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.