DBWI: Edward Plantagenet survived childhood?

Henry III Plantagenet. He wasn't the best King of England, but you can't help but feel sorry for the guy. First his second son Edmund died within weeks of his birth, then his eldest son Edward got sick and died that same year. Some people think it was that loss which led to his death in 1246.

How could things have been different if Prince Edward survived? I doubt he could have matched the success of Richard II and Henry IV, but I'm still kind of curious.
 
Why do these threads keep popping up?We literally know nothing about little Edward.For all we know,he could have been another terrible King like his grandfather, King John.At any rate,without those two kicking the bucket,we would not have England entering into a personal union with Scotland,with the two kingdoms uniting when Queen Margaret marrying Alexander the III of Scotland.I highly doubt Edward would have the success of Richard II,son of Alexander and Margaret,given he wouldn't have Scottish resources at his disposal.
 
Last edited:
Why do these threads keep popping up?We literally know nothing about little Edward.For all we know,he could have been another terrible King like his grandfather, King John.At any rate,without those two kicking the bucket,we would not have England entering into a personal union with Scotland,with the two kingdoms uniting when Queen Margaret marrying Alexander the III of Scotland.I highly doubt Edward would have the success of Richard II,son of Alexander and Margaret,given he wouldn't have Scottish resources at his disposal.

(OOC: who is the guy who survived otl? Sorry I don't know:D)
 
Henry III Plantagenet. He wasn't the best King of England, but you can't help but feel sorry for the guy. First his second son Edmund died within weeks of his birth, then his eldest son Edward got sick and died that same year. Some people think it was that loss which led to his death in 1246.

How could things have been different if Prince Edward survived? I doubt he could have matched the success of Richard II and Henry IV, but I'm still kind of curious.

Ah, who knows? But I know I, in all likelihood, wouldn't be sitting here typing away on a high-end personal combi in the wealthiest neighborhood of Santa Maria, New Avalon, if my hometown and country even came to exist, and the Ulsterian explorer who discovered Neptunia(financed by a generous Richard IV in 1492) might never have been born, if one or both of these boys had lived.

OOC: Place names? Neptunia is OTL's North America, and Santa Maria, New Avalon, sits roughly where Santa Clara, California was in our universe. New Avalon is essentially OTL's Cal. + Baja Cal., with a few bits of Nevada added on. "Combi" stands for Combination Machine, this world's version of a computer.
 
Why do these threads keep popping up?We literally know nothing about little Edward.For all we know,he could have been another terrible King like his grandfather, King John.At any rate,without those two kicking the bucket,we would not have England entering into a personal union with Scotland,with the two kingdoms uniting when Queen Margaret marrying Alexander the III of Scotland.I highly doubt Edward would have the success of Richard II,son of Alexander and Margaret,given he wouldn't have Scottish resources at his disposal.

Why would Edward want such "success"? He'd have friendly relations with Scotland and Wales. Long term peace would have been much better for England (and Scotland) rather than wasting resources in the wars with Norway started over some stupid islands.
 
Why would Edward want such "success"? He'd have friendly relations with Scotland and Wales. Long term peace would have been much better for England (and Scotland) rather than wasting resources in the wars with Norway started over some stupid islands.
On the other hand,Edward wouldn't have defeated the French without Scottish troops wouldn't he?The Capets were bound to hound the English for all of their Continental possessions.Without the Scottish,the King of England wouldn't have made Aquitaine completely independent of France,not to mention gaining a few inches of land there during the war.
 
On the other hand,Edward wouldn't have defeated the French without Scottish troops wouldn't he?The Capets were bound to hound the English for all of their Continental possessions.Without the Scottish,the King of England wouldn't have made Aquitaine completely independent of France,not to mention gaining a few inches of land there during the war.

The French were incredibly stupid to lose Aquitaine. Claiming to want to avoid war with Aragon by arranging a personal combat and then trying (and failing) to assassinate Peter III in Bordeaux where the Scottish/English king had personally vouched for his safety :eek: The French not only caused the war with Aragon, but ensured that Britain would join in while all of Europe (except Charles's pet Pope) cheered them on.
 
Why do these threads keep popping up?We literally know nothing about little Edward.For all we know,he could have been another terrible King like his grandfather, King John.At any rate,without those two kicking the bucket,we would not have England entering into a personal union with Scotland,with the two kingdoms uniting when Queen Margaret marrying Alexander the III of Scotland.I highly doubt Edward would have the success of Richard II,son of Alexander and Margaret,given he wouldn't have Scottish resources at his disposal.

[OOC, but my sense from the original post was that Richard II is Henry III's brother, Richard of Cornwall, and Henry IV is his son, Henry of Almayne. And, indeed, it's very hard for me to see Henry's daughter succeeding when he has a fully grown, and very competent, younger brother with sons of his own.]
 
Henry III Plantagenet. He wasn't the best King of England, but you can't help but feel sorry for the guy. First his second son Edmund died within weeks of his birth, then his eldest son Edward got sick and died that same year. Some people think it was that loss which led to his death in 1246.

How could things have been different if Prince Edward survived? I doubt he could have matched the success of Richard II and Henry IV, but I'm still kind of curious.

I mean, assuming that Henry III died of, you know, an actual cause, as opposed to 19th century novelists' disease, as you seem to be suggesting, we have, what, a 7 year old king in 1246? That's not going to be good for the realm - look how troublesome the same situation was when Henry III himself succeeded. Richard II (er, that is "Richard of Cornwall") would presumably be regent for his nephew, and I think he's going to have to deal with some of the same baronial unrest that he did as king OTL, but he'll be in a much worse position to actually win. If the barons win, maybe he gives up the regency and pursues his lifelong dream to go on crusade instead. Who does that leave running things for our child king? Maybe another uncle, Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, who was married to Henry and Richard's sister Eleanor. I don't really know too much about him - he seems to have gotten into conflict with Henry over some debts around the time of Prince Edward's OTL birth, but he was reasonably popular with the barons, and, I believe, helped mediate between them and Richard II OTL.
 
I mean, assuming that Henry III died of, you know, an actual cause, as opposed to 19th century novelists' disease, as you seem to be suggesting, we have, what, a 7 year old king in 1246? That's not going to be good for the realm - look how troublesome the same situation was when Henry III himself succeeded.

Let's not jump to conclusions. The Plantagenets were nothing if not resilient. Henry II, Richard I and John survived into their forties and fifties despite all the shit they went through. And while Henry III did cherish his children, even he wasn't immune to family quarrels. Richard II had rebelled against him before, and of course, there are the rumors that he had a hand in the deaths of his nephews.

Richard II (er, that is "Richard of Cornwall") would presumably be regent for his nephew, and I think he's going to have to deal with some of the same baronial unrest that he did as king OTL, but he'll be in a much worse position to actually win. If the barons win, maybe he gives up the regency and pursues his lifelong dream to go on crusade instead. Who does that leave running things for our child king? Maybe another uncle, Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, who was married to Henry and Richard's sister Eleanor. I don't really know too much about him - he seems to have gotten into conflict with Henry over some debts around the time of Prince Edward's OTL birth, but he was reasonably popular with the barons, and, I believe, helped mediate between them and Richard II OTL.

I think it was part of an agreement. Unlike Henry, Richard had never been happy with his sister's marriage to Simon, and he tried once or twice after becoming king to get the marriage annulled. Eventually they came to a compromise - Richard would get off Simon's back if Simon would help keep the barons of the king's back.
 
[OOC, but my sense from the original post was that Richard II is Henry III's brother, Richard of Cornwall, and Henry IV is his son, Henry of Almayne. And, indeed, it's very hard for me to see Henry's daughter succeeding when he has a fully grown, and very competent, younger brother with sons of his own.]

OOC:Indeed he is implying the brother of Henry III,but this is post-anarchy.A usurpation is most likely out of question without a degree of violence.Henry's brother would have to kill his nieces if he is to ascend the throne.Simply put,there might be a civil war of sorts if he doesn't manage everything well.
 
Last edited:
OOC:Indeed he is implying the brother of Henry III,but this is post-anarchy.A usurpation is most likely out of question without a degree of violence.Henry's brother would have to kill his nieces if he is to ascend the throne.Simply put,there might be a civil war of sorts if he doesn't manage everything well.

OOC: Why do you think that he'd have to kill them? John didn't kill Eleanor of Brittany, he just kept her locked up. Marry Margaret to Henry of Almain, and you're fine. And it's certainly not clearly an usurpation. Stephen isn't considered a usurper.
 
OOC: Why do you think that he'd have to kill them? John didn't kill Eleanor of Brittany, he just kept her locked up. Marry Margaret to Henry of Almain, and you're fine. And it's certainly not clearly an usurpation. Stephen isn't considered a usurper.

Ooc:Stephen isn't considered an usurper because he came to an arrangement with Henry II by adopting him.The situation with Margaret is different because unlike John,who technically was King by proximity of blood(a principle accepted by Norman and English nobility of the time) as well as being appointed heir by the reigning king(Richard I),Richard(brother of Henry III)has no right to the throne whatsoever if his nieces are alive given it's well established that females have a right to the throne.There most certainly will be resistance if Richard makes a claim to the throne.Simon de Montfort will definitely back Margaret up against Richard given his appalling relationship with him.
 
Last edited:
How on earth is it well-established that women have the right to the throne? Matilda never reigned. Eleanor never reigned. No woman has reigned. It's established that women can transmit claims to their male heirs. That's not in any way the same thing as saying that women can reign on her own, much less that a six year old girl will inherit over a grown man. And, of course, Henry may, on his death bed, recognize Richard as his heir ahead of Margaret. The succession rules are in no sense as clear as you seem to be suggesting.

I think you're wildly overestimating the amount of support that a six year old girl is going to have here. And, again, marrying her to Henry of Almain is the incredibly obvious solution to this problem. And Simon de Montfort's bad personal relationship with Richard isn't a rallying cry for any of the other barons.
 
How on earth is it well-established that women have the right to the throne? Matilda never reigned. Eleanor never reigned. No woman has reigned. It's established that women can transmit claims to their male heirs. That's not in any way the same thing as saying that women can reign on her own, much less that a six year old girl will inherit over a grown man. And, of course, Henry may, on his death bed, recognize Richard as his heir ahead of Margaret. The succession rules are in no sense as clear as you seem to be suggesting.

I think you're wildly overestimating the amount of support that a six year old girl is going to have here. And, again, marrying her to Henry of Almain is the incredibly obvious solution to this problem. And Simon de Montfort's bad personal relationship with Richard isn't a rallying cry for any of the other barons.
Occ:That has great implications that the daughter of the King has right to rule.Besides,if Matilda can arouse great support,it's by no means uncertain that Margaret and whoever Henry left as regent wouldn't have been able to do the same if not more so.And in situations like these,personal rivalry plays an important role as to which side a noble joins.Given the obvious danger of a usurpation,I don't think even Henry III would leave the regency in the hands of Richard.
 
Occ:That has great implications that the daughter of the King has right to rule.Besides,if Matilda can arouse great support,it's by no means uncertain that Margaret and whoever Henry left as regent wouldn't have been able to do the same if not more so.And in situations like these,personal rivalry plays an important role as to which side a noble joins.Given the obvious danger of a usurpation,I don't think even Henry III would leave the regency in the hands of Richard.

OOC: Margaret is six years old. And I think you're assuming an enormous amount to think that Henry considers her, rather than his brother, as heir. In a fairly similar situation, Richard I left the throne to his brother rather than his nephew, and his nephew was a 12 year old boy rather than a 6 year old girl. Yes, there's the proximity of blood argument for why John rather than Arthur should be heir. But there's also the "women can only transmit claims, not actually reign in their own right" argument for why Richard rather than Margaret is heir.

Matilda aroused great support because she had been recognized for years by her father as the heir, and because she was a grown, married woman who already had a male heir of her own. And she still lost. Stephen held onto the throne. Margaret's position is immeasurably worse than Matilda's, and Richard's position immeasurably better than Stephen's.
 
OOC: Margaret is six years old. And I think you're assuming an enormous amount to think that Henry considers her, rather than his brother, as heir. In a fairly similar situation, Richard I left the throne to his brother rather than his nephew, and his nephew was a 12 year old boy rather than a 6 year old girl. Yes, there's the proximity of blood argument for why John rather than Arthur should be heir. But there's also the "women can only transmit claims, not actually reign in their own right" argument for why Richard rather than Margaret is heir.

Matilda aroused great support because she had been recognized for years by her father as the heir, and because she was a grown, married woman who already had a male heir of her own. And she still lost. Stephen held onto the throne. Margaret's position is immeasurably worse than Matilda's, and Richard's position immeasurably better than Stephen's.
OCC:That's all assuming Henry's a wise,selfless king which he's clearly not.Nearly all monarchs try to pass their throne to their own children and f#$k the consequence.In this case,there's a more than enough strong case legally speaking to pass the throne to his daughter.The fact that the throne could be transferred to a male through female line could be argued legally that it means a female can assume the throne as well.There will also be plenty of nobles that are not fond of Richard.

Arguably,Matilda's personality doesn't make her popular with the nobles as well as her sex.In this case, the fact that the Queen is a child might mean that there will be nobles that want a long regency in order to weaken the power of the crown over them for a time,which suited the political atmosphere arguably.
 
Top