Who would be the Lancastrian monarch of England? (Heir to the House of Lancaster) : r/UsefulCharts Skip to main content

Get the Reddit app

Scan this QR code to download the app now
Or check it out in the app stores
r/UsefulCharts icon
r/UsefulCharts icon
Go to UsefulCharts
r/UsefulCharts

A place for fans of the UsefulCharts YouTube channel to post charts that they have created.


Members Online

Who would be the Lancastrian monarch of England? (Heir to the House of Lancaster)

Genealogy - Alt History
r/UsefulCharts - Who would be the Lancastrian monarch of England? (Heir to the House of Lancaster)
Share
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options

Alas, poor Yorick. I knew him, Horatio.

u/boak4 avatar

Very clever haha 😂😂

More replies
Edited

There's just one major problem with this chart. During the Lancastrian era, the Kingdom of England did not believe that the throne could pass through the female line, or a female heir. This chart solely relies on two female heirs. The second issue is that both lines are illegitimate.

In the case of John, Duke of Bedford, there is no "Mary, Lady of Landiras" listed on his Wikipedia page, which calls into question whether she actually existed. One third-party website states, "[John, Duke of Bedford] had an illegitimate daughter Mary, who married Pierre de Montferrand, lord of Lesparre in Aquitaine (d. 1454) and an illegitimate son Richard, to who he bequeathed the castle and lordship of Haye-du-Puits in France. Richard was later legitimated by his cousin, King Henry VI." However, Mary was likely not legitimized herself; there are no records to indicate such.

The only source I can find online as to "Mary, Lady of Landiras" is Douglas Richardson (2002):

"During the course of my research for the forthcoming Plantagenet Ancestry book, I've determined that John of Lancaster, Duke of Bedford, younger son of King Henry IV, had two illegitimate children by an unknown mistress (or mistresses), namely, a son, Richard (named in his will), and a daughter, Mary. In this period, bastard children of dukes usually adopted the title of their father (in this case Bedford) as their surname.

This past week while I was combing through Patent and Close Rolls volumes, I encountered a reference to otherwise unidentified 'Mary de Bedford', lady of La Sparre (in Aquitaine), who was living in the early 1460's [References: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1461-1467 (published 1897), pp.198,212,269,275; Calendar of Close Rolls, 1461-1468 (published 1949), pg.167].

I'm uncertain as to this woman's identity, but I presume she is Mary, the bastard daughter of John of Lancaster, Duke of Bedford. Mary of Bedford's land holding in Aquitaine must have been an important place, as I find that Henry Holand, Duke of Exeter, was lord of this same place in the previous king's reign and used this land holding as part of his titles in a deed. Henry Holland was not the husband of Mary de Bedford, however, as he was married to another party until 1472.

If anyone knows any particulars regarding Mary of Bedford, I'd appreciate knowing them.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah"

Reply:

"First of all, I'm French, and I apologize for my poor English...Mary 'of Bedford' was born abt. 1420 and married before 1450 Pierre de Montferrand, 'soudan' de Préchac, lord of Landiras, Portets, etc. She had a 500 pounds dower, but her father died before the final payment. Her husband was granted by the King the barony of Maremne and the toll (sorry, not sure of the translation) of Hastingues (yes, we've got one in SW of France). He was also 'bayle' ('baillivus' -'bailiff'?) of the same village. After the battle of Castillon, he refused to make his submission to the king of France, and was beheaded in Bordeaux in 1454. His widow went back to England. In 1459, the king of England granted her a 20 pounds settlement per year, for her 2 sons were prisoners in France. In 1462, she had a 40 pounds settlement on the port of London. They had many descendants (3 sons, Thomas, Bertrand and François, who was lord of Lesparre, and a daughter, Mathilde).

Best regards,

Cyril Delmas-Marsalet"

Further reply:

"Thank you so much for your helpful and informative post regarding Mary of Bedford, the illegitimate daughter of John of Lancaster, Duke of Bedford (died 1435) (son of King Henry IV). As best I can tell, English secondary sources are silent as to her history, marriage, and descendants. Your post opens up a whole new line of descendants for King Henry IV. When you have the opportunity, I'd appreciate it very much if you could post additional details on Mary's husband, Pierre de Montferrand, Knt., lord of La Sparre (in Aquitaine) and their children. Also, can you please identify Pierre de Montferrand's parentage. I assume Pierre's father is Bertrand de Montferrand, Knt., who was baliff of Saugeon in Saintonge, in the 1420's. I show that Pierre's mother was Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Margaret Stratton, an English woman.

The following sources mention Mary of Bedford and her husband, Sir Pierre de Montferrand:

Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1461-1467 (1897), pp. 198,212,269,275.

Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1452-1461 (1910), pg. 487.

Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1447-1454 (1941), pg. 170.

Calendar of Close Rolls, 1461-1468 (1949), pg. 167.

Again, thanks so much for your help, Cyril.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah"

However, Richardson also states in another reply:

"I merely suggested the nominals of the Beaufort children were handled differently because their parents married and because the Beaufort children were subsequently legitimized by Act of Parliament. I know of no other bastard child of a duke that falls into the same category."

This would also indicate that "Mary, Lady of Landiras" was never legitimized.

Both children of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester were also illegitimate. While his mistress, Eleanor Cobham, was suspected to be the mother of one or both, this was never confirmed. Here, the situation is a bit more flexible, as Humphrey and Eleanor later legally wed after the birth of their child(ren), as did John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford, the latter marriage leading to the legitimization of the Beaufort line (King Henry VII). Therefore, Antigone could be legitimized.

However, Antigone's descendants would join the Yorkists; hence, they were passed over.

You can find my own expanded chart as to the Lancastrian succession and bloodlines here.

This comment has been edited for clarity.

Couldn’t pass through a female line

Are we just… forgetting where Henry II’s claim to the throne came from? Or Henry VII’s for that matter?

Henry VII was not a legitimate heir via his mother. His claim to the throne was by Right of Conquest, and strengthened by marriage.

Henry II was a special case that involved pretty brutal bloodshed. I don't think they were eager to view it as a precedent.

If the Lancastrian claim is through Agnatic Succession, I'm pretty sure the line died out in all legitimate lines, and there is no legitimate Lancastrian claim today.

Henry VIII was technically the legitimate Yorkist claim via his mother, but she was never Queen. Henry VII ruled by Right of Conquest.

If the Lancastrian claim is through Agnatic Succession, I'm pretty sure the line died out in all legitimate lines, and there is no legitimate Lancastrian claim today.

This would be correct. You either have the legitimized line of Antigone of Gloucester (Gloucester line), illegitimate daughter of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, son of King Henry IV of England; or the legitimized Beaufort line, which was also reduced to two primary female heirs due to the extinction of the male line: Margaret Beaufort, daughter of John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset; and Joan Beaufort, sister to John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset, who married King James I of Scotland.

The order of succession was treated as such by the English Parliament:

  1. Lady Margaret Beaufort (legitimized line) - Tudors, King Henry VII

  2. Lady Eleanor Beaufort, Countess of Ormond (legitimized) - Spencers

  3. Lady Joan Beaufort, Baroness Howth (legitimized) - St. Lawrences (?)

  4. Lady Anne Beaufort (legitimized) - Pastons (?)

  5. Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Stafford (legitimized) - Staffords

  6. Lady Joan Beaufort, Queen of Scots (legitimized) - Stuarts, King James I/IV

  7. Lady Elizabeth Beaufort (legitimized) - FitzLewises (?)

  8. Lady Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland (legitimized) - Nevilles

King Henry VII also married Elizabeth of York, eldest daughter of King Edward IV.

However, if Antigone Plantagenet, Countess of Tankerville was legitimized not just through royal papers, but also through an Act of Parliament - the latter of which apparently never happened - then her line could technically take precedence over the Beaufort line. However, her line was hampered by her son - Richard Grey, 3rd Earl of Tankerville - fighting for the House of York, and being a Yorkist, not a Lancastrian.

His support for the House of York resulted in his being attainted with many others by the Lancastrian King Henry VI in 1460, when the Earl of Warwick ordered him to surrender Montgomery castle. All his hereditary titles were abolished by this attainder, bringing an end to this creation of the Earldom of Tankerville. The attainder would also have abolished the title of Baron of Powis. King Henry VI reversed the attainder once he had control of the lands, and had received a promise of loyalty. However, Lord Tankerville continued to support the Yorkists, resulting in a more tenuous position.

As such, Antigone's line was likely excluded from the succession due to Yorkist leanings.

The Beaufort Line was Legitimised in all senses except inheritance of the throne. They were not counted in the line if Succession, and so Margaret Beaufort could not be counted as a legitimate Lancastrian claim to the throne even if they made an exception for her gender. The Beauforts are not legitimate claimants to the Lancastrian throne.

While Henry Tudor's close familial ties to royalty certainly went in his favour when rallying the Lancastrian forces behind him, his claim was ultimately based on Right of Conquest.

I think that technically the Lancastrian Claim might be able to go all the way back up the tree and back down the Yorkist side, and be traced through some Yorkist on the male line. But I'm not sure, I have a feeling that the Plantagenet Line is entirely extinct in all legitimate male lines. It's been a while since I was looking into this.

more reply More replies
More replies
u/boak4 avatar

After Henry VI died the Lancastrian claim couldn’t have been agnatic, but the chart is a good bit of fun and represents the only two proven lines of descent from Henry IV. Whether or not they’d have a crown claim, one of those two lines would be the most senior descendant of Henry IV. 

No, he wasn’t, but he did have a claim through his mother, since she was a great-granddaughter of Edward III. And I do not give a fiery fuck about your view of Henry II being a “special circumstance”. It did, like it or not, set the precedent that the crown could be claimed through your descent from a woman. Hell, it is by that basis the monarchs of England claimed the throne of France. So make it make sense.

More replies
More replies
u/boak4 avatar

Thanks for the reply! I’ve done a lot of research, using books, contemporary sources, and Richardson as well, confirming the identity of Mary. Much of it is not easily found online, although I hope to change that once I complete and publish my research. While Richardson has provided much information in this area, there is more out there that he fails to mention, in which I hope to fill those gaps. I also never believed Mary to have been legitimized, although her brother was. Her brother also inherited land and title in France, and fortunately I’ve received an image of that original document legitimizing him from the archives it’s held in. My primary research interests lie in the two elder illegitimate grandsons of Henry IV, both of which I hope to publish extensive information on in the future. I do realize that both lines were illegitimate, and really I made this chart all in good fun just to see who would be the “heir.” However, Antigone’s line is the line that I would pick between the two as having a better “claim” as well. It’s a very interesting topic!

More replies
Edited

Through Antigone Plantagenet ("Antigone of Gloucester"), Countess of Tankerville, I instead came to another possible Plantagenet heir: Daniel Mosley, 4th Baron Ravensdale (b. 1982).

Line of descent is as follows:

  1. Antigone Plantagenet [m. Henry Grey, 2nd Earl of Tankerville] (legitimized)

  2. Richard Grey, 3rd Earl of Tankerville

  3. John Grey, [4th Earl of Tankerville], 1st Baron Grey of Powis

  4. Lady Elizabeth Grey [m. Sir John Ludlow, KB]

  5. Anna Ludlow [m. Thomas Vernon]

  6. Eleanor Vernon [m. Francis Curzon, MP]

  7. John Curzon, Sr.

  8. John Curzon, 1st Baronet Curzon of Kedleston

  9. Sir Nathaniel Curzon, 2nd Baronet Curzon of Kedleston

  10. Sir Nathaniel Curzon, 4th Baronet Curzon of Kedleston

  11. Sir Nathaniel Curzon, 1st Baron Scarsdale

  12. Sir Nathaniel Curzon, 2nd Baron Scarsdale

  13. The Hon. Rev. Alfred Curzon, Rector of Norton-by-Twycross

  14. Alfred Nathaniel Holden Curzon, 4th Baron Scarsdale

  15. The Hon. George Nathaniel Curzon, 1st Marquess (later Earl) Curzon of Kedleston, KG, 1st Baron Ravensdale

  16. Lady Cynthia Blanche Curzon [m. Sir Oswald Mosley]

  17. Nicholas Mosley, 3rd Baron Ravensdale

  18. The Hon. Shaun Nicholas Mosley

  19. Daniel Mosley, 4th Baron Ravensdale (b. 1982)

  20. The Hon. Alexander Mosley (b. 2012)

I would like to see the full lineage listed for Sir Michael Bunbury, 13th Baronet to compare.

This comment has been edited for clarity.

u/boak4 avatar
Edited

That is certainly something to look into, although I have done research on that line before. I got the Baronet Bunbury form the information I had available and what seems to be proven in solid ground, at least publicly online. Elizabeth Grey who married John Ludlow is treated in contemporary writings and viewed as being more likely the step daughter of Richard Grey, not his biological daughter. This being the case, or at least supported by a number of historians has cast doubt on her line. The Bunbury line descends from a different Elizabeth Grey, the sister of the 3rd Earl of Tankerville. Therefore it would be my claim that the Baronet Bunbury is the most senior descendant of Antigone, who’s ancestry can be proven with certainty.  

u/boak4 avatar

The lineage of Michael Bunbury is as follows: Antigone Plantagenet (m. Henry Grey, 2nd Earl of Tankerville Elizabeth Grey c.1440-1501 (m. Sir Roger Kynaston, Lord of Myddle Castle, c.1433-1495) Margaret Kynston c.1467-? (m. Richard Hanmer 1441-1507) Sir Thomas Hanmer d.1546 (m. Joan Brererton) Sir Thomas Hanmer d.1583 (m. Catherine Salter) Sir John Hanmer (m. Jane Salesbury) Sir Thomas Hanmer, MP d.1619 (m. Anne Talbot) Sir John Hanmer, 1st Baronet Hanmer c.1590-1624 (m. Dorothy Trevor) Sir Thomas Hanmer, 2nd Baronet, MP 1612-1678 (m. Susan sherbet) William Hanmer c.1648-bef.1678 (m. Peregrina North) Susanna Hanmer 1676-1744 (m. Sir Henry Bunbury, 3rd baronet Bunbury 1676-1733) Sir William Bunbury, 5th Baronet 1709-1764 (m. Eleanor Graham d.1764) Henry Wm. Bunbury 1750-1811 (m. Catherine Horneck 1753-1799) Sir Henry Edw. Bunbury, 7th Baronet 1778-1860 (m. Louisa Amelia Fox d.1828 Henry Wm. St Pierre Bunbury, Colonel 1812-1875 (m. Cecilia Caroline Napier 1819-1896) Sir Henry Chas. John Bunbury, 10th Baronet 1855-1930 (m. Laura Lavina Wood 1854-1938) Sir Charles Hen. Nap. Bunbury, 11th Baronet 1886-1963 (m. Katherine Reid c.1889-1965) Sir John Wm. Nap. Bunbury, 12th Baronet 1915-1985 (m. Margaret Pamela Sutton 1919-2003) Sir Michael Wm. Bunbury, 13th Baronet b.1946 (m. Caroline Anne Mangnall)

More replies

Philippa was Queen of Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

u/boak4 avatar

Yes she was! I only mentioned the one title to save space but will likely name her full titles in an expanded chart down the road. Thank you for making note of that though since I had forgotten!  

More replies
u/ReplacementDizzy564 avatar

Henry VII was the Lancastrian heir, that’s why he seized the throne by right of conquest and married the Yorkist heir.

u/boak4 avatar

Historically yes, this chart was really just to represent the "succession" if the crown would have stayed in the main Lancastrian family.

More replies