Attainders

The theory was that it prevented the subject's family from inheriting a claim to the throne, among other things.

Much good this theory did Warwick! (the Clarence attainder being reversed almost immediately). From the age of twelve to twenty-six, he sat in the Tower, without female company.

After Buckingham's revolt in '83, Richard executed and attainted him. Yet, in the 1520s, Buckingham's son was executed for treason (another alleged plot against the "stable" Tudors). Unless, of course, this one was reversed in the interim (someone will know).

Surely a monarch need not fear being supplanted by an attainted man?

> After Buckingham's revolt in '83, Richard executed and attainted him. Yet, in
> the 1520s, Buckingham's son was executed for treason (another alleged plot
> against the "stable" Tudors). Unless, of course, this one was reversed in the
> interim (someone will know).
>
> Surely a monarch need not fear being supplanted by an attainted man?

Buckingham's claim was far superior in blood terms to Henry's. And an
attainder could have been reversed once Buckingham had won any rebellion he
took part in.
Paul