In the past few posts we’ve seen that the childhood Margaret, though a wealthy heiress, was not deemed to be a candidate for the throne. However, as Lancaster was gradually depleted there were those who began to ponder whether her blood line could lead to a dynasty of Kings.
In truth, when we see Margaret or her young son portrayed as the ‘heirs to Lancaster’ in historical fiction books and TV dramas, their status has been somewhat inflated in order to give currency to their characters. Margaret Beaufort has even been described in one series as ‘the Red Queen’ – an attribute that should surely go to Margaret of Anjou if it’s going to go to anyone.
But I can’t forget that when trying to frame her sort-of father-in-law in 1450, Parliament accused him of having tried to marry his son to her because he believed her to be the heir to the throne. While he almost certainly hadn’t believed anything of the sort, those accusing him could not have done so if there was not a hint of credibility to the claims. But it probably was just a hint. Everyone thought the Duke of York was the heir; but perhaps when people discussed what would happen after Henry VI’s demise, Margaret occasionally got a mention.
Everything of course changed in 1470 when Lancaster had no option but to look for anyone with Royal blood and glanced briefly at Henry Tudor. Any claim he had came through Margaret – but no one thought she herself could be Queen. However, Henry’s chances only really picked up when people started rebelling against the tyranny of Richard III. At this stage, people primarily supported him because he pledged to marry Elizabeth of York – who did have a good claim.
As I said at the beginning, Margaret Beaufort is my Royal history heroine. Through arranging the engagement of her son to Elizabeth, and risking much to take part in rebellions, she can claim credit for the rise of the Tudors. But there’s no need to retrospectively raise her status to make her a compelling character to study. She has interest and appeal in bucket loads.
The whole argument of Margaret Beaufort presented ignores the royal connection the Tudors had to the throne, though legally barred from the succession (Much like James of Scotland only a few generations later who also ascended the throne upon the death of Elizabeth I). Henry VII was the grandson of Owen Tudor and Catherine of Valois, whose offspring were formally adopted into the royal family by Catherine’s son Henry VI upon his majority. While the Tudors were technically barred the succession Henry’s paternal pedigree would have bolstered his claim beyond that of his mother. A further concern that would have bypassed Margaret’s claim out of hand would be the English reticence in this period for a woman to be the queen regnant as opposed to the queen consort. While this did indeed happen only a few generations later it is not inconceivable that any claim Margaret might have made would only further the war of the roses for the same reason her grandson later attempted to divorce Catherine of Aragon…a woman cannot overrule men, remember Matilda… I see it as entirely possible that Margaret, being a woman of her times may have, like her grandson and later her great granddaughter seen a woman ruling as problematic.
Hi Amy – thanks for your engagement. I don’t think the Tudor side brought Henry any closer to the throne, although he was certainly proud of his association to Henry VI. The blood claim was entirely through Margaret’s Beaufort blood – and as you allude, the Beauforts were ARGUABLY barred from succession. I guess the question then was how seriously did people take Henry IV’s barring of the Beauforts and how prepared were people to consider succession through a female line. The fact that York’s claim was seen as strong in the 1450s suggests that people were open to a claim being transmitted through a woman. But I agree; few people – I suspect including Margaret – would have accepted a female sovereign in their own right.