Without a Ricardian usurpation and with Tudor now in Yorkist England and having kissed the king's ring, then, Edwardian financial reconstruction should consider apace, rather than being set back? Or do you still see there being problems?
Differences Between a Surviving York Court and the Tudor Court of OTL
- Thread starter Kellan Sullivan
- Start date
Just a fun thought:
If you go that long, remember that the Red Princess may still carry the genes for Henry VI's madness (since it seems to have been hereditary, and to have had no problems skipping generations OTL, as Charles VI demonstrates), which could cause all sorts of fun in the next generation.
If you go that long, remember that the Red Princess may still carry the genes for Henry VI's madness (since it seems to have been hereditary, and to have had no problems skipping generations OTL, as Charles VI demonstrates), which could cause all sorts of fun in the next generation.
All sorts of fun, glass delusion and all, but I must admit I haven't actually thought too much about little Anne's genetics. Although, I would point out that the Tudors likewise descended from Charles VI, and unless we're including Henry VIII's post-1536 behaviour (which may or may not have been a form of insanity), they were relatively stable. So maybe Anne likewise just got lucky. But I'll keep it in mind
I raised this idea upthread, but I didn't get a response to it:
As a way of suitably taking care of his brother, as well as perhaps to establish a reasonable foreign alliance in lieu of himself being able to do so, might Edward V marry his brother off to a foreign princess (Isabel of Aragon, Charlotte of Naples, Margarethe of Austria, etc) who would come, not only with a decent-sized dowry (and thus make up what was sacrificed when he married Anne instead of a foreign bride), but in the right order of events, perhaps even with inheritance rights? Or will Edward V be mindful of how George of Clarence was always greedy for more and arrange a suitable domestic match for Richard of Shrewsbury?
As a way of suitably taking care of his brother, as well as perhaps to establish a reasonable foreign alliance in lieu of himself being able to do so, might Edward V marry his brother off to a foreign princess (Isabel of Aragon, Charlotte of Naples, Margarethe of Austria, etc) who would come, not only with a decent-sized dowry (and thus make up what was sacrificed when he married Anne instead of a foreign bride), but in the right order of events, perhaps even with inheritance rights? Or will Edward V be mindful of how George of Clarence was always greedy for more and arrange a suitable domestic match for Richard of Shrewsbury?
A follow-up question: what was the relationship between Edward V and his brother like? Are there any sources for it? I'm wondering, because Edward V has been raised at Ludlow, while Richard is in the heart of the family, amongst his sisters, with both parents present. So would it be similar to Edward IV-Clarence? Or would it be more like Edward IV-Gloucester?
Random question, and a little different to the questions iI've asked thus far, but I was wondering about it earlier:
If a York king were to find himself in a similar situation to Henry VIII did OTL regarding a menopausal wife related to the most powerful king in Europe, who hasn't given him a surviving male heir, but (a) daughter(s), would he go a similar route to Henry? Or was that pretty situation specific, and not helped by the fact that there weren't any male-line Tudors available (something I'm not sure that a York king would suffer from, if survivig lines from Richard of Shrewsbury, Clarence and Gloucester)?
If a York king were to find himself in a similar situation to Henry VIII did OTL regarding a menopausal wife related to the most powerful king in Europe, who hasn't given him a surviving male heir, but (a) daughter(s), would he go a similar route to Henry? Or was that pretty situation specific, and not helped by the fact that there weren't any male-line Tudors available (something I'm not sure that a York king would suffer from, if survivig lines from Richard of Shrewsbury, Clarence and Gloucester)?
I think the bad example of Clarence would be remembered while a surviving Edward would probably butterfly that Richard the 3rd.
I'm not sure I follow: Are you saying that Edward V is less likely to be indulgent of his brother because of his disloyal uncle? Or are you saying that Clarence would be a role model of what not to do for Richard (a sort of proto-Gaston, duc d'Orléans vs. Philippe, duc d'Orléans scenario)?
Henry's situation was utterly unique, both due to his personality, the newness of the Tudor Royal House and a lack of any other surviving male heirs. If the situation came up TTL, chances are the (eldest) Princess is either disinherited or married off to her closest-in-age male relative, whose made joint heir or something to that effect.
Alt-Richard would be the "good" Uncle who ran the country and turned over power when Edward turned 18 or died before he could be treacherous. Clarence would indeed the example of what not to do for Richard, Duke of York/potential alt Richard the 3rd. Meaning you can have a pretty good life being a loyal brother or be drowned in too much wine. Besides your brother could die/be killed by Henry Tudor and you can be promoted from spare to heir.
The Yorkist claim is through the female line, so they would be very aware of the possibilities for future usurpation if they have a daughter and a junior male inherits. They can't easily disinherit the daughter without sticking her in a nunnery (which wasn't a particularly popular approach for legitimate English princesses post-Conquest, though it did happen).
It's a sticky situation, particularly since the king has to keep in mind the possibility that his wife might die and he might be able to remarry and have male issue by a later marriage (as Henry VIII ironically did; his marriage to Jane Seymour was legitimate even by Catholic standards), so things like "getting a dispensation to marry his daughter to her next-in-line cousin" are risky. If there are clear back-up male lines available, he will likely be less impatient to handle the situation than Henry VIII was, especially since ITTL the Wars of the Roses effectively ended in 1471, instead of seeing Henry Tudor leading a successful Lancastrian comeback over a decade later (and thus becoming even more prominent and recent in popular memory).
Richard of York will likely even model himself on Richard of Gloucester, to the confusion of later historians.
I think any sole female heir at this point will either be married off to her male heir cousin regardless of papal cost, or cause agnatic succession to be instituted with all attendant effects down the line.
I was wondering if an earlier William and Mary scenario might occur, but I was also wondering about if her father died with no other male heir if wouldn't see an Anarchy 2.0, especially if the closest-in-age male cousin is not the closest male heir. Say this princess marries her cousin, the duke of Gloucester, but the nearest male heir to her father is the son of the duke of York. But York's 20 years older than her, married, but his oldest son is a decade younger than she is, Clarence-Warwick is likewise chronologically misaligned. What happens in such a scenario? Or would they just bring in a modified version of Salic Law to avoid this all together?
He could, or he could suffer from the illness that some postulate killed him naturally in the Tower (I vaguely recall something about him being in bad health, but that could be me misremembering the facts). But, let's assume for argument sake that they're both relatively as healthy as their parents were OTL, living full-length lives and having kids.
I agree with this, and like in Downton Abbey, someone suggests to Mary when Cora finds out she's pregnant, basically along the lines of "marry him [Matthew] now, and he'll forever be indebted to you for choosing him when he had nothing".
So if the WotR end in 1471 instead of 1485, it could have a different impact on the national psyche? Makes sense. And with the Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck uprisings which plagued Henry VII's reign, his son probably was paranoid of a similar scenario happening after he was in his grave. So, if the WotR end in 1471, Edward V marries Anne of Lancaster, and there aren't alt-uprisings (IDK if there can be, unless someone asserts that they are the rightful son of Edward of Westminster, and that Anne of Lancaster is a changeling? Who would support such an uprising?) then *Edward VI might be less paranoid about leaving a daughter as heiress to the throne?
It seems to be the simplest solution, as a way of ensuring the crown stays on an Englishman's head rather than a foreigner's.
Just checking, but agnatic means that the crown would go Edward IV>Edward V>Edward VI (who only has (a) daughter(s))>Richard of Shrewsbury?
Yeah, it's the correct term for France's "Salic" Law.
Essentially male-to-male inheritance only.
I've got a new question for you guys:
How might a surviving Yorkist court react if Cabot/Columbus/Cabral/whoever approaches them? OTL the Tudor court was sort of beset by internal problems like Simnel, Perkin Warbeck etc that prevented them from acting (not to mention that those internal problems were threatening to the economy, which meant even if Henry VII had wanted to take advantage of something like this, he might have lacked the money to do so (although he was such a miser that I could see him claiming economy as an excuse even if he had the cash)
How might a surviving Yorkist court react if Cabot/Columbus/Cabral/whoever approaches them? OTL the Tudor court was sort of beset by internal problems like Simnel, Perkin Warbeck etc that prevented them from acting (not to mention that those internal problems were threatening to the economy, which meant even if Henry VII had wanted to take advantage of something like this, he might have lacked the money to do so (although he was such a miser that I could see him claiming economy as an excuse even if he had the cash)
Maybe. I mean Spain wasn't the best position financially in 1492 (having just finished the Reconquista) and they were persuaded to fund the Columbus expedition. Edward V should be in a better position in 1492, considering England would have been at peace in 1471, and has father was a big spendthrift, so in theory the English could fund the expedition. An English dominated new world could be quite interesting.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
I'd add that England, due to her geography and not having any African islands, would probably prefer Cabot's proposal for a northern route to Columbus' southern route; so depending on how butterflies affect Columbus, the discovery of America could start in the north, getting the exploration thereof off to a somewhar slower start.
Well, if Edward IV kicks off in the mid-1480s, Ed V has nearly a decade (give or take) to rebuild English finances. And I'm not sure, is 1492 one of those dates that's set in stone? Or might Columbuss/Cabral/Cabot set sail at a later or earlier date?
Also, what do you think the differences between alt-English colonization and OTL Spanish colonization would be? Since it's easy to differentiate between them OTL, but here, both nations are still Catholic, and if England has first dibs on the New World (as opposed to Spain), might their colonization be of a different breed to Spain's convert the heathen?
Slower, definitely. I mean, the civilizations on North America's east coast are certainly a horse of a different colour to the Aztecs or whomever the Spanish encountered in Mexico. Plus, I wonder if stories of El Dorado will still spring up when all that the people they come into contact have to trade is fish, tobacco and furs?
Also, I've been wondering, how might Yorkist England's relationship with Scotland be? Edward IV was more than willing to marry his second eldest daughter to the Scots king, but he was also perfectly fine with the duke of Albany's plan to go back to Scotland and depose King James III and crown himself King Alexander IV