As far as I’m aware, that’s one of the reasons RIII took the throne: George’s line has been barred from the throne on his attainder…
Henry VII dies shortly after taking the English throne
- Thread starter KaiserWilhelm
- Start date
He was not. The attainder makes no mention of the throne in the attainder, though Titulus Regius claims it does.
Because he can be married to Elizabeth of York to booster his claim and win over the Edwardians and can be a puppet King for the Lancastrians.
Didn’t Richard have him placed under house arrest to ensure no one got their hands on him?
This is true, though I don’t think it hinders him that much as a claimant. Few if anyone actually saw Henry VII as a claimant in the 1470s, yet look what happened in the 1480s.
1. They pretended he was Warwick because they couldn’t access the real deal? 2. I am not sure if they’d have actually put him on the throne, I have seen some say it was all a ruse to put John de la Pole on the throne.
I mean, Warwick was in the Tower and under high guard, it would’ve been hard to access him. Plus, there was a real attempt to convince people that Perkin was actually Richard (iirc some people believe he was to this day), so I’d imagine a few people thought it was actually him.
Exactly, plus there was the alleged plot to free him.
Isn’t this evidence that Richard didn’t ignore Edward of Warwick?
But why would they want a puppet child king instead of just wedding one of their own -- like Jasper, an adult who is a tested commander with a well of personal support -- to Elizabeth? Henry VI had already signaled that he favored the Tudor brothers as his heirs before the birth of Westminster, after all. This plan just seem unnecessarily complicated to justify extending the Plantagenet line another generation or more.
What happens if John de La Pole can set his wife aside and marry Elizabeth of York? Would those two together be able to unite the Yorkists, at least long enough to push the Lancastrians down and out and manage a child or two to provide a secure succession?
Grey Wolf
Donor
Well, wasn't he Richard III's declared heir? Kingship is to the male, here, so the fact that Elizabeth has a claim only works as to who she marries - Henry VII, but he is now dead.
Lincoln was able to invade in 1487 after raising forces. Here, you could see forces come out for him, as the only other sensible heir is Warwick, who is locked in the Tower and who might be seized upon by the Tudors as an option, but who has no following in his own right
I have thought about Jasper trying to claim the throne, but I am not sure if he’d have the support for it. Then again if he marries Elizabeth of York (and he wouldn’t need a dispensation so the marriage could happen asap) I guess he could survive, after all, the Edwardians will support him as a result and the Lancastrians don’t have better options. It’d be interesting to see if they have any kids, given Jasper didn’t have any with Catherine Woodville in otl, though they could have been Catherine’s problem.
If John was able to marry Elizabeth then he’d probably get the crown. Though they would need a dispensation which might cause an issue (and he used by their opponents to claim any of their children are illegitimate). I could also see the Lancastrians suddenly ‘discovering’ that Elizabeth is indeed a bastard and consequentially is ineligible for the throne. Though, I’d expect the Lancastrians to be defeated in this scenario, unless a disastrous battle sees John de la Pole and his brothers killed before John and Elizabeth can have a child together.
Because the throne is so unstable right now that it's safer being the power behind the throne than the one in the actual hot seat. Jasper would make an excellent regent for an underaged king or queen (since it means the Lancastrians get a few years to reward their followers), but I think he'd be smart enough to know that such naked opportunism as marrying his nephew's betrothed won't likely carry him very far in the long run. I don't know if he's ambitious (or arguably stupid) enough to advance himself to royal status, even if offered it, given how bad it'll make him look in comparison to everyone with actual, credible claims.
... Simnel's story was that he was Warwick, not Edward V/Richard of Shrewsbury?
Think this has come up before- whilst the Wiki has this putative Thomas Beaufort down as 1442-1517, my newer version of Weir's book has him dying young ''before 1463.''
Reasonable to think he's off the table by 1485, if he existed at all.
Yeah, Thomas Beaufort’s existence seems highly unlikely and his survival up until the 1510s seems even more unlikely. Why would Edward IV let the son of his Father’s arch nemesis live that long? Why did Thomas Beaufort never make a run for the throne? It seems like something that was made up completely to me.
Surely not Catherine's problem as she had children in her other marriage but Jasper was already quite old when he married her
Though as he has no English Royal blood, his claim is purely jure uxoris. So if he still dies in 1495, presumably the throne reverts to EoY and whoever becomes her second husband.
Jasper Tudor is the son of a French princess/English queen. His claim is jure uxoris, but he'll likely predecease his wife, and if they had sons by then the issue is moot
It could’ve been, her first three children were all born in quick succession of one another which could have affected her fertility. Plus her third husband had ten kids, but has none with Catherine. Though it being Jasper’s problem or simply bad luck are more likely.
The ONLY way in which Simnel’s story could work is if he was claiming to be Edward V AND Henry VII was trying to conceal that
Unless he tries to shore up his claim as by conquest, gift of God, election of Parliament, etc.
Henry VII's original claim was by conquest.
As for the other two: why not just have Elizabeth as suo-jure queen with him as consort?
Because this is 1480s England.if the Edwardians wouldn't do it for Liz, the Lancastrian wouldn't do it for Maggie B OTL, why would they suddenly go "that's a spiffing idea" here?