A Plantagenet question

A question I've been pondering as of late for a timeline/ story I am considering is this: Under the Tudors, we saw an English equivalent to Absolutism for a long time, whilst under the Stuarts the balance started to shift, whilst under the Hannoverians it shifted completely. Say a branch of the House of Plantagenet-be it the main line descended from the Black Prince, or say the House of York following the depletion of the nobility during the War of the Roses- manages to stay in power, and keeps things relatively in line, how would this influence the development of crown parliament relations- would the crown hold dominance?, would it be more balanced?- And how might this influence something such as the reformation within England? Furthermore, say something similar to the succession issues happens in Scotland with regards to Mary Queen of Scots, does this result in one of the Plantagenet kings fulfilling Edward I's ambition?
 
I don't think there is any genetic predisposition to Absolutism vs Constitutional Monarchy. The Tudor and Stuart periods saw numerous countries trying (successfully or unsuccessfully) to centralize authority and impose absolutism. A Plantagenet monarch would likely try something similar; whether s/he succeeds will depend on the personalities and circumstances involved. There likely will be continued efforts to deal with Scotland, but OTL's Stuart inheritance was more or less a fluke; Henry VII certainly didn't expect that marrying his daughter to the Scottish monarch would lead to a union of the crowns, and Henry VIII crafted his succession acts specifically to avoid it.

The English will obviously be interested in acquiring Scotland (or at least ensuring a friendly government), but well into the OTL Tudor period, they remained more concerned with their claims in France; I'd expect either a Yorkist or Black Prince-descended line to be likewise preoccupied.
 
Alright some interesting points there. And I suppose they would suffer the same luck as the Tudors did regarding France? Or one or two more gains during the years of civil war. Relations with Spain will be interesting as well. Furthermore in the immediate aftermath of the war of the roses there are less nobles around, that could see potential power grow
 
Edward IV and Richard III both planned to marry family members into the house of Stewart in order to ensure pro-English sentiments in Edinburgh; while Richard III made several successful raids into Scotland IIRC.

Edward IV (marriages between Cecily of York to James IV, Anne of York to James III's uncle/cousin the duke of Albany who intended to depose the king of Scots - ironic when one considers the events following Edward's death)

Richard III (proposed a match between his niece, Anne de la Pole, and Albany's delegitimized son, Alisdair (son of Albany's divorced first wife, Catherine Sinclair), as well as that of another niece to James IV)
 
Hmm interesting, Scottish marriages would certainly make things interesting, especially should Richard III come around, or if there is some issue regarding Edward IV and his line.

So for argument's sake, let's say Isabel Neville does not die when she did otl, thus potentially lessening her husband's madness by a slight extent, when Edward IV dies in 1483, his son is only 13, Richard, Duke of Gloucester is Lord Protector, pissing of Clarence who believes that role should be his. However, Clarence is approached by Stillington, who informs him of the plight troth, thus in George's mind making him the rightful King. He goes to make this announcement in London, and when he does so, finds people laughing at him. Gloucester, who had managed to secure a tenuous alliance with the Woodvilles for the time being, orders his brother's arrest for treason, and soon enough things go from there. Would a marriage between E V and Anne of Brittany ever occur?
 
Hmm interesting, Scottish marriages would certainly make things interesting, especially should Richard III come around, or if there is some issue regarding Edward IV and his line.

So for argument's sake, let's say Isabel Neville does not die when she did otl, thus potentially lessening her husband's madness by a slight extent, when Edward IV dies in 1483, his son is only 13, Richard, Duke of Gloucester is Lord Protector, pissing of Clarence who believes that role should be his. However, Clarence is approached by Stillington, who informs him of the plight troth, thus in George's mind making him the rightful King. He goes to make this announcement in London, and when he does so, finds people laughing at him. Gloucester, who had managed to secure a tenuous alliance with the Woodvilles for the time being, orders his brother's arrest for treason, and soon enough things go from there. Would a marriage between E V and Anne of Brittany ever occur?

If Isabel and George are both still around, Richard's power base would be substantially reduced, leaving him a pretty impotent LP. George would probably be the most powerful man in the land, unless Edward took other steps before dying.
 
If Isabel and George are both still around, Richard's power base would be substantially reduced, leaving him a pretty impotent LP. George would probably be the most powerful man in the land, unless Edward took other steps before dying.

Oh really? Hmm, would it be more interesting to keep George and Isabel alive, or to have Stillington die before Edward IV?
 
There was a general shift in most European powers towards a centralised authority particularly during the reformation. How far that became true absolutism (as say practiced in 18/19th C Russia) is debatable. I don't necessarily think a dynastic change would have made a great deal of difference in England because the crown's powers were already slightly restricted. A series of very strong monarchs who lived within their means might have reduced Parliament's authority but that would have required zero rebellions, zero wars and zero reformation.
The Tudors whatever they might have told their Parliaments were not absolute - they were reliant on Parliament for money and all their religious changes were rubber stamped by their parliaments.
Granted those Parliaments could be packed by people supporting key nobles who in turn supported the crown - but rogues are always going to get through somehow.
The Tudors like their medieval Plantagenet predecessors did what was always done - summon a Parliament on accession (to grant them and authorise their traditional cash sources) and then spend the rest of the reign trying to live within their means and thereby avoid having to summon Parliament again. Of course as the size of the state grew, rebellions and war needed money to deal with etc so the need for Parliament to grant further taxation was more common. During the 15th Century Parliament was summoned to deal wiht the fallout of civil war and to grant more cash to hard pressed Kings. Under the Tudor's Parliament was needed again to confirm succession changes, religious reforms and again to grant cash - arguably the Tudor reliance on Parliament laid the ground work for its growing view of self-worth and authority.
The Tudor's probably came the closest to absolutism(or tyranny) given that from the 1530s onwards with the removal of the Roman Catholic Church as a rival to the crown's authority they were the sole power in the land but even then their ability to exercise their powers was not unlimited.
The Tudor's were on the whole better at dealing with their Parliaments - judging when the mood might turn against them and acting to prevent open conflict.
The early Stuarts had a less amicable relationship in part because of the crown's control of the church (meaning all those who found fault with the style and structure were effectively criticising the monarch directly), their own personal views on their divinely appointed status and a growing resentment of the crown and its supporters. Charles I's attempts at self rule emphasised that divide meaning when he had to summon parliament he came unstuck as years of resentment were unleashed.
It doesn't matter who was on the throne the reality is that without the ability to raise cash at will to fight your wars, your rebels and build your palaces you are going to struggle to rule without Parliament - and it would be difficult to create a circumstance where a monarch could simply abolish the institution.
You could argue that Britain under the Hanoverians was in effect a virtually absolutist state (the difference was the monarch was not absolute but the crown in Parliament was - elections were rigged - power rested with groups of aristocrats and the titleless wealthy - and simply switched between them every few years).
 
Alright an interesting assessment there, I suppose one could say Parliament's powers grew when the hundred years war began?

As another scenario, from the war of the roses timeline how is this: In 1469, following an attempt to remove Woodville influence, the Earl of Warwick and his son in law, George, Duke of Clarence had attempted to rule through the King, imprisoning him first in Warwick Castle then elsewhere, however, unrest in the country, prompted the Earl, to reluctantly allow the King to resume his personal rule, with Warwick and Clarence getting off with a pardon and a warning. Warwick retired to his estates, knowing full well that things were not as they once had been, whilst Clarence retired to Richmond, wondering when the axe would come for him. Despite, the insistence of his wife, King Edward was content to forgive, but not forget, and indeed, it seems that for a time, he listened to his mother, the Dowager Duchess of York, as well as his sister Margaret, who suggested, that the best way to heal a divide would be to marry the Duke of Gloucester, to Warwick's younger daughter, Anne Neville. The marriage which was sanctioned by the King and Pope, took place in November, 1469, with the Earl being present as well as the royal family. Over the next few months, Edward would resume ruling in his own way, reforming laws, and keeping one eye on France, where the last of the Lancastrians resided in exile. Warwick stewed at his home in Middleham, whilst keeping in contact with his son in law, Clarence. When it was announced that Anne Neville, the Duchess of Gloucester was expecting a child, Clarence is said to have cursed the heavens, for fear of losing out on some of the Warwick and Neville Inheritance. Indeed, it was in the month of August, 1470, that a boy, named Edward, for his royal uncle, was born, at Gloucester's home of Sandal Castle. Clarence despaired even more, but could not long hold his grievance, for later that year, James III of Scotland, seemingly desperate to remove himself from the yolk of the regents thumb, and prove himself a true Scot, went on the tradition raid that Scots Kings had indulged in the past, and moved southwards, into Northumberland. A battle was held between James III and John Neville, Earl of Northumberland, which resulted in the Earl being badly wounded, and his forces breaking, showing signs of discontent with the replacement of the Percies in the north. James III advanced further south, only to be stopped by a host commanded by the Earl of Warwick, with his two son in laws at his side. James III was captured during the battle, and dragged down to London, where in a show of force, Edward IV forced the man to swear fealty to him as his overlord, and only released him after setting the ransom at a relatively high level.
 
A bit more for the above snippet, do let me know your thoughts: Between the end of the Scottish invasion in 1470 and the birth of the second of the King's sons named Richard, in 1473, much happened. Edward IV, seemingly driven to achieve more activeness, implemented a series of reforms in the taxation process, that were meant to lessen his dependency on Parliament for funds, he also, encouraged the sheriffs and Justices of the Peace to route out any form of discontent or banditry on the roads, making many feel that this was the safest that they had been since the troubles since York and Lancaster began. And yet, the Lancastrian threat remained, Edward of Westminster remained a resident in Paris, earning his chops, fighting alongside the King of France in his war against Charles the Bold of Burgundy, and against King Louis's over zealous brother. Despite, the increased prosperity of peace, there was a restlessness amongst the nobility, some like Warwick were unhappy with the growing Woodville presence at court, whilst others such as the Nevilles of Westmoreland, were unhappy over insults dealt to them many years past. Clarence, who held no official role in his brother's government, compared to Gloucester, who was at once Lord Constable and Lord High Admiral, felt slighted, and as such began plotting. A series of meetings between Warwick, Clarence and fellow disaffected lords in the north of the country, led to a declaration of war by Warwick, stated to remove vile advisers to the King. This declaration was issued in late 1472, by early 1473, Warwick had amassed a following, minus his brother, the Earl of Northumberland, and was marching south.
 
Last edited:
Not gonna happen that the Spider King is going to simply hand over part of France to the (in Lancastrian eyes) future king of England. Where's his boast of "my father fought the English of with swords and arrows, I bought them off with pâté, wine and venison". Besides, rather the Comte du Maine (who's a Valois), than risking a second Hundred Years' War when the ink is barely dry on the peace treaty that ended the first one. And in any case, du Maine's not heir unless Nicolas of Lorraine is dead, which unless he's been killed off early, he didn't die 'til '73 OTL.
 
Not gonna happen that the Spider King is going to simply hand over part of France to the (in Lancastrian eyes) future king of England. Where's his boast of "my father fought the English of with swords and arrows, I bought them off with pâté, wine and venison". Besides, rather the Comte du Maine (who's a Valois), than risking a second Hundred Years' War when the ink is barely dry on the peace treaty that ended the first one. And in any case, du Maine's not heir unless Nicolas of Lorraine is dead, which unless he's been killed off early, he didn't die 'til '73 OTL.

Alright, fair point, what do you suggest?
 
Warwick, though capable of being hasty in word, never moved without a real plan in place. Even if it was the same plan, ie fake a peasant uprising to draw Edward out of his base, in part because he himself had so many lands at risk if he openly shows his hand with Edward given the initiative.

I could see much of what you're saying go down, but I think Neville'd have more planned than just raising his banners and marching south.
 
Warwick, though capable of being hasty in word, never moved without a real plan in place. Even if it was the same plan, ie fake a peasant uprising to draw Edward out of his base, in part because he himself had so many lands at risk if he openly shows his hand with Edward given the initiative.

I could see much of what you're saying go down, but I think Neville'd have more planned than just raising his banners and marching south.

Alright, do you think something along the lines of governing through Edward again, or potentially even removing Ned for George-which would admittedly be difficult, now that Ned has two sons
 
Alright, do you think something along the lines of governing through Edward again, or potentially even removing Ned for George-which would admittedly be difficult, now that Ned has two sons

I don't see him trying to use Edward again, no. That proved ineffective even when he had total control, and I don't see what could have changed for the better. No, he'd be replacing him, either as illegitimate, ineffective or dead. He might stop short of killing him, he was pretty mercurial and unpredictable. But Edward wouldn't be king anymore.

Eh, I mean, with Warwick I guess anything's possible...he had almost infinite confidence in his ability to pull off w/e he wanted to achieve. But unless he gets ahold of some lever he didn't have the first time, I can't see him making the same mistake.
 
I don't see him trying to use Edward again, no. That proved ineffective even when he had total control, and I don't see what could have changed for the better. No, he'd be replacing him, either as illegitimate, ineffective or dead. He might stop short of killing him, he was pretty mercurial and unpredictable. But Edward wouldn't be king anymore.

Eh, I mean, with Warwick I guess anything's possible...he had almost infinite confidence in his ability to pull off w/e he wanted to achieve. But unless he gets ahold of some lever he didn't have the first time, I can't see him making the same mistake.

Alright interesting. So now, Johnny Neville's still in ALnwick, and didin't join his brother, whilst Clarence has joined Warwick. Richard, however, is in his estates in the south, with his wife. Will be very curious to see what you think should happen from here.
 
Alright interesting. So now, Johnny Neville's still in ALnwick, and didin't join his brother, whilst Clarence has joined Warwick. Richard, however, is in his estates in the south, with his wife. Will be very curious to see what you think should happen from here.

Is Johnny out out, or just staying behind for the moment? What numbers is everyone bringing to the party? What other disaffected lords are involved? Richard will back Edward, but Warwick will at least make a play for him if he can. George us more likely to stay the course than in real life, as he's not been rendered redundant by the Lancasters.

Speaking of which, obviously Warwick here is proceeding without that remarkable VoLTE-face, but I think he'd be at least breaking off some of their supporters, or trying to. He's probably calling in the Calais force as his foundation, but he'll need more.
 
Is Johnny out out, or just staying behind for the moment? What numbers is everyone bringing to the party? What other disaffected lords are involved? Richard will back Edward, but Warwick will at least make a play for him if he can. George us more likely to stay the course than in real life, as he's not been rendered redundant by the Lancasters.

Speaking of which, obviously Warwick here is proceeding without that remarkable VoLTE-face, but I think he'd be at least breaking off some of their supporters, or trying to. He's probably calling in the Calais force as his foundation, but he'll need more.

Johnny's 'keeping an eye on the border with Scotland.' I'd say at present Warwick and Clarence combined have around 2,000-2,500 men perhaps. George Neville, Baron Latimer, Thomas Neville, Viscount Fauconberg, possibly some of Warwick's northern allies?
 
Hmm, a bit more for this I think:

The Year 1473, dawned with the Earl of Warwick rebelling against King Edward IV. This time however, there was no pretence involved, the man was not rebelling to remove evil counsellors as he had claimed four years past, no, this time he was rebelling to put his son in law George, Duke of Clarence on the throne. Using the old claim that Edward was a bastard, and the product of an illicit affair between Cecily, Dowager Duchess of York and a archer in Rouen, Warwick proclaimed his son in law George I of England-conveniently forgetting that Edward had two sons, both recently born, and that his own puppet, was not so willing to slight his own mother. Warwick and Clarence were joined by George Neville, Baron Latimer, Thomas Neville, Viscount Fauconberg, John Scrope, 5th Baron Scrope, and Edmund de Ros, Baron de Ros. All were reasonably powerful men within northern and southern England, but none held the prestige that John Neville, Earl of Northumberland did, and yet the Earl remained in Alnwick, decidedly uninterested in moving south, and keeping his eyes firmly locked to the north, where James III was preparing yet another campaign, this time to soothe his restless earls. In the small town of Buxton, forces under the command of Warwick, and forces under the command of Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl of Rivers, met. The battle was a decisive victory for Warwick, and forced Woodville to retreat hastily back southwards, whilst Warwick and his host advanced further south. In London, the King gathered retainers such as William Hastings, Baron Hastings, the Earls of Pembroke and Devon and his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, to his side, preparing to march forward to deal with Warwick's growing host of men. The Stanleys, ever the shifting foxes, allowed Warwick to pass unmolested through their lands, something that would later earn them the King's ire, but for now, they merely sat and watched, as Warwick and his army moved further south. Eventually, another battle was had, this time at Coalville, between Warwick's forces, and the initial probing force of the Earl of Devon. Once again, luck was with Warwick as Devon was slain during the fighting, and his army was broken in half, by the far superior army of Warwick and Clarence. Clarence by this point seemed to be shifting backwards and forwards, he had joined his father-in law's rebellion out of a sense of opportunity, but now he was seemingly quite close to actually achieving that which he had hungered for, for a long time, and he was not quite sure how to feel about it. When Warwick's army met that of King Edward's at the place where English history had long ago been decided, the forces were relatively evenly matched. The fighting was ferocious, and the King gave orders for both Clarence and Warwick to be taken alive, the rest he did not much care about. The battle ended, with Latimer and Fauconberg slain, their men broken, Scrope was taken a prisoner, whilst de Ros lost his head to the executioner's axe, many others died during the course of the fighting. Warwick was later found dead, having been stabbed a thousand times and stripped naked as he tried to surrender. Clarence, was dragged before the King in chains, he was dragged minus chains to London, where he was thrown into the tower for a time. Warwick's lands and titles were declared forefit to the crown, and Edward rewarded his brother Gloucester by giving him Middleham, Sheriff Hutton and Penrith, as well as the title of Earl of Salisbury for his young son Edward. The Warwick lands and estates, remained under the person of Anne de Beauchamp nominally, but really rulership of those lands, fell to members appointed by the King, for the time, whilst he debated what to do with his brother.
 
Top