Was Henry VII's mother a Plantagenet?

Jul 2017
421
Memphis
Considering her father's mother was the mistress of her father's father when her father was born and her father's father married her father's mother after his wife died, was Henry VII's mother a Plantagenet?

If the "rules" were observed could Elisabeth of York's son, if she had one, be entitled to be king if he were her husband's son regardless of who her husband was?
 

MAGolding

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,942
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Considering her father's mother was the mistress of her father's father when her father was born and her father's father married her father's mother after his wife died, was Henry VII's mother a Plantagenet?
I am not going to try to answer that question completely. I would have to figure out what it says first.

Partial answer:

Henry VII's mother Margaret Beaufort was a member of the family that used the surname Beaufort. By the time that Henry Tudor became Henry VII in 1485 some members of the English royal family used the surname Plantagenet.

Obviously people with the surname Beaufort are not people with the surname Plantagenet. Therefore one can say that by definition Henry VII's mother was a Beaufort and not a Plantagenet.

But of course the Beaufort family was a branch of the Plantagenet Dynasty. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, had four illegitimate children with Catherine Swynford, who were legitimated by their parents's later marriage and by decrees the Pope and the English parliament, though there was some controversy whether they were entitled to inherit the throne.

So yes, Henry VII's mother was a Plantagenet.

If the "rules" were observed could Elisabeth of York's son, if she had one, be entitled to be king if he were her husband's son regardless of who her husband was?
Who is this Elizabeth of York? Do you mean Elizabeth (1466-1503) daughter of King Edward IV and Queen and wife of Henry VII?

If so, the answer is yes. This particular Elizabeth became the rightful Queen Regnant of England the moment the second of her two brothers died - whenever that was. Her right to be queen regnant of England was just as strong as that of Elizabeth II, Victoria, Elizabeth I, Mary I, Mary Queen of Scots, or Empress Matilda.

And if she married and had a son of legitimate birth that son's right to succeed her as king of England in 1503 was just as strong as that of Charles Prince of Wales, Edward VII, King James VI of Scotland, or Henry II.

And the status of the father of her son was totally irrelevant. Her son's claim to the throne would be totally from her side of the family and not increased at all by her husband's status or ancestry.

The right of Prince Charles to inherit the UK throne is based on him being the rightful heir of his mother the present Queen. It has absolutely nothing to do with his father Prince Philip's theoretical place in line to the throne of the UK. There are probably a few hundred people closer to the throne than Prince Philip.

So in order for Prince Charles and his descendants to inherit the throne of the UK from Charles's father Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh everyone with a higher place in the line of succession than Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh would have to die. And that includes Prince Charles and his descendants.

Though it is easy and in fact legally mandated for Prince Charles and his descendants to inherit the throne of the UK from Charles's mother Queen Elizabeth II, they would have to die first along with hundreds of other persons in order to inherit the throne of the UK from Charles's father Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh. And dead people can't inherit the throne.

Thus it is impossible for Prince Charles and his descendants to inherit the throne of the UK from his father Prince Philip instead of from his mother Queen Elizabeth II.

And the same rules of succession apply to the children of Elizabeth of York (1466-1503) the daughter of Edward IV and wife of Henry VII.
 
Last edited:

notgivenaway

Ad Honorem
Jun 2015
5,745
UK
He had to have been, to have held any claim to the throne. He was a Lancastrian, who purposely united his cadet house with his wife's (York) to create the Tudor house, and end the Wars.
 

MAGolding

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,942
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
He had to have been, to have held any claim to the throne. He was a Lancastrian, who purposely united his cadet house with his wife's (York) to create the Tudor house, and end the Wars.
Henry VII didn't have much of a claim to the throne.

Since 1471 there were no legitimate agnatic (male lineage) descendants of the original Lancastrian usurper Henry IV. Since the English throne passed only to legitimate descendants and since Henry IV's claim to the throne was as the senior agnatic heir, upon the deaths of Prince Edward, Henry VI, and the last legitimate male Beauforts in 1471, the rightful heir by Henry IV's claim was then Edward IV, the senior agnatic descendant of Edward III.

Thus it was no longer logically possible to have a Lancastrian claim to the English throne since Edward IV was now the rightful heir by genealogy to both the Yorkist (heir by male preference primogeniture) and the Lancastrian (heir by agnatic primogeniture) claims.

Any die hard Lancastrians could suppose that even though Edward IV was the heir by male preference primogeniture to Edward III, the heir by male preference primogeniture of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, would be the rightful heir of the Lancasterian claim. And in 1471 that was King Alfonso V of Portgual (1438-1481), and in 1485 that was Alfonso's son King John II (1455-1495), descended from John of Gaunt's oldest daughter.

If the legitimising of the Beauforts was considered to make them eligible for the crown, then Henry Tudor the future king Henry VII was the heir by male preference primogeniture since his mother was descended in the male line from John of Gaunt.

But if the Beauforts are considered to have been legitimated enough to inherited the crown, then Charles Somerset (c. 1460-1526) created Earl of Worcester in 1514, might have a rival claim to Henry VII. He was an illegitimate son of Henry Beaufort, the 3rd Duke of Somerset. And Wikipedia says that he was legitimated. If he was legitimated before 1485 then he would have a superior claim to that of Henry Tudor. Henry Tudor was the Beaufort heir (and thus the heir of John of Gaunt) by male preference primogeniture, but Charles Somerset, if legitimated, would be the the Beaufort heir (and thus the heir of John of Gaunt) by agnatic primogeniture, and would have the same claim to be the heir of John of Gaunt as Henry IV had to be the heir of Edward III. As soon as Charles Somerset was legitimated, he became the rightful Lancastrian heir unless eligibility for the throne was specifically excluded.

Let me make it clear. At the present time the only logical heir to the Lancastrian claim to the throne of England is Henry John FitzRoy Somerset (born 1953), 11th Duke of Beaufort, the senior agnatic descendant of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster (father of the first Lancastrian King Henry IV). And that depends of the legitimation of the Beauforts and the legitimation of Charles Somerset first Earl of Worcester. Unless both legitimations are sufficient for inheriting the crown, there is no possible logical heir to the Lancastrian claim to the English throne and it became extinct in 1471.

And if one wants an illogical and irrational Lancastrian claim to the English crown, then the heir by male preference primogeniture of John of Gaunt's oldest daughter Queen Philippa of Portugal is Alphonso, Duke of Anjou (born 1974) legitimatist claimant of the French throne, and she has no heir by agnatic primogeniture. And the heir by male preference primogeniture of Henry VII is Duke Franz of Bavaria (born 1933), claimant of the throne of Bavaria
 
Last edited: