EDIT: Gaunt died in Feb 1399. 2nd Earl of Buckingham Sep 1399. Say Henry IV died childless immediately after being coronated, so Oct 14 1399. I think Buckingham's sister would actually be his heir. If you ignore the Yorks, agnatically Buckingham would have inherited the throne if he survived longer in such a scenario. Therefore, if Edward of Westminster died, then it would pass through the progeny of Buckingham's sister?

I'm not sure it's all clearly laid down legally and it is probably more of a might makes right scenario, but the Staffords are ultimately descended via a female line from Edward's youngest son - there's plenty of people around descended in the female line from the older sons, even if you wipe out the actual Lancastrians and Yorkists.

If Henry IV was childless and died immediately after being coronated I don't see how Buckingham's sister would be his heir?

• If you accept a claim passing through a woman, there's Henry's nephews via John of Gaunt's legitimate daughters- the Portuguese children of Philippa (though arguably excluded as foreigners), and the Holland children of Elizabeth.
• If you accept a purely agnatic succession, then there's Edmund of York and sons.

Also, Richard II is still alive and in captivity, and presumably in with some chance of a comeback if Henry croaks immediately after being crowned (can easily spin as divine punishment for usurpation, etc).

Maybe the easiest way to get a Stafford on the throne is to contrive a scenario where Humphrey, Earl of Buckingham becomes the only male-line descendant of Edward III left standing (i.e. Henry IV and Edmund of York's sons are childless), and manages to get the throne on this basis- then Humphrey is himself also childless, but over the course of a long reign he manages to secure the throne for his Stafford nephew?

 

[Deleted member 204809]

I'm not sure it's all clearly laid down legally and it is probably more of a might makes right scenario, but the Staffords are ultimately descended via a female line from Edward's youngest son - there's plenty of people around descended in the female line from the older sons, even if you wipe out the actual Lancastrians and Yorkists.

If Henry IV was childless and died immediately after being coronated I don't see how Buckingham's sister would be his heir?

That was me just contriving a hypothetical scenario to make the point easier to understand. If there are no Yorks (because this scenario assumes the Yorks are wiped out), and Henry IV died childless, because Buckingham lived longer than Gaunt he was the last male line Plantagenet alive. Therefore, when Henry IV dies, it would pass through the last living male’s closest relative, which would be his sister, legally. I don’t know really, I was just putting it out there to see if I could further bolster Stafford’s claim.