AHC: York Dynasty Endures

Few thoughts on this (i used them in my currently on vacation timeline)

A surviving Yorkist dynasty means a couple of things - a more secure succession than under the Tudors, stronger martial ties with mainland Europe (even if only a couple of Edward IV's daughter's planned matches came off then that is pretty impressive - they are also the first English princesses for almost sixty years or so).
If they continue pursuing a Breton match then war with France is inevitable (Francis II was determined to maintain Breton independence in the event of his daughter being his heir - an English or Austrian/Burgundian match is the most obvious way of doing that).
If England succeeds in marrying the Breton heir then maintaining her duchy is going to set up virtual permanent war with France over the next few decades - France's ambitions in Italy means England gets tied alongside Spain and the Empire in that conflict too.
The cost of the Italian wars was a major need for the papacy to increase its income and that alongside other things was a factor in growing dissatisfaction and distrust of the Church particularly in northern Europe.
England's trade was very dependent on areas that did become heavily influenced by reforming voices so you can't rule out a bottom down reformation (as happened in Scotland for example). A future Edward VI or VII or Richard III or IV - perhaps having received an excellent education and married to a reform minded consort might well see the advantages that Henry VIII did and slowly move to reform.
The early Tudor court was very much like the Yorkist court - much of Henry VII's administration was similar to that of Edward IV's - who had started the process of tying the country gentry more to the crown and the court (giving them more say in their localities etc) than in the past when their access relied on their relationship with their local major aristocratic landowner (in effect these were the new men who dominated England in the 16th century)

Here's a rough direct line and the events it impacted

Edward IV (1461 to 1492) m Elizabeth Woodville
Edward V (1492 to 1527) m Anne Duchess of Brittany
Edward VI (1527 to 1548) m Margaret of Anjouleme
Richard III (1548 to 1568) m 1) Elizabeth of Scotland 2) Eleanor of Brabant

Notes:
Edward IV survived his illness in 1483 to reign until his death in 1492.
The success of his marital adventures saw his children on many thrones across Europe.
His daughter Elizabeth became the second wife of the Emperor Maximillian, Cecily became the wife of James IV of Scotland, Anne married Philip the Fair and Catherine married Juan Prince of The Asturias in a series of anti-French marital alliances in the late 1480s.
After a brief war Edward Prince of Wales was married to Anne of Brittany (who bore her husband two surviving children)
Edward V initially avoided conflict but long resentments with France and a close relationship with his brother in law Philip of Burgundy (now the Duke of Brabant) resulted in a general conflict prompted over the contested French, Austrian and Spanish claims in Italy which England joined - the papacy swapped sides to suit itself eventually allying with the French and a forced treaty supported by the Papacy saw English gains limited to retaining Calais, La Rochelle and Brittany and the King's son was forced to marry Margaret of Anjouleme - the failure of the war of 1509 and what the English saw as a pro-French papacy would have a lasting impact.
Edward VI's court became a centre of humanist and new learning in the 1530s due to the influence of the Queen. The Queen's humanism and the King's resentment and distrust of the Papacy in the 1520s saw a weakening of ties with Rome though the royal couple remained traditional in their relationship with the church. However greater demands for reform were made and the King intervened to limit the church's attacks on heretics in his later reign. The Papal representative described London with its strong ties to merchants in the Netherlands and Germany as a "veritable brothel of Lutherans, heretics and others that the King and Bishop do allow to roam and preach free from all harm"
Richard III was largely educated by Thomas Crammer (he began life as an Oxford cleric before being appointed to chaplain to Queen Margaret rapidly rising to become first Bishop of London, then Lord Chancellor and Archbishop of York by 1547) and he was much closer in view to the Protestant thinking emenating from Germany and the Low Countries. Crammer's influence on Richard III particularly his views on the Biblical authority of King's was largely blamed for England's final breach with Rome - In 1549 Crammer guided legislation through Parliament establishing Richard as Head of the Church in England. Further reforms in 1550-1555 dissolved the monastic institutions and abolished the Papal supremacy. His marriage to Elizabeth of Scotland daughter of James V (died 1554) was relatively happy despite the Queen's traditional Catholicism. Her death in childbirth in 1554 in midst of the Royal Supremacy row was seen as hardening Richard's attitude. In 1557 Richard remarried to Eleanor daughter of the Duke of Brabant - the new Protestant Queen proved a loyal supporter of her husband's religious policies and was a keen promoter of education.
 
His daughter Elizabeth became the second wife of the Emperor Maximillian, Cecily became the wife of James IV of Scotland, Anne married Philip the Fair and Catherine married Juan Prince of The Asturias in a series of anti-French marital alliances in the late 1480s.
So Elizabeth becomes the mother-in-law of her sister Anne? Funny.:winkytongue:
 
Re @Kellan Sullivan and @mcdnab

Is there any possibility that the monasteries aren't dissolved TTL? After all, even if the king needs the cash, OTL showed (e.g. Pilgrimage of Grace), there were risks to taking them; and our alternate York king may well not be as cash strapped as Henry was, especially if he manages to collect (or keep collecting) tribute from France, as Edward IV had done... or possibly even other side projects (but we don't need to get into that now). Point is, even if there is a growing Protestant presence in England, or even one at court, does it necessarily follow that policies similar to Henry VII pass TTL (at all, not just delayed)?
 
Re @Kellan Sullivan and @mcdnab

Is there any possibility that the monasteries aren't dissolved TTL? After all, even if the king needs the cash, OTL showed (e.g. Pilgrimage of Grace), there were risks to taking them; and our alternate York king may well not be as cash strapped as Henry was, especially if he manages to collect (or keep collecting) tribute from France, as Edward IV had done... or possibly even other side projects (but we don't need to get into that now). Point is, even if there is a growing Protestant presence in England, or even one at court, does it necessarily follow that policies similar to Henry VII pass TTL (at all, not just delayed)?

The thing with the monasteries was that the Pilgrimage of Grace AFAIK started after the dissolution of the large monastic houses, I can't recall if anyone did much about the smaller houses when they were dissolved. But I could be wrong.
 
Actually Anne was betrothed to Philip in otl in 1480 - so assuming it survives - and in the mid-1480s you have Edward pursuing alliances to gain support for his Breton ambition then it isn't that unlikely - if Elizabeth marries in say 1485 -and you have two English women pushing Maximilian to honour his commitment to Anne and technically Elizabeth becomes her sister's step mother in law (just as Margaret of York was Max's step mother in law)

So Elizabeth becomes the mother-in-law of her sister Anne? Funny.:winkytongue:
 
Re @Kellan Sullivan and @mcdnab

Is there any possibility that the monasteries aren't dissolved TTL? After all, even if the king needs the cash, OTL showed (e.g. Pilgrimage of Grace), there were risks to taking them; and our alternate York king may well not be as cash strapped as Henry was, especially if he manages to collect (or keep collecting) tribute from France, as Edward IV had done... or possibly even other side projects (but we don't need to get into that now). Point is, even if there is a growing Protestant presence in England, or even one at court, does it necessarily follow that policies similar to Henry VII pass TTL (at all, not just delayed)?

It is a possibility of course - the royal family as the French did could remain Catholic despite some protestant presence in their realm - in which case monastic houses with royal patronage and support definitely survive - There is no guarantee either way - I get a bit used to seeing the without Henry VIII's divorce England would remain Catholic - whilst it is certainly more likely I don't necessarily think it is a given (England is arguably the only European country that went Protestant because the crown dictated the change rather than a slow change coming from below as in some of the German states and Scotland there is no reason to think England wouldn't experience that even with a Catholic King)
 
So here's a question that's been bugging me the past few hours -- I don't think it's too controversial to say that the decades preceding the publication of the King James Bible (1570's to 1611) was a crucial period for English Literature. OTL, of course, this period is best known for producing the Works of Shakespeare, but said author was writing during what, even without him, would be a period of at least some notable importance for the London Theater, for English poetry, and even arguably for the modern English language.

What I find myself wondering is, would this flourishing of theater and English literature (and by extension, an alternate equivalent to Shakespeare) still be more generally likely TTL? If, for example, there were no event equivalent to the 1588 Spanish Armada? Or if England had "a more Catholic" experience of the Protestant Reformation? Or even if (building on the no Columbus idea) the vast wealth of the Americas weren't flowing into Europe in the 16th Century nearly as much?

Do any of these changes make, not just Shakespeare personally, but the cultural world the created him unlikely? Or do the changes that were already making a mark on Europe as of our PoD -- English poetry in the late 14th Century, the rise of the printing press, the rise of humanism, the growth of cities, the subsequent pestilences that accompanied said growth, what have you -- do these trends mean we're still likely to see a flourishing stage and poetry scene in London in the latter decades of the 16th Century TTL, regardless of even the bigger changes being discussed here?

What I guess I'm getting at is, does TTL still see an epic series of plays written and performed in the 1590's about the War of the Roses, only here written based on York propaganda instead of Tudor propaganda?
 
What I guess I'm getting at is, does TTL still see an epic series of plays written and performed in the 1590's about the War of the Roses, only here written based on York propaganda instead of Tudor propaganda?

Depends, I guess. As stated earlier the Tudors essentially came out of nowhere to take the crown of England, the Yorks didn't have that problem. I mean, anyone besides Margaret Beaufort who thought Harry Tudor would be king when there were enough males in the house of York in 1480 was likely to have been either insane or a diehard Lancastrian. That said, if the English king by the 1580s descends from Edward V's marriage to the Lancastrian princess, there's no need for them to push an agenda regarding propaganda. Sure, maybe a posteriori justification of Edward IV seizing the crown from Henry VI, but he wouldn't need to write lines portraying the queen of England (Anne Neville) as a dupe, the king as a fool (Henry VIII) - manipulated by his advisors - or as evil (Richard III). So, perhaps instead of Richard III, we get an Edward V and instead of being titled Henry VI part x it gets called Edward IV? Either way, he's going to have to find a new place to use the lines from Richard "Was ever woman in this humour woo'd? / Was ever woman in this humour won?", "farewell, my own sweet son, God send you good keeping / Let me kiss you once, yet 'ere you go / For God knoeth when we shall kiss together again", and the ghost scene before Bosworth.
 
Last edited:
Side note -- the Duke of Buckingham, circa 1483, was in a position to claim himself as the heir to Lancaster following the hypothetical death of Henry Tudor (technicalities pertaining to Margaret Spencer notwithstanding), am I right? If so, did he have a motive to kill the Princes in the Tower, absent any instruction from Richard III or the Tudors, in order to facilitate potential for his own career?
 
Side note -- the Duke of Buckingham, circa 1483, was in a position to claim himself as the heir to Lancaster following the hypothetical death of Henry Tudor (technicalities pertaining to Margaret Spencer notwithstanding), am I right? If so, did he have a motive to kill the Princes in the Tower, absent any instruction from Richard III or the Tudors, in order to facilitate potential for his own career?

He would (though being already married with a son, he couldn't marry Elizabeth of York) but he wasn't in charge of the Tower. Sir Robert Brackenbury was, an old associate of Richard who would die with him at Bosworth. Brackenbury, BTW, had been Richard's Treasurer when he was Duke of Gloucester, so he probably knew Richard's handwriting and would be likely to spot a forged letter purporting to be from the King. So Buckingham would need to be very convincing.
 
Here's something else -- what happens to Wales TTL? Both OTL and TTL, the Yorks founded the Council of Wales and the Marches; and OTL, it was later incorporated into the Kingdom of England starting in the 1530's, under Henry VIII. Does this still happen TTL?
 
Top