A Different End to the War of the Roses

I saw this scenario posted on another alt history site, and it intrigued me. It used the POD that Henry VI's son, Edward of Westminster, consumated his marriage to Anne Neville (according to the site this was possible, however, my knowledge of pre Tudor English history is sketchy at best), and that when he died the Lancastrian princess of Wales was pregnant.

Edward IV (Yorkist) still marries Elizabeth Woodville and has all his kids, before dying on schedule. However, Anne Neville has a daughter in 1471/72. Richard of Gloucester as regent then betrothed the young Edward V to lets call her Mary of Lancaster (other name suggestions welcome), and until around 1720 the house of Plantagenet rules England, and later Scotland.

I was simply wondering if such a situation would be plausible?
 
I saw this scenario posted on another alt history site, and it intrigued me. It used the POD that Henry VI's son, Edward of Westminster, consumated his marriage to Anne Neville (according to the site this was possible, however, my knowledge of pre Tudor English history is sketchy at best), and that when he died the Lancastrian princess of Wales was pregnant.

Edward IV (Yorkist) still marries Elizabeth Woodville and has all his kids, before dying on schedule. However, Anne Neville has a daughter in 1471/72. Richard of Gloucester as regent then betrothed the young Edward V to lets call her Mary of Lancaster (other name suggestions welcome), and until around 1720 the house of Plantagenet rules England, and later Scotland.

I was simply wondering if such a situation would be plausible?


Edward of Westminster consummating his marriage and having a posthumous daughter is fairly realistic. I've never read anything suggesting that he was unable to father a child. However the question becomes what happens to Mary of Lancaster? Girl or not she would be the heiress to the Lancastrian claims so would she be a threat or a boon for the House of York? A good thing would be this little girl would be an heir to the Neville inheritance, which with a marriage to Edward V would give at least half of the vast estate to the crown. A bad thing would be the direct line of the Lancasters remain alive, instead of the claim passing to the distant relative Henry Tudor. So we could see a Lancastrian faction with renewed life. Margaret of Anjou was still alive at this point so she could transfer her goals to her granddaughter. However the real problem is going to be Richard of Gloucester. You have to get him to stay loyal to his nephew (which might be more doable if his step-daughter marrys the King). If you can do that then the future is bright for the reunified House of Plantagenet.
 
In answer to the question posed above, I have two questions in response:

1) Would Anne Neville still marry Richard of Gloucester. No offense but it would seem to me, stepping aside as possible regent for her daughter, the legal (and underage) queen to marry Richard (who was behind Edward IV, Edward V and George of Clarence if you take it that England had not yet had an undisputed queen. If you insert the girls as ahead of Richard, he moves still further down) would be a bit of an unfair trade - stay a widow and regent, versus remarry and become a royal duchess.

2) As mentioned above, England had not yet had an undisputed queen, so would the Lancastrians have recognized Mary's right to the throne? Yes, she was the legitimate heiress, but so was Matilda and also Philippa (daughter of Lionel of Antwerp) had a better claim on Richard II's death, but the throne went to Henry IV (son of Lionel's younger brother, John of Gaunt).
 
In answer to the question posed above, I have two questions in response:

1) Would Anne Neville still marry Richard of Gloucester. No offense but it would seem to me, stepping aside as possible regent for her daughter, the legal (and underage) queen to marry Richard (who was behind Edward IV, Edward V and George of Clarence if you take it that England had not yet had an undisputed queen. If you insert the girls as ahead of Richard, he moves still further down) would be a bit of an unfair trade - stay a widow and regent, versus remarry and become a royal duchess.

2) As mentioned above, England had not yet had an undisputed queen, so would the Lancastrians have recognized Mary's right to the throne? Yes, she was the legitimate heiress, but so was Matilda and also Philippa (daughter of Lionel of Antwerp) had a better claim on Richard II's death, but the throne went to Henry IV (son of Lionel's younger brother, John of Gaunt).

1. Anne Neville was already in England and was captured shortly after the Battle of Tewkesbury so I can't see that changing. And even with a recognized heiress to the House of Lancaster alive, did the Lancastrians really have any chance at victory? I mean most of their leadership was dead, aside from those in France and Brittany. I can see Anne marrying Richard to protect herself, like she did OTL, and her daughter. Also I'm not seeing how Mary would be undisputed. Do you mean as a Queen Consort or Queen Regnant? As a Regnant she would be disputed by the Yorkists. Finally, Anne would never be regent. All English Regents have been male. I can't think of a time when an English Queen Consort acted as official Regent for her underage child. Anne would be better of marrying Richard to secure her future and safety.

2. Oh now I know what you mean by undisputed Queen. I think, for the Lancastrians, we could see a situation similar to what happened after Edward VI died. There was no other males besides Henry Tudor, who's claim to the throne was dubious at best. Plus theirs the fact that Margaret of Anjou was still the leader of the Lancaster party. And I guarantee she would fight for her granddaughters rights. As for the other two you mentioned. Matilda did end up wining in a way, her son did eventually get the throne. And as to Philippa of Ulster's line, her grandson Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, who was the heir by primogeniture, was only nine when Henry overthrew Richard II, so he couldn't really fight for his rights. Also the Lancasters had massive estates and a much larger power base then the Mortimers so there wasn't really a contest. But I have the feeling that if Richard II died naturally, still childless, that Edmund would become King.
 
English Queens did act as regent on occasion - Eleanor of Aquitaine, Katherine of Aragon spring to mind. And Margaret Beaufort for Henry VIII during his brief minority. While royal uncles seem to have been preferred during Wars of the Roses (for obvious reasons) it's not entirely out of the question. The Kingmaker or any one of the various magnates of Plantagenet blood around are more likely choices than poor Anne though.

A Queen was always referred to as Queen, even after remarriage. She wouldn't be demoted in rank or precedence. All in all Richard of Gloucester would be as good a match as she could reasonably expect.

Neither Matilda nor Philippa were clear-cut heiresses. It took a good few more generations for the English succession to be regularized in any way: the Anglo-Saxons elected their Kings while the Normans had their own methods of succession (placing importance on wills and division of fiefs, I believe, not sure) which in turn were different to those of the Angevins (which became relevant post-Henry II). Male heirs like Robert Curthose and William Clito had been overlooked; it's not hard to see why Matilda would suffer a similar fate too. Philippa predeceased Richard by 18 years and was excluded from the running by her grandfather's entail: while the common rabble looked to her son and then grandson as royal heirs, the throne was legally reserved to her uncles and male cousins before it could come to or through her. Young Mary of Lancaster would be in a somewhat different scenario, although being a child, she would almost certainly be married into the Yorkist line with the Yorkists reigning in the meantime.
 
English Queens did act as regent on occasion - Eleanor of Aquitaine, Katherine of Aragon spring to mind. And Margaret Beaufort for Henry VIII during his brief minority. While royal uncles seem to have been preferred during Wars of the Roses (for obvious reasons) it's not entirely out of the question. The Kingmaker or any one of the various magnates of Plantagenet blood around are more likely choices than poor Anne though.

A Queen was always referred to as Queen, even after remarriage. She wouldn't be demoted in rank or precedence. All in all Richard of Gloucester would be as good a match as she could reasonably expect.

Neither Matilda nor Philippa were clear-cut heiresses. It took a good few more generations for the English succession to be regularized in any way: the Anglo-Saxons elected their Kings while the Normans had their own methods of succession (placing importance on wills and division of fiefs, I believe, not sure) which in turn were different to those of the Angevins (which became relevant post-Henry II). Male heirs like Robert Curthose and William Clito had been overlooked; it's not hard to see why Matilda would suffer a similar fate too. Philippa predeceased Richard by 18 years and was excluded from the running by her grandfather's entail: while the common rabble looked to her son and then grandson as royal heirs, the throne was legally reserved to her uncles and male cousins before it could come to or through her. Young Mary of Lancaster would be in a somewhat different scenario, although being a child, she would almost certainly be married into the Yorkist line with the Yorkists reigning in the meantime.

For regents I meant for underage monarchs. I've never seen a Queen Mother act as Regent in England like they did in France. Like there's never been an English Anne of Austria or Marie de' Medici. But for the rest, I agree. I wonder if the House of York would call themselves the House of Plantagenet after the marriage between Mary and Edward. After all it would a a reunification of the two branches.
 
For regents I meant for underage monarchs. I've never seen a Queen Mother act as Regent in England like they did in France. Like there's never been an English Anne of Austria or Marie de' Medici. But for the rest, I agree. I wonder if the House of York would call themselves the House of Plantagenet after the marriage between Mary and Edward. After all it would a a reunification of the two branches.

Yeah, I think that's a definite possibility - to recall it was Richard of York who revived use of Geoffrey of Anjou's nickname "Plantagenet" as a means of asserting his position within the royal lineage. Marriage to Mary would also be a nice way of bolstering the family's claim to France (via Queen Katherine, Treaty of Troyes) and annexing the Bohun and Lancaster landed property.

As for the regency, all you need is the right queen to make it happen. I doubt Eleanor of Aquitaine would stand by while someone else ruled as regent for one of her sons.
 
Yeah, I think that's a definite possibility - to recall it was Richard of York who revived use of Geoffrey of Anjou's nickname "Plantagenet" as a means of asserting his position within the royal lineage. Marriage to Mary would also be a nice way of bolstering the family's claim to France (via Queen Katherine, Treaty of Troyes) and annexing the Bohun and Lancaster landed property.

As for the regency, all you need is the right queen to make it happen. I doubt Eleanor of Aquitaine would stand by while someone else ruled as regent for one of her sons.

I get most of that but why would they need to bolster their claim to France? I mean by that point the only part of France they controlled was the Pale de Calais and England was exhausted. I can't see them restarting the Hundred years' war again at that point. Also, didn't the crown already annex the Lancaster and Bohun estates? I mean the Lancastrians had lost the war by that point so I can't see why the land would remain with an exile (Edward of Westminster for the 1460s). However it could boost claims for the Neville estates. Mary's mother was co-heiress to the estates and I imagine that the crown would make sure she inherited the majority of it, in exchange for her daughter being the heiress to those properties.

As for the right Queen, I agree. I can't imagine Eleanor of Aquitaine or Catherine of Aragon allowing someone else to rule for their children. However, both were royal, and in Eleanors case a major landowner. Anne was neither, plus her father was dead and sister married to the Kings brother. I can't see Anne Neville being a Regent.
 
I get most of that but why would they need to bolster their claim to France? I mean by that point the only part of France they controlled was the Pale de Calais and England was exhausted. I can't see them restarting the Hundred years' war again at that point. Also, didn't the crown already annex the Lancaster and Bohun estates? I mean the Lancastrians had lost the war by that point so I can't see why the land would remain with an exile (Edward of Westminster for the 1460s). However it could boost claims for the Neville estates. Mary's mother was co-heiress to the estates and I imagine that the crown would make sure she inherited the majority of it, in exchange for her daughter being the heiress to those properties.

As for the right Queen, I agree. I can't imagine Eleanor of Aquitaine or Catherine of Aragon allowing someone else to rule for their children. However, both were royal, and in Eleanors case a major landowner. Anne was neither, plus her father was dead and sister married to the Kings brother. I can't see Anne Neville being a Regent.

The claim to France was always taken quite seriously, and in propaganda relating to Henry VI they made much of his double descent from Saint Louis. The marriage of Mary of Lancaster into the York line would thus be the reunion not only of the splintered Plantagenet house but also of the divided descent of Saint Louis.

As for the Hundred Years War, you could say it was continued well into the Baroque era - fighting over land being replaced with haggling over the pensions (or what the English considered tribute, as de jure kings) from the de facto King in Paris.

Mary of Lancaster was the heiress to those Bohun and Lancaster estates - not sure what their legal status was at the time, but most likely if the Crown was snatched from her they shouldn't be. I'm guessing Mary would not go into exile or be attainted.

I agree Anne Neville would most likely be an ineffectual sideline character, although as Countess of Warwick/Salisbury she would have some regional pull of her own. All that is gone, of course, if she remarries, since her husband and son (if she had one) would then take over.
 
Given that after Tewkesbury - the majority of the Lancastrian players were dead or captured - Anne is going to be in the position she was in our tl with of course her major asset in the Lancastrian heiress - her daughter.
I suspect Edward IV will put her in relative secure but comfortable house arrest until the child is born and as its a girl will breathe a sigh of relief.
With the death of Anne's first husband the Lancastrian line is extinct in the male line - and the infant is the perfect age to be betrothed to the newly born infant Prince of Wales at some point in the 1470s.
Much will depend on where the child is brought up - in this scenario it is unlikely that Anne Neville will be entrusted to her sister and brother in law - the Clarence's as Edward remained suspicious of his middle brother - her claims to half the Warwick Salisbury inheritance were a major issue for Clarence and festered until his death.
Edward may well be keen for Richard to marry her - custody of the infant Mary of Lancaster for Edward's most loyal brother and eventual betrothal to the Prince of Wales.
The issue will remain what happens when Edward dies and whether Richard will take the same action.
 
The claim to France was always taken quite seriously, and in propaganda relating to Henry VI they made much of his double descent from Saint Louis. The marriage of Mary of Lancaster into the York line would thus be the reunion not only of the splintered Plantagenet house but also of the divided descent of Saint Louis.

As for the Hundred Years War, you could say it was continued well into the Baroque era - fighting over land being replaced with haggling over the pensions (or what the English considered tribute, as de jure kings) from the de facto King in Paris.

Mary of Lancaster was the heiress to those Bohun and Lancaster estates - not sure what their legal status was at the time, but most likely if the Crown was snatched from her they shouldn't be. I'm guessing Mary would not go into exile or be attainted.

I agree Anne Neville would most likely be an ineffectual sideline character, although as Countess of Warwick/Salisbury she would have some regional pull of her own. All that is gone, of course, if she remarries, since her husband and son (if she had one) would then take over.

I wouldn't consider the various wars between England/Britain/UK and France as a continuation of the Hundred years war. For one the other wars were never over succession rights in either England or France. They fought over many things but never did the British Monarch press his or her rights to the French throne, besides being crowned King of France during the Coronation and the title being included in the official title of the Sovereign.

As for the estates, well I think they were already seized by the Crown. I mean who would hold the estates while the Lancastrians were exiled by their defeat in the War of the Roses. But the marriage would help the Yorkists heal the breach between the Yorkists and Lancastrians and throwout the country. Not to mention the Neville inheritance would go to the crown. So the marriage would be a definite good thing.

Finally Anne wouldn't be Countess of anything. The title was held by right of marriage so Warwick's wife would hold the title, followed by Anne's older sister Isabel. And she would have to remarry. She would need a male protector to help secure her and her daughter's safety.

Given that after Tewkesbury - the majority of the Lancastrian players were dead or captured - Anne is going to be in the position she was in our tl with of course her major asset in the Lancastrian heiress - her daughter.
I suspect Edward IV will put her in relative secure but comfortable house arrest until the child is born and as its a girl will breathe a sigh of relief.
With the death of Anne's first husband the Lancastrian line is extinct in the male line - and the infant is the perfect age to be betrothed to the newly born infant Prince of Wales at some point in the 1470s.
Much will depend on where the child is brought up - in this scenario it is unlikely that Anne Neville will be entrusted to her sister and brother in law - the Clarence's as Edward remained suspicious of his middle brother - her claims to half the Warwick Salisbury inheritance were a major issue for Clarence and festered until his death.
Edward may well be keen for Richard to marry her - custody of the infant Mary of Lancaster for Edward's most loyal brother and eventual betrothal to the Prince of Wales.
The issue will remain what happens when Edward dies and whether Richard will take the same action.

I agree completely with this. When its obvious that Anne's pregnant (if its not already) she'll be put somewhere safe, perhaps with her relative, and the Kings mother, Cecily Neville Dowager Duchess of York. Once she has Mary, I can see the Yorkists are relived and will start to negotiate a betrothal between the Lancastrian heiress and Yorkist Prince of Wales. But yes I doubt Clarence would get custody of Anne and baby Mary. Edward never really trusted him so I can't see him being given custody of the Lancastrian heiress and the Dowager Princess of Wales. Perhaps they could stay with the Kings mother? That could work. Personally I think everything depends on how Edward IV acts. Anne would either remain a widow or be married to a loyal relative, like Gloucester. Gloucester always stayed loyal to Edward IV throwout his reign so I can see him being a match for Anne and a stepfather for Mary. But again I agree that a lot will depend on Richards actions after Edward IV dies. He can't marry Mary to his own heir because they would be half-siblings. So we might see Richard remain loyal to Edward V, who would be his son-in-law as well as his nephew.
 
I wouldn't consider the various wars between England/Britain/UK and France as a continuation of the Hundred years war. For one the other wars were never over succession rights in either England or France. They fought over many things but never did the British Monarch press his or her rights to the French throne, besides being crowned King of France during the Coronation and the title being included in the official title of the Sovereign.

As for the estates, well I think they were already seized by the Crown. I mean who would hold the estates while the Lancastrians were exiled by their defeat in the War of the Roses. But the marriage would help the Yorkists heal the breach between the Yorkists and Lancastrians and throwout the country. Not to mention the Neville inheritance would go to the crown. So the marriage would be a definite good thing.

Finally Anne wouldn't be Countess of anything. The title was held by right of marriage so Warwick's wife would hold the title, followed by Anne's older sister Isabel. And she would have to remarry. She would need a male protector to help secure her and her daughter's safety.

I didn't mean as far as the UK or Britain, but as late as the Tudors the English claim to France was taken very seriously - hence Henry VIII et al considering the French pensions as their due tribute (as de jure Kings) from the de facto Kings ruling their kingdom. The huge sums paid out by the French suggests they took it fairly seriously too. c1559 the French were trying to convince Elizabeth to betroth her non-existent eldest son and eldest daughter to the non-existent eldest son and daughter of the Dauphin in order to resolve the matter.

Warwick's wife was her mother, so in due time she would inherit. Strict primogeniture didn't apply to female inheritance: so when there were two daughters, the division of estates was equal (hence the desire of both Thomas of Gloucester and George of Clarence to control who their unwanted sister-in-law would marry/force them into a convent). Given their almost immediate proximity to the throne the Neville sisters would probably split their titles equally too (ie, as I believe happened with the Bohun sisters) or have the titles recreated. She wouldn't have to remarry: she could linger on as Dowager Princess of Wales if she so wished - her connections were sufficient to spare her from execution or anything like, and so long as her daughter was secured in marriage to a Yorkist, she'd be safe too. Her own inheritance plus dower would be enough to see her live a comfortable life.

Also, it's not impossible for Richard to end up married to Anne of Brittany instead of Edward V, thus removing him from the scene altogether.
 
CAn i just ask a followup question? Catherine of Aragon was brought to London to legitimize the Tudor rule (since as a descendant of two of John of Gaunt's daughters who could inherit, she was higher up than Margaret Beaufort's line which was barred from inheriting). In this case there would be no need for this, so who might Edward V's son marry?

And might we still see Edward IV's daughters married off as he planned for them? Or will they marry as Henry VII did with them?
 
CAn i just ask a followup question? Catherine of Aragon was brought to London to legitimize the Tudor rule (since as a descendant of two of John of Gaunt's daughters who could inherit, she was higher up than Margaret Beaufort's line which was barred from inheriting). In this case there would be no need for this, so who might Edward V's son marry?
CoA - ignoring any butterflies and stuff - is still a good marriage prospect. A hopefully good dowry, prestigious royal line, and a potential ally if someone decides to take the 'No, really, we're going to try this 'King of France' thing again."
 
CAn i just ask a followup question? Catherine of Aragon was brought to London to legitimize the Tudor rule (since as a descendant of two of John of Gaunt's daughters who could inherit, she was higher up than Margaret Beaufort's line which was barred from inheriting). In this case there would be no need for this, so who might Edward V's son marry?

By the end of Henry VII's reign the legitimization of the Tudors isn't as much of a big deal as it was right after Bosworth. After the Battle of Stoke (first two years of his reign), Henry VII was pretty secure. And he did much to curb the power of the magnates; making a War of the Roses scenario much less likely. By the end of his reign, Edward Earl of Warwick has been put to death and there are very few people with a good blood claim to the throne to challenge the Tudors. And the business about the Tudors not having a good blood claim to the throne goes away after the first generation; through their mother Prince Arthur and Prince Henry had very solid blood claims to the throne as the senior heirs and grandsons of Edward IV.

Catherine of Aragon was the daughter of the most powerful couple in the world. Came with a good dowry and had some very powerful relations. She also had legitimate descent through John of Gaunt; which burnished the credential of the House of Lancaster, but this wasn't necessary for the Tudors to remain on the throne in the future. But the Tudors were a new dynasty, and a marriage to a very prestigious dynasty is a sign that they were stable prospects. Let's not forget that Henry VII was working on a marriage between his oldest daughter and the King of Scots; even without Catherine of Aragon, his children were pretty good catches.

Also Catherine of Aragon's value as a bride went down significantly after her mother died. Unfortunately for her, the thrones of Castile and Aragon wouldn't pass to her brother, but her nephew who had closer relations he might want to marry off first (ie his sisters). Of course between Arthur's death and Henry VII's death, her father was still the King of Aragon and could have made a pretty decent match for her if he so desired. Unfortunately for her, her father wasn't very concerned with getting her settled down again in the these years she lived in relative penury and obscurity. Many historians say that Henry VIII's decision to marry her was an absolute godsend for her. He didn't get the full value of her dowry and if he wanted to cosy up to the Hapsburgs more he could have married Charles V's oldest sister. By contrast when Henry VII died his youngest child was highly valued in the marriage market. Henry VIII's sister Princess Mary was engaged to Catherine's nephew Emperor Charles for many years before briefly becoming the Queen of France. And Henry likely could have married her off very well if she hadn't married Charles Brandon first.
 
Last edited:
Just a question I have concerning the house of Lancaster: is anyone aware of a sort of genetic/congenital defect that Mary de Bohun passed onto her children? Since of them, the only one to sire a child that survived infancy was Henry V.
Both Bedford and Gloucester's only (legitimate) children lived a few hours, as did Philippa's.

I ask because (if) Edward of Lancaster is Henry VI's son, therefore it would affect him to, and thus he might end as an earlier version of Henry VIII
 
Last edited:
Just a question I have concerning the house of Lancaster: is anyone aware of a sort of genetic/congenital defect that Mary de Bohun passed onto her children? Since of them, the only one to sire a child that survived infancy was Henry V.
Both Bedford and Gloucester's only (legitimate) children lived a few hours, as did Philippa's.

I ask because (if) Edward of Lancaster is Henry VI's son, therefore it would affect him to, and thus he might end as an earlier version of Henry VIII
Most of them seemed to have had illegitimate issue. Biology doesn't care about wedlock, so it doesn't seem to have prevented it. I suspect it had more to do with the second generations' wives (think of all the marital problems Humphrey of Lancaster had, for example).
 
Just a question I have concerning the house of Lancaster: is anyone aware of a sort of genetic/congenital defect that Mary de Bohun passed onto her children? Since of them, the only one to sire a child that survived infancy was Henry V.
Both Bedford and Gloucester's only (legitimate) children lived a few hours, as did Philippa's.

I ask because (if) Edward of Lancaster is Henry VI's son, therefore it would affect him to, and thus he might end as an earlier version of Henry VIII

As to possible health problems, I would be more concerned with the glass-delusion/schizophrenia/mental instability that Edward would bring to the table genetically. His grandmother, Catherine de Valois' father, was named Charles le Fou for a reason. And Henry VI doesn't seem to have suffered any the less from it.

It is interesting though that none of Catherine's children by Owen Tudor suffered from it (or at least is recorded of suffering from it though).
 
Top