Richard Neville, the 16th Earl of Warwick, played a crucial role in the war of the roses, earning his name the Kingmaker from these actions. Now his marriage to Anne De Beauchamp only produced two daughters, Isabel born in 1451 and Anne born in 1456. What I am wondering is, what might've happened had he had a son born in say 1453 named Edward? What changes could this boy have brought?
Killed with his father at Barnet, no other changes?
Truly you think so? You don't think, the Neville family might be divided?
What do you mean? You think he'd fight against his father? Why? he'd only be 18. I don't think he'd necessarily be killed, but it seems like the highest probability guess for what would happen.
I mean, maybe. But, again, surely the most likely outcome is still "killed at Barnet along with his father"? If he survives 1471, I suppose the question would be whether he gets pardonned and becomes a leading figure in Edward IV's court or whether he becomes a Lancastrian exile. Those lead to notably different outcomes, I think.
Barnet may well not happen.
This changes things on a grand scale, due to inheritance. Now, the Warwick inheritance won't be divided between Isabel and Anne Neville in the main, but go to this hypothetical son. This means Isabel and Anne aren't as enticing as marriage prospects. Isabel to Clarence may well still happen, but Richard is probably less likely to be going after Anne in order to secure a large patrimony of his own. Might be a foreign match for him, possibly even Mary of Burgundy?
Presuming Edward still decides to get hitched to la Woodeville, then there will still be tensions between the Queen's men and Warwick. I can't see young Warwick marrying one of her sisters, but there are all sorts of permutations.
Interesting, was Richard that ambitious? I've seen some suggesting he married Anne for love?
My understanding on the York brothers marring the Neville sisters is that they literally loved each other, but that the two brothers were more-or-less rival of each other. Richard was always loyal to Edward, but George/Clarence was always more of a schemer, especially because of his adherence and closeness to Warwick in general.
Hell, i always thought that the Clarence marriage to Isabel was more political and spiteful to Edward (because Edward did not want Warwick to gain more power than he already had) whereas the Anne-Richard marriage was spiteful to George/Clarence because the latter was a disloyal fuck (and at the same time it limits Clarence's power in the Neville inheritance)
This is a tricky question. Firstly, I've studied under Michael Hicks, which may have coloured my understanding of Richard. Hicks... well, he's not a fan. To be honest, I think some of his work is a reaction against some of the overly Ricardian scholarship of the eighties and nineties (some sponsored by the Richard III society). I think he goes a bit far in painting him as acquisitive and grasping, but some of his work has probably stuck with me. It's quite possible that Richard did love Anne. They grew up together for quite a time, so it's eminently possible. That being said, she also brought a metric f*ckton of land with her, which can't be ignored.Interesting, was Richard that ambitious? I've seen some suggesting he married Anne for love?
Oh, this hypothetical Neville will likely be very close to both Richard and George. They'll grow up together. Now, little Neville's loyalties will be interesting. Will he cleave to Daddy, or the King? Clarence, or Gloucester?Regardless, is it possible this son could be close to both boys?
If Warwick has a son, it will likely knock one marriage on the head. If Richard is desperate to marry Anne for love, then George will have to find his kicks elsewhere. Scotland? France? Burgundy?Hmm interesting so with Warwick having a son, would such marriages be doubtful of happening then?
This is a tricky question. Firstly, I've studied under Michael Hicks, which may have coloured my understanding of Richard. Hicks... well, he's not a fan. To be honest, I think some of his work is a reaction against some of the overly Ricardian scholarship of the eighties and nineties (some sponsored by the Richard III society). I think he goes a bit far in painting him as acquisitive and grasping, but some of his work has probably stuck with me. It's quite possible that Richard did love Anne. They grew up together for quite a time, so it's eminently possible. That being said, she also brought a metric f*ckton of land with her, which can't be ignored.
Richard was ambitious, wanting land of his own, and he engaged in quite a few swaps to try and build a contiguous territory, rather than scattered holdings here and there. Whether he was more grasping than any other noble of the time probably depends on your own view. There were some shenanigans around his treatment of the Countess of Oxford, and he, along with Clarence, were even worse to the Countess of Warwick (their mother in law), eventually getting Edward IV's permission to act 'as if she were already dead', thus depriving her of any dower lands. If it wasn't for the Woodevilles and Clarence, he'd look worse, but they both seem to have went further than him.
Oh, this hypothetical Neville will likely be very close to both Richard and George. They'll grow up together. Now, little Neville's loyalties will be interesting. Will he cleave to Daddy, or the King? Clarence, or Gloucester?
snip
Clarence could be a puppet.
One thing about the Neville inheritance is that its was a, as you said, fuckton of land. In fact, i am pretty sure that Richard Neville was the largest landowner in England at the tie, and the only family that could probably match him estate/land wise were the Lancastrians, and maybe even Norfolk (i think Norfolk, but definitely the House of Lancaster).
In all honesty, dividing it up between George and Richard was a smart move, because all that land going to one of them would be really dangerous, and would make them a threat. SO really if Warwick did have a son, i would probably expect him to be attained rather quickly. And unless this hypothetical son dies on the battlefield, he would probably go the same route as George's OTL son, Edward Duke of Warwick, who lived in the tower for most of his life under Henry VII. Too dangerous to kill, but just as dangerous to keep in the open for people to rally around.
Hmm, that is if he does go the same way as his father, he might not.
Hmm very true, and if Ursual of York did survive? What then?And i do realize that. I do. But here is the thing. This hypothetical son will be 17-18 years old, so he will have some form of independence, but he is still his fathers son and his fathers heir and as such Richard Warwick will make sure his son is extremely loyal to him. This son will see all of the snubs that Edward IV will be giving his father, and by extension, him. So even with the relationships that he may have with the yorkists brothers, ergo, Edward and Richard, he is still his father's son first.
Frankly, what would maybe make him loyal to Edward first is maybe him being married to one of Edwards sisters. Now given that this is 1453 POD, the only child born after that time was the reputed Ursula of York, who died young in 1455. Of course, if that did happen, then Clarence and Gloucester will most likely not be married to Anne and Isabel anyway. Unless Warwick is that desperate.
What would this son of the Kingmaker be called? Edward, Richard, Henry?
Well, Warick's father was Richard. His grand father was Ralph. His own brothers are John and George. And his uncle is Richard, Duke of York.
I'd say Richard is the best bet. I have doubts on Henry. Edward for just something different.