"You are Plantagenet!" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

In your opinion, which dynasty should have legitimately reigned over England from 1455? That of Plantagenet, that of Lancaster or that of Tudors?

37% said "Plantagenet"
22% said "Lancaster"
5% said "Tudors"

Funny question.

York and Lancaster were both branches of the same Plantagenet heritage. Henry VI was a Plantagenet, so were Edward IV and Richard III. All were descended through the male line from Edward III (a Plantagenet).

The Tudor claim only succeeded by right of arms. Being the grandson of Catherine of Valois (widow of Henry V) and Owen Tudor (Henry V's steward) wouldn't, I suspect, hold much water in a court of law unless all Plantagenets were dead.

The dubious nature of the 'inheritance' of the Tudors is what lead to such a vicious propaganda campaign, by the Tudors, to besmirch the good name of Richard III, the rightful and just Plantagenet King of England.

After the incessant squabbling of the last dregs of the Plantagenet dynasty and their inability to actually rule the country, I think having their 'rights' taken away by the same means they had used to usurp each other was quite appropriate.

and their inability to actually rule the country,

Edward IV and Richard III both provided good and stable rule (by the standard of other contemporary monarchies). A fairly decent peace had existed for the best part of fourteen years and the economy was on an upward trend (since Tewkesbury 1471).

Misrule by Richard III is mostly regarded as myth by modern historians because there is little to no evidence to back up Tudor claims that Richard III was a bad administrator, despot and tyrant.

Edward IV gets good press from almost everybody, including the Tudors, because his rule was remembered fondly by most – the Tudors simply wouldn't have gotten away with the same lies.

It's a misleading poll. All three "dynasties" were of the same family. Henry Tudor claimed legitimacy through his mother Margaret Beaufort, not through his father or paternal grandmother. As for York versus Lancaster, that depends on whether you prioritize strict primogeniture (York) or the established right of Parliament to depose and appoint sovereigns (as for Edward II and Richard II). Had Henry VI been a capable monarch the entire issue would never have arisen.

A small point, perhaps, but it seems that 'Plantagenet' as a royal surname was in fact only associated with the House of York

Although the father of Henry II of England, Geoffrey le Bel, Count of Anjou, also bore as a personal sobriquet 'Plantagenest' there is no evidence of it being used as a dynastic surname thereafter. Kings generally had personal cognomens or sobriquets, often deriving from their birth place- Edward of Caernarvon, John of Gaunt, Richard of Bordeaux, etc, etc.

It was not until 1460 that the name 'Plantagenet' appears as a royal surname, or at least that of a royal pretender, with the claim presented to Parliament by "Richard Plantaginet, Duc of York". the surname at that time being associated specifically with the Duke of York himself.

Subsequently, the name was given to Edward IV's illegitimate son Arthur Plantagenet, born a few years later, and in reference to Richard of Gloucester's son, "our dear nephew Edward Plantagenet" when created Earl of Salisbury in 1478, and also to Gloucester's illegitimate daughter, Katherine Plantagenet.

If a surname is used by both their ancestors and descendants, it must be associated with both Edward IV and Richard of Gloucester as well …

TMP link

@Dagwood

Apparently not.

Plantaganet was a cadet branch of the House of Anjou. If any of the despicable Henrys claimed to be kings of France – which they all did in this era (VI, VII and VIII)- they were claiming to be Plantaganets.