A Son for Lancaster

Out of curiosity, what would the results have been if Anne Neville had been pregnant by her husband, Edward of Westminster, prince of Wales, at Tewkesbury and given birth to a son?
 
Remember infant mortality rates means there is no guarantee that he'll very live long but assuming he does either he gets away to France and is the Great White Hope of the Lancastrians or if the Yorkists grab him and his mother and he sadly dies of some childhood disease or accident. He's simply too dangerous to keep around for the Yorkists and Infant Mortality rates are high enough that its a plausible line to put out. Lancastrians will suspect its murder even if it is a natural death but with Edward IV on the throne they can't do much about it.
 
Last edited:
Either he gets away to France and is the Great White Hope of the Lancastrians or if the Yorkists grab him and his mother he sadly dies of some childhood disease or accident. Infant Mortality rates are high enough that its plausible and if Lancastrians suspect its murder but can't prove it the Yorkists won't care.
The Lancastrians will almost certainly accuse the Yorkists of murder, even if it was entirely natural (accusations of poisoning tended to accompany almost any marginally suspicious death in those days). On the other hand, after Tewkesbury, and especially if Fauconberg's Kentish rebellion is still crushed, the Lancastrians are pretty much a spent force.

They only really recovered OTL because the shenanigans between Richard III and the Princes in the Tower had alienated enough English nobles to allow the Lancastrians/Tudors to build a new network of supporters. If something similar doesn't happen, it will be treated the same way as e.g. Henry VI's murder. If Richard III does end up making his play and it eventually leads to a Tudor victory as OTL, expect the murder of Edward's son to be added to the traditional crimes of Richard III.
 
Remember infant mortality rates means there is no guarantee that he'll very live long but assuming he does either he gets away to France and is the Great White Hope of the Lancastrians or if the Yorkists grab him and his mother and he sadly dies of some childhood disease or accident. He's simply too dangerous to keep around for the Yorkists and Infant Mortality rates are high enough that its a plausible line to put out. Lancastrians will suspect its murder even if it is a natural death but with Edward IV on the throne they can't do much about it.

I realize it's a big if, but say he survives to adulthood, perhaps he's spirited away to France or Scotland - and is the one instead of Henry Tudor leading the Lancastrian army at a lookalike Bosworth.
 
I realize it's a big if, but say he survives to adulthood, perhaps he's spirited away to France or Scotland - and is the one instead of Henry Tudor leading the Lancastrian army at a lookalike Bosworth.

Well, for one thing, Anne Neville in this scenario probably stays in France with the Lancastrian exiles, and so doesn't marry Richard III. So Richard needs a new bride, and might manage to get a surviving son out of it. Likewise, the Duke of Clarence will get the undivided Neville inheritance unquestioned by right of his wife, although his incompetence and treachery means he probably still ends up getting himself killed at some point.

This new kid will be of age to marry Elizabeth of York if they need to secure Woodville support for the *Bosworth invasion, just like OTL Henry VII. We can't even begin to speculate on his personality, since he will presumably live almost his whole life in exile. He could be an excellent monarch like Henry VII, or an incompetent like Henry VI, or somewhere in between.

All this assumes that things go as OTL in England; as I said, the Tudor invasion was a very contingent thing; if Edward IV had lived another decade (so that his son was old enough to avoid a regency), things would probably have looked very different.
 
Out of curiosity, what would the results have been if Anne Neville had been pregnant by her husband, Edward of Westminster, prince of Wales, at Tewkesbury and given birth to a son?

Richard, Duke of Gloucester would have killed the little Prince if it ever came under Yorkist power, we remember that Richard killed (ether by his own hand, or over saw the murder) of King Henry VI in the Tower of London after the Lancaster restoration (likely while Henry VI was at prayer) Richard also killed his own brother George the Duke of Clarence (maybe by drowning in wine) Richard would of course latter have King Edward VI and Richard Duke of York murdered in the tower

Richard was the hatchet man of the house of York and would do anything at all to protect what he viewed as the interests of his House, so if Anne Neville and her baby fell under the power of the Yorks, Richard would have done away with them (at lest the Prince)
 
Richard, Duke of Gloucester would have killed the little Prince if it ever came under Yorkist power, we remember that Richard killed (ether by his own hand, or over saw the murder) of King Henry VI in the Tower of London after the Lancaster restoration (likely while Henry VI was at prayer) Richard also killed his own brother George the Duke of Clarence (maybe by drowning in wine) Richard would of course latter have King Edward VI and Richard Duke of York murdered in the tower

Richard was the hatchet man of the house of York and would do anything at all to protect what he viewed as the interests of his House, so if Anne Neville and her baby fell under the power of the Yorks, Richard would have done away with them (at lest the Prince)

Shakespeare much?

There's no more proof that Richard was any more responsible for those deaths (the princes in the Tower) than anyone else who stood to benefit from them: Margaret Beaufort, Lord Buckingham.

As to Henry VI and Clarence, Edward IV would've benefited as much from the former as Richard would've from the latter. And Clarence liked to think he was craftier than his enemies at court, and did nothing more than set himself up for his own death.
 
Shakespeare much?

There's no more proof that Richard was any more responsible for those deaths (the princes in the Tower) than anyone else who stood to benefit from them: Margaret Beaufort, Lord Buckingham.

As to Henry VI and Clarence, Edward IV would've benefited as much from the former as Richard would've from the latter. And Clarence liked to think he was craftier than his enemies at court, and did nothing more than set himself up for his own death.

….. um how would Margaret Beaufort have set up the murder of the Yorkists Princes in the tower? and if she did why would Richard not use that fact against her to kill her for highest of high treason and turn the public against the Earl of Richmond, also the murder of the princes is only good for Margaret Beaufort in that it turned Elizabeth Woodville into her camp and turned many Yorkists against Richard

likewise why would Henry Stafford kill them? and if he had killed them, then why, after he turned on Richard III in 1483 why didn't Richard make it public that the Duke had killed Edward V and The Duke of York? thus destroying him totally and make it clear to the Yorkists that Richard was the heir, also why when he did rebel if he knew for sure the Princes were dead why not put himself forward for King? why was the 1483 rebellion (at lest at first) for Edward VI if the Duke knew Edward VI was dead?

of course Edward IV supported the ends of Henry VI and George, but he left the dirty work to Richard, and no doubt that would be the case with this dirty work too, Edward has lost his crown once and has a new son, he wasn't going to let the Lancasters take it from him ever again, thus why he got rid of Henry VI jailed Margaret of Anjou, (maybe George killed the Prince of Wales after the battle not in it) got rid of disloyal George (who did totally brought it down on himself)
 
I disagree with the Shakespearian/Tudor portrayal of Richard of Gloucester as some uniquely evil figure, he was no worse than his contemporaries but he was still a standard late Medieval Magante, i.e. morally equivalent to a Mafia boss/African Warlord and he was the hatchet man of the House of York. So while he certainly didn't give the order for the murders of Henry VI and Clarence he almost certainly implemented them, that he was his role and if Anne Neville and Lancastrian baby (almost certainly named Henry) had fallen into Yorkist hands he would be the person detailed by his brother to solve the problem.
 
Top