The staggering wealth of Margaret Beaufort

Posted on March 22, 2020April 24, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

The young Margaret of Somerset became the greatest heiresses of her era; but her phenomenal wealth made her a pawn to politics.

I’m hardly the first Royal History Geek to be fascinated by Margaret Beaufort. The matriarch’s struggles, hardships and triumphs are the things that epics are made of.

A widowed mother at 13. A fifth column in the final days of the Yorkist regime. Against all the odds, her valiant efforts put her descendants on the throne. They’ve remained there ever since.

But even before the Wars of the Roses broke out, Margaret was a figure of note to contemporaries. Thanks to the early tragedy of her father’s death, the young Margaret inherited the bulk of the Beaufort fortune.

But just how wealthy was the young Margaret of Somerset? Did her wealth place her among the upper reaches of England’s nobility? Had she been a man, would her fortune have made her a major military player in the dynastic wars that dominated her life?

As so often with Margaret Beaufort questions, we must turn to the academic study by Michael K Jones and Malcolm G Underwood. In these pages, the young heiresses’ lands are explored in detail. Thanks largely to the fortune of her late grandmother, who was co-heiress to the earldom of Kent, by 1450 it was clear that Margaret wielded a fortune of approximately £1000 a year.

On its own, this doesn’t tell us much. Such a figure would be no great income today. How far did a grand go in the 1450s?

WATCH: my video discussing the wealth of Margaret Beaufort

To get some sense of an answer we must wind the clock back to seven years before Margaret’s birth. Ahead of a new tax to fund the war with France, all landowners were assessed and their annual income calculated. The findings have come down to us.

If Margaret were alive in 1436 and in possession of her fortune, she would have ranked among the top 20 landowners. Given that there were about 60 titled families at any one time, this placed Margaret in the upper-third of noble society. Those with lands to the value of £25 a year were deemed wealthy enough to tax. Margaret’s income was 40 times that sum.

However, we need to be very, very careful about this. Seven years is a long time. Income from land was subject to the stewardship of the landlord and, at least to some extent, market forces.

Furthermore, it’s clear from other evidence that the rich then – like the rich today – had gone to some length to disguise the extent of their wealth.

As an indication however, it remains illuminating. Chris Given-Wilson, the great late-medieval historian, estimates that an earl would typically enjoy £1000-1500 a year. This is clearly the category that Margaret was in. Nonetheless, money was not always so logically linked to title. Some earls – such as Devon, Westmoreland and Suffolk – seemed to have less. Some could claim considerably more. There were also a handful of wealthy barons who enjoyed fortunes greater than some earls.

Margaret, however, did not have an income worthy of a major power broker. If we take numbers from the 1436 list, add together the various titles and estates that were consolidated in the late 1430s and 1440s, we get a sense as to who the major players were at the beginning of the Wars of the Roses.

The Duke of Buckingham enjoyed almost £3000 a year, the Duke of York £3500 and the mighty Earl of Warwick £4,400. As stated earlier, these figures should be taken as conservative. Studies on the Duke of Buckingham for example, suggest his income was double this sum – at least in some years.

At the beginning of the Wars of the Roses, the Earl of Warwick was probably the richest noble in the land

Margaret’s wealth was both extraordinary and unremarkable. What made it so significant was her sex. It was unusual – thought not unique, even in her own time – for a woman to be in sole possession of such a staggering sum. And that staggering sum, of course, was up for grabs by a future husband.

Under the common law of primogeniture, women would only inherit a parent’s fortune if they were devoid of a brother. The eldest son would typically inherit the lot. But when there was more than one daughter (and no son) the girls had to share it out equally.

Great landowners hated the idea of daughters inheriting. This was not out of pure misogyny. They loathed the thought of their estates being divvied up among daughters and used to bolster the ambitions of the lesser Lords their girls would marry. As a result, many deployed legal devises – such as entails – to block female inheritance.

For whatever reason, the Beauforts never deployed such a devise. As her father’s sole surviving legitimate child, Margaret’s status as a major heiress was established within the first two years of her life.

Money was important to Margaret. When her son seized the throne, she would be granted plenty more of it. But this early fortune would lead to trauma. Before she was seven years old, she was abandoned to the machinations of the medieval marriage market. Her money, along with her trickle of royal blood, made her a pawn of politics from her earliest years.

Thank goodness that the matriarch of the Tudors was a born survivor.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Why Margaret Beaufort could NOT have killed the Princes in the Tower

Posted on January 28, 2016January 28, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

I’ve always known that a handful of people judge Margaret Beaufort guilty of the death of the Princes in the Tower. But until I published my series on Richard III – and incurred the wrath of the Ricardians – I had no idea just how widespread the theory was.

Absolutely no contemporary source links Margaret to the crime. An obscure 17th century biographer attempting to redeem Richard III links the deaths to a ‘certain Countess’ (presumably of Richmond) but offers nothing by way of evidence. I can’t shake the feeling that this view is currently so popular because of the ‘White Queen’ TV series in 2013.

It is, I believe, credible to suggest that Margaret had a motive. With the sons of Edward IV out the way, nothing would stand in the way of her son making an alliance with Elizabeth of York, uniting their claim to the throne and over throwing the tyrannical Richard. But a motive is not proof. It isn’t even close.

At the heart of this debate, in my opinion, is a correct understanding of how closely guarded the Princes were. Mancini tells us that Richard dismissed the boys’ servants and drew them closer into the tower. Only Richard’s loyalist men had access to them in the context of a high security prison.

How could Margaret possibly have gained access to the Princes, even if she had wanted to? The usual arguments go like this:

She was a wealthy woman who could have bribed the guards – She was a woman of some means. But what on earth could she have given Richard’s most trusted men that would trigger abandonment of their master. Killing princes, even ones deem illegitimate, is a pretty risking business – one you would answer for with your head. I just can’t believe that you would do it under the orders of anyone but the ruler of the day.

Her husband, Lord Stanley was a mover and shaker at court – Yes he was. But it does not equate that he would have access to the Princes. He was powerful; but he was not part of Richard’s inner circle.

I’m worried about the way some people are thinking about the Wars of the Roses at the moment. I consider myself a feminist and I agree that for too long, historians neglected the powerful impact that women have made throughout the ages. But we do no favours to anyone when we try and make the facts match our values. Women were not the key players in the 15th century. Perhaps they should have been. But they weren’t.

When engaging with people on this debate, I keep hearing people argue Margaret’s guilt with lines such as ‘she was a powerful woman in a man’s world.’ Perhaps she was; but it’s disturbing that people are almost suggesting that the murder of two young boys is somehow a display of power that we feminists should be proud of.

There’s much we don’t know about Lady Margaret Beaufort. But what we do know suggests she was a kind, generous, pious, if a little austere figure. Child murder was not something that was likely to appeal to her and even if it had, she could not have had the means.

Only one man had access to the Princes – only one man can reasonably be assumed to have murdered them.

What do you think geeks? Am I underestimating Margaret’s ambition? Have I been naive to the means or access she might have had? I want to know what YOU think!

Margaret Beaufort’s claim to the throne part 3: The better arguments

Posted on January 25, 2016January 26, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

As we have shown in the previous post, most of the arguments that suggest Margaret was looked upon as a potential heir to the throne are not satisfactory. Now it is time to examine the two stronger theories.

In part 2, I examined three of the most common reasons given for Margaret having a claim to England’s throne; but I also showed why they sadly don’t amount to much.

But there are two stronger – although I think ultimately unsatisfactory – reasons that are also given.

Parliament had acknowledged her claim in 1450

Maybe. When she was the ward of the unpopular Duke of Suffolk, Parliament had accused him of trying to marry her to his son ‘pretending and believing her to be the heir to the throne.’

Essentially they had major beef with Suffolk, the King’s unpopular adviser and wanted him out. They needed an excuse. Margaret had been his ward for years and he had either married her or planned to marry her to his son. Those that had it in for Suffolk concocted a story that he had ganged up with the French to try and do away with the King, and get his son to claim the throne by right of marriage to Margaret.

It does add weight to the claim that she was considered next in line, but…but, but, but: we have to remember that neither was Suffolk saying he thought she actually was (and indeed, he denied he thought she was) and nor did Parliament suggest that she actually was. They were accusing Suffolk of pretending she was.

Nonetheless in order to Parliament’s framing of Suffolk to have been in any way credible, there must have been a certain sense that Margaret was not an outlandish candidate for succession. It’s also very possible that anyone who was not keen on the idea of the Duke of York being next in line, may have considered Margaret a more viable option.

Her son had to flee to exile in 1470 – surely that means he was considered a rival to the Yorks?

This is a strong argument. Why on earth did the future Henry VII have to flee the country when the Yorks were restored in 1470 if he was no threat? Some must have thought him a claimant and that claim was transmitted from his mother.

However at this point, Lancaster had little choice. In the 1450s, York was generally considered Henry VI’s heir: but this was hardly an option now. And, after the battle of Tewksbury the house of Lancaster (including the Beauforts) had been eliminated in the male line. Henry Richmond was ‘the closest Lancaster had to Royalty.’ Therefore at this point it does seem that opinions had shifted and Margaret’s Beaufort claim now had validity. But we must be clear. This was placed firmly on her son. Nobody envisaged her making a bid for power herself.

So where does all this leave us? Let’s hop on over to the conclusion to find out.

Margaret Beaufort’s claim to the throne Part 2: Some arguments that don’t stack up

Posted on January 25, 2016January 26, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

Margaret Beaufort is the idol of many Royal history geeks. But are the constant claims that she was once seen as a potential Queen of England really justifiable?

As I have said in the intro, I think it’s unlikely that anyone ever saw Margaret Beaufort as a potential Queen of England. But there are four reasons historians sometimes give – and another one I have factored in – as to why I could be wrong. We’re going to explore the first three, which I am confident don’t stack up, in this post before moving on to the two I have a little more time for in the next.

Hold on tight, here we go:

ARGUMENT 1: The reason Henry VI married her so young to his brother was to provide Lancaster with an heir and even to give his brother the chance of succeeding him (by right of marriage). Therefore, she must have had a good claim.

Historians tell us that arranging the marriage of Edmund Tudor (his maternal half-brother who had no claim to the throne) to the semi-royal Margaret Beaufort was one of the few acts of Henry VI’s reign that was entirely determined by him rather than his wife or an advisor. If this is true, it seems unlikely that he had the succession in mind. He certainly did nothing to dispel the assumption that the Duke of York was next in line. If this was his plan, then it was a demonstration of strategic thinking that he failed to exhibit at any other stage of his ill-fated career.

Instead it seems far more likely – and in keeping with his character – that he was keen to provide his brother with a wealth and security which had previously alluded him. Margaret – whatever else she was or wasn’t – was one of the richest heiresses in England and the King wanting to put these resources the way of his brother seems much more in keeping with the naïve but kindly character of the Henry, who had poured affection and blessing on his siblings whenever he was able.

ARGUMENT 2: Edmund Tudor risked sexual relations with the young Margaret because he knew an heir was desperately needed

I’m afraid this argument doesn’t stack up. True Margaret fell pregnant at 12 – something which was shocking even by the standards of the day and possibly a risk to Tudor’s reputation. But – however much we might want to excuse him of it – this can’t be because he was desperate to provide an heir and stability for England. By this point the King and Queen had been able to beget an heir themselves. A spare might be handy, but disgraceful urgency was hardly needed.

The reasons that he, Edmund Richmond, rushed to impregnate his child bride were far less noble. Margaret was rich. If he fathered a child by her – regardless of what happened to the mother – he would gain a life interest in her estates. It was a brutal act of avaricious. Perhaps it’s not hard to see where Henry VII inherited his love of money…

ARGUMENT 3: Henry VII based his claim through his mother, so it must have been credible

I think there’s something in this argument, but we have to be careful. Richard III had become unpopular. There wasn’t many people left to challenge him. Because the line of Henry IV and the male-line Beauforts had been eliminated at the Battle of Tewksbury, Henry of Richmond was the ‘closest thing Lancaster had to Royalty.’ In and of itself it wasn’t much of a claim, but with a pledge to marry Elizabeth of York, people started to flock to him. Might, primarily, made right.

When examined closely, none of the above really point to Margaret having much of a claim to the throne. But join us in part 3 for a couple of slightly stronger arguments.

Well geeks…over to you. Have I misjudged these arguments? Was Margaret given in marriage because of her Royal blood? Have I devalued Henry VII’s claim? Or am I spot on…?

Intro: Did Margaret Beaufort have a claim to the throne?

Posted on January 25, 2016January 26, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

The courage and determination of Lady Margaret Beaufort has inspired countless Royal history geeks throughout the generations. But was she really, as so many writers have suggested, ever considered a contender for the crown?

For reasons I’ve never quite been able to fathom, Lady Margaret Beaufort is my Royal history heroine. A lioness of the House of Tudor who never wore a crown herself but paved the way for her heirs to do so. She successfully seated her dynasty on the throne of England and no force in history has been able to knock it off.

To some, her brutal determination derived from the fact that she, a descendant of the house of Lancaster was the true heir to England. It was her duty to see that her claim was realised, even if in the form of her son.

And this was certainly part of the Tudor narrative. To bolster his security on the throne, her son would surround himself with images of the Beaufort Portcullis to remind everyone that the blood of Edward III – however distantly – trickled through his veins. But how much was this a retrospective realisation by Henry VII’s court? Had anyone prior to 1485 really thought that Margaret of Richmond had any real claim to the crown of England.

I love Margaret Beaufort. But at time of writing I don’t think that she was ever really considered a potential Queen of England by anybody. In her childhood I just don’t believe anyone thought it credible. When Lancaster was all but depleted people looked straight to her son – and even then only with the thinnest of hopes. Henry VII’s claim was in truth based on conquest and marriage.

Examining this further certainly requires a mini-series. First we will look at the reasons usually given for Margaret’s claim and see why they don’t stack up. Then we will explore the best arguments in her favour before summing up in a conclusion.

Enjoy! I did.

Richard III part 7: Conclusion

Posted on January 4, 2016January 8, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

In the past six posts I have attempted to demonstrate why I believe the circumstantial evidence and other reliable sources point firmly to the blame of Richard III who usurped his throne and killed his nephews. Now I will sum up my conclusions and look forward to the conversation that will follow. Continue reading →

Richard III part 6: Two issues that made me think twice…

Posted on January 4, 2016January 6, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

Early in my research, I started to form the view that Richard III was responsible for the death of his nephews. However, during my journey I stumbled across a couple of road blocks that gave me more than a little pause for thought. Continue reading →

Richard III part 5: MORE of less – can we trust Thomas More’s account?

Posted on January 4, 2016January 6, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

The most detailed account of Richard III’s murder of the Princes in the Tower was penned by lawyer and philosopher Thomas More c. 1515. But can his ‘History of Richard III’ be trusted and respected as a credible piece of historical research and writing? Continue reading →

Richard III part 4: Alternative theories – who else could have been responsible for the death (or rescue) of the Princes in the Tower?

Posted on January 2, 2016January 6, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

In the last blog post, I demonstrated that circumstantial evidence strongly points toward Richard’s guilt; who else could really have overcome his defences and murdered the closely guarded Princes? Nonetheless the centuries that followed have spawned countless alternative theories, some of which are worthy of examination.

Continue reading →

Richard III part 3 – a dispassionate examination of the facts

Posted on January 2, 2016January 6, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

Both unnecessary emotion and an exaggerated sense of mystery surround the question of who killed the Princes in the Tower. As such it is important to cast any misplaced sense of loyalty aside and ruthlessly examine the facts that we do know from 1483 to discover the most likely destiny of the boys – and the most probable orchestrator of it.

“No! No,” cried Philippa Langely!

It was a moment of history. The bones of Richard III were being unearthed before her very eyes. And it was almost instantly clear that he was in possession of the very curved spine that Ricardians have long argued was a Tudor invention.

Langley is an active member of the Richard III society. She is also my hero. Thanks to her stoic efforts over many years, she paved the way to the greatest historical discovery of a generation, perhaps of a lifetime.

But in her loudly expressed disbelief at what she saw, she betrayed one of the fundamental problems in the debate around Richard III. Too often people are on a quest not to unearth the truth, whatever it might be. They search for facts that will validate their theories.

This is exactly what we need to counter. This discussion throws up so much emotion, but there’s no reason it needs to. Similarly it encourages talk of a dearth of historic records (which to an extent is true), creating an impression that we can never know the truth.

It’s time to clear the fog. It’s time to leave tribalism and emotion at the door. For a minute let’s stop focusing on what we can’t know and take a minute to review what we do know.

Two accounts of Richard’s reign are rich in detail about the events of 1483. One (the Croyland Chronicle) was written by a member of his government and another (Dominic Mancini) was crafted by an Italian visitor who clearly had access to a source at court and a first-hand experience of the public reaction. Neither of these had any reason to fabricate, and although they could never have seen each other’s work, they broadly corroborate.

And it is by studying these two accounts and ruthlessly examining the events of that fateful year that we see Richard’s guilt to leap out at us, even though neither directly accuse him of the Prince’s murder.

We can, with confidence, be sure of the following:

That as soon as Richard became aware of his brother’s death, he rode to intercept the young King Edward V and had him taken into his care.
Richard arrested Lord Rivers (the young King’s uncle), Richard Grey (the King’s half-brother) and Thomas Vaughan (a close servant).
Richard illegally arrested two of Edward IV’s former supporters the Bishop of Ely and the Bishop of Rotherham and had a third, Lord Hastings executed without any trial. It was widely known that Hastings was one of three loyalist supporters of the young Edward V.
Richard and the Duke of Buckingham (his loyal supporter) moved many armed men into London.
Richard gained possession of the King’s younger brother, also called Richard (and Duke of York) even though he had fled to sanctuary with his mother. Both Royal heirs were placed into the Tower of London.
With both brothers now in the Tower, Richard dismissed the entire young King’s servants, replaced them with his own men and gradually drew them further within the Tower so that they were seen less and less each day.
In the days that followed Richard and his party began circulating rumours that Edward IV was illegitimate because of his mother’s adultery and that his children were illegitimate because he had already been pledged in marriage to another before he wed Elizabeth Woodville. They also argued that the aforementioned marriage would have been invalid at any rate because of Eilzabeth’s status as a widow and the nature of their union. Had any of these reasons been true, only one could have possibly come to Richard’s attention as a result of new information.
Richard is declared King as Richard III.
Anthony, Earl of Rivers and Richard Grey (powerful and influential uncle and half-brother to the deposed Princes) were illegally put to death without a trial. Commentators remarked that the three men who could have been the biggest support to Edward V were now dead (Hastings, Grey and Rivers),
Plots from men in the south and west began to form to liberate the princes from the Tower and to spirit their sisters to safety overseas.
The Princes were never seen again and rumours of their death began to circulate.
As Richard’s reign continued, rumours that he killed the Princes proved toxic to him; but he never produces the boys to counter them.

As such, we can be confident that at this stage the Princes were dead. Rumours of their murder were proving disastrous for Richard and driving many into the sympathies of Henry of Richmond, the remote Lancastrian claimant exiled to Brittany. To prevent this, the new King would have only needed to present his nephews for public viewing. But he didn’t.

Some would argue, of course, that the fact they were dead does not make Richard responsible for it. And it doesn’t. But when you stand back and review the chronology that I have presented above, is there really any other alternative?

All of Richard’s actions are consistent with those of a man who had set out to seize the throne and he had acted swiftly and brutally to anyone who got in his way with expressions of tyranny. He then obtained custody of both Princes and placed them entirely under his watch. Rebellions in their favour would have convinced him that his attempts to bastardise them had failed. He had the motive and means to eliminate them forever.

But surely this is all circumstantial? Even if he had usurped the throne and taken them prisoner, couldn’t someone else have been responsible for this final, must outrageous of deeds?

No, not really. Richard had his own, loyal men guarding his nephews. Only someone acting under his orders could have had access to them. And if for any reason someone else had managed to get their hands on them, he would have known about it almost straight away. It is hardly conceivable that he would have had a good enough network of spies to detect rebellions against him across the country, but would have been blind to what was happening on his own watch.

However, as I’m sure my Ricardian friends would rush to remind me, this is just one of many theories. But as we shall see in the next post, it is a theory that is far more compelling than any other on offer.

Okay geeks…over to you. Am I being too judgmental toward Richard? Are their facts from 1483 that I am failing to consider? I would love to know what YOU think!