A Different Bride for King Edward IV?

In addition to Eleanor Butler, how about international matches? I threw her name out as an example of how Edward might get caught in a similar situation, but that doesn't mean he has to end up that way. After all, he managed to avoid marrying her OTL.

We talked a little bit about Bona of Savoy, but how would a French-aligned Yorkist England look? What would be the effects on Warwick and the Lancastrians?

How about other potential brides? Are there any other eligible princesses on the market that might make sense for an English monarch?
 
Clarence will still have his unique blend of incompetence and treachery, so he'll almost certainly join in any conspiracies by Warwick. Unfortunately for the conspirators...
Have you described our man George in such terms before? He couldn't be summed up better if you tried, and the wording rings a bell...

And I suppose a second death from "pure displeasure and melancholy" might have made people a bit suspicious.
As SimReeve says, just a little bit dodgy...
 
In February of 1464, Henry IV of Castile offered his sister Isabella to Edward IV. If Edward would have accepted the offer it would have buttterflied away all of the descendents of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella. If Isabella’s brother Alfonso still dies before Henry, then Edward and Isabella would be the rulers of both England and Castile. A Castilian civil war between Isabella (with the aid of England) and her niece Joanna (with the aid of Portugal and France) would be fascinating. Edward IV was a formidable military commander and may have been able to win Castile for Isabella. The attitude of Ferdinand and his father John II of Aragon would be interesting in this scenario. Which side would Aragon take in the civil war? Any child of Isabella and Edward would not be born before 1468 at the earliest, so if Edward still dies early in TTL with an underage heir, does his brother Richard make a bid for power against his Castilian nephews/nieces?
 
We talked a little bit about Bona of Savoy, but how would a French-aligned Yorkist England look? What would be the effects on Warwick and the Lancastrians?

How about other potential brides? Are there any other eligible princesses on the market that might make sense for an English monarch?

These are the questions I'm really interested in, to be honest. Anybody have any thoughts?
 
Well, there weren't exactly hordes of witnesses to Edward's marriage with Elizabeth Woodville either...

Yes, but that it had happened was pretty clear once Edward started referring to "my wife" and "the queen".

Eleanor, we conveniently have Edward unable to say "depends on what 'sex' and 'promise' mean" (For some reason, the idea of him channeling Bill Clinton amuses the hell out of me).

Looking at his other options, why wasn't Edward interested in Isabella OTL?
 
Yes, but that it had happened was pretty clear once Edward started referring to "my wife" and "the queen".

Eleanor, we conveniently have Edward unable to say "depends on what 'sex' and 'promise' mean" (For some reason, the idea of him channeling Bill Clinton amuses the hell out of me).

Looking at his other options, why wasn't Edward interested in Isabella OTL?


According to the book Edward IV by Charles Derek Ross, despite the fact that marriage to Isabella would have helped Edward form an alliance with Castile, he declined the offer. Ross does not give a reason for Edward’s refusal but according to the book, Queen Isabella was still insulted by the slight twenty years later.
 
Re the Eleanor business: As far as I know we still don't really have another "good" reason put forward for how Stillington (whom some research since my last post here suggests might have been named during Richard's reign as the priest who'd conducted that marriage) managed to annoy Edward so badly that he got sent to the Tower in 1478. He'd been Edward's loyal & useful supporter until then (formerly Keeper of the Privy Seal, then Lord Chancellor for a number of years), after all, and his conscience eventually getting the better of him over the idea that "bastard seed shall not take root" so that he leaked the information to Clarence (as the next legitimate heir) seems to me to be credible... and if he made the story up, or somebody else made it up and he went along with this, then what did he have to gain by it?
 
Re the Eleanor business: As far as I know we still don't really have another "good" reason put forward for how Stillington (whom some research since my last post here suggests might have been named during Richard's reign as the priest who'd conducted that marriage) managed to annoy Edward so badly that he got sent to the Tower in 1478. He'd been Edward's loyal & useful supporter until then (formerly Keeper of the Privy Seal, then Lord Chancellor for a number of years), after all, and his conscience eventually getting the better of him over the idea that "bastard seed shall not take root" so that he leaked the information to Clarence (as the next legitimate heir) seems to me to be credible... and if he made the story up, or somebody else made it up and he went along with this, then what did he have to gain by it?

Also, if the Eleanor Butler story was made up, why didn't Stillington repudiate it when he was a prisoner of Henry VII?
 
Re the Eleanor business: As far as I know we still don't really have another "good" reason put forward for how Stillington (whom some research since my last post here suggests might have been named during Richard's reign as the priest who'd conducted that marriage) managed to annoy Edward so badly that he got sent to the Tower in 1478. He'd been Edward's loyal & useful supporter until then (formerly Keeper of the Privy Seal, then Lord Chancellor for a number of years), after all, and his conscience eventually getting the better of him over the idea that "bastard seed shall not take root" so that he leaked the information to Clarence (as the next legitimate heir) seems to me to be credible... and if he made the story up, or somebody else made it up and he went along with this, then what did he have to gain by it?

Or he got caught up in any of Clarence's other harebrained schemes (Clarence seems to have spent most of his adult life plotting to betray whichever side he happened to be nominally allied to at the time). He'd be far from the only person left holding the bag when Clarence's latest plan fell through.

As for what he had to gain for it later? The whole precontract story only emerged once Richard needed an excuse to depose his nephews and become king himself; do you really think the Lord Protector (and then King) couldn't have offered some reward for creating such an excuse?
 
As for what he had to gain for it later? The whole precontract story only emerged once Richard needed an excuse to depose his nephews and become king himself; do you really think the Lord Protector (and then King) couldn't have offered some reward for creating such an excuse?
Stillington was already a bishop, and Richard couldn't get him promoted to archbishop without the Pope's approval (which might have been easy enough to get, I'm not sure) and not until there was a vacancy. He obvioulsy had no legitmate children of his own for whom to provide, and I've never read anything that mentioned any illegitimate ones either: I don't know enough about his family to say whether there were nephews, nieces, cousins, & so on, who could have been given preferement in some way. Otherwise we'd probably just be talking about wealth.
Also, any major reward would be rather obvious and this itself might lead more people to disbelieve the claim.
So, maybe, but the fact that it's a possibility doesn't make it a certainty.
 
Stillington was removed from the Chancellorship in 1473 for reasons that aren't really clear - he was briefly imprisoned in 1478 following Clarence's fall -which has lead some to assume he was close to Clarence.

It is easy to make assumptions that it was Stillington who spilled the beans due to his brief imprisonment and lack of further preferrments from Edward after 1473 - though if you believe one source only then he was still on the Council at the King's death and at the accession of Edward V.

He received little from Richard III was imprisoned briefly by Henry VII - seems to have got himself in trouble over the Lambert Simmnel rebelllion and was imprisoned again until his death.

It is impossible to say he proposed the pre-contract idea - though unlikely given Henry released him after his first short imprisonment at the same time he was making sure no-one ever saw or read Titulus Regius again.
 
Incidentally, any thoughts on how 1483 pans out if both Warwick and Clarence are still alive?

Clarence almost certainly would be, and Warwick at least might. He'd be 55, which is good going for the 15C but by no means impossible.
 
Clarence being Clarence is likely to cause trouble. And he's the next brother in line after Edward, Richard is the youngest.

But would - butterflies and all - Edward IV still die in 1483? He was only 41 (well, not quite), after all.
 
Not too serious

If Clarence does make a serious bid for the throne, or manages cack handedly to get crowned...

It's unlikely, but it would be a very fitting culmination of his career if it got Richard and the Woodvilles allied in self defence.
 
But would - butterflies and all - Edward IV still die in 1483? He was only 41 (well, not quite), after all.

Certainty is impossible, but these 15C kings (even ignoring all the unnatural deaths) seem to have been a short-lived lot. Henry IV died at 46, Henry V at 35, and ironically the only one to reach 50 was Henry VI of all people. So an early death for Edward IV is at least still distinctly possible, if not guaranteed.

Indeed, on this TL he probably hasn't had a battle to fight since 1464, so has had that much longer to settle down and enjoy the wine, women and song. If he does so with the same enthusiasm as OTL, his health may deteriorate even faster.
 
Incidentally, any thoughts on how 1483 pans out if both Warwick and Clarence are still alive?
Clarence would be very likely to be alive. Warwick is less of a certainty, but not impossible.
Clarence being Clarence is likely to cause trouble. And he's the next brother in line after Edward, Richard is the youngest.
In the TL I'm planning (not likely to appear for a while yet), I envision Clarence causing bother. How, and with whom, I probably won't know until I'm almost there...
, on this TL he probably hasn't had a battle to fight since 1464, so has had that much longer to settle down and enjoy the wine, women and song. If he does so with the same enthusiasm as OTL, his health may deteriorate even faster.
Quite. It seems that for one who was reputed to be such a fine warrior as a young man, Edward either didn't really enjoy war, or was very determined to enjoy the fruits of his labours...
 
If we somehow avoid the Readeption of Henry VI, we get all sorts of fun butterflies for notable characters from the Wars of the Roses.

Edward of Westminster doesn't die at Tewkesbury, so the Lancastrians still have a clear heir. I wouldn't be surprised if they had made some attempts to invade at some point.

Henry VI may live longer; without his son's death, he is still the legal Lancastrian claimant, and Edward IV will want him to live to prevent the Lancastrians from crowning Edward of Westminster.

Henry Tudor would be raised by the devout Yorkist William Herbert; OTL Henry being seized by Jasper Tudor and them leaving for exile together was one of the only lasting Lancastrian successes stemming from the Readeption. He'll also be much further down the line of succession.

Somerset, Devon, Dorset and other leading Lancastrians don't die at Tewkesbury, while Warwick's family and allies such as Montagu may likewise survive. Oxford's fate is harder to predict; OTL he seems to have been closely allied with his brother-in-law Warwick, but he seems to have conspired (independently) with the Lancastrians as well. So he could be either still in England with Warwick's faction or in exile with the Lancastrian court.
 
If we somehow avoid the Readeption of Henry VI, we get all sorts of fun butterflies for notable characters from the Wars of the Roses.

Edward of Westminster doesn't die at Tewkesbury, so the Lancastrians still have a clear heir. I wouldn't be surprised if they had made some attempts to invade at some point.

Henry VI may live longer; without his son's death, he is still the legal Lancastrian claimant, and Edward IV will want him to live to prevent the Lancastrians from crowning Edward of Westminster.

Henry Tudor would be raised by the devout Yorkist William Herbert; OTL Henry being seized by Jasper Tudor and them leaving for exile together was one of the only lasting Lancastrian successes stemming from the Readeption. He'll also be much further down the line of succession.

Somerset, Devon, Dorset and other leading Lancastrians don't die at Tewkesbury, while Warwick's family and allies such as Montagu may likewise survive. Oxford's fate is harder to predict; OTL he seems to have been closely allied with his brother-in-law Warwick, but he seems to have conspired (independently) with the Lancastrians as well. So he could be either still in England with Warwick's faction or in exile with the Lancastrian court.
You make some very salient points there, Rube. I shall have to come back to this post when I'm further on in my research...
 
There is a book on Eleanor Butler, Eleanor: the Secret Queen by John Ashdown-Hall which summarises the arguments for and against the supposed pre-contract which maybe of interest to any wanting more details on her, although unsurprisingly not that much is known as fact about her but the author does IMO a very decent job putting together the scant bits of evidence in a readable fashion.
 
Top