Duke of Buckingham does not die in 1628

George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham was a favourite of both James and charles I. He was the cause of much tension between both kings and parliament. His death pushed Charles closer to his wife Henrietta Maria. Say that instead of dying in 1628, Charles and Buckingham have a massive falling out and Charles turns to Henrietta Maria. Buckingham is still alive but no longer a favourite of the king, what does this change?
 
I imagine that tensions will still abound though, and that Buckingham will have a very large bounty placed on his head.
 
Buckingham wad already a dead man walking. The entire country hated him and he was preparing another campaign in France. He'll likely get killed by 'friendly fire' or a stray bullet.
 
Really big. They were practically besotted with each other.

How exactly to create a falling--out, I don't know.
Georgie porgie nails the King's sister?

Elizabeth Stuart, the exiled Winter Queen of Bohemia, is stuck in dreary Hague, trying to fight for her place in the sun, watches her sickly husband succumb (OTL). Grief stricken widow is comforted by the charming-at-times Duke (who actually was one of the reasons Elizabeth lost the Bohemian crown due to his bungling of the expedition to help her allies, but lets say the Duke is as good looking as people claimed or feared and overcomes that). Charles, despite being a lethal (for him) combination of stubborn and indecisive, did have a hard streak when his family was concerned and would not take it kindly to that I should think.

It is hard to separate fact from fiction and rumor and innuendo when the Duke is concerned and form a clear view of him as an administrator. Fox News and Breitbart would be considered neutral news sources in the 17th century, given the partisan bias of the memoirs and public memory of the times, and that is before the English Civil Wars, which cause everyone to reevaluate everything and blame everyone. But a (self?) exiled Duke of Buckingham hanging around in the lobby rather than the corridors of powers, watching a succession of King's ministers try to replace him and flail about would be interesting. Assuming he survives until the start of the English Civil Wars with his head still attached to his neck and his liver not perforated, I am not sure how much he would be able to offer himself as a broker to the various factions, as he would be deeply compromised and seen as the King's man... then again, we are talking about a time period where unreliable ass-clowns such as Lords Goring and Digby were put into positions of responsibility and high-strung men and women changed sides at a whim and then justified it by talking about their honour (sic).

Suppose, Charles is as not bright in TTL as he was in OTL, and his ministers find him as frustrating in TTL as his generals and "ministers" did in OTL. As does England. Would not a charming and once-throughly-discredited rogue sitting on the sidelines for close to two decades be able to blur the popular memory of himself as an utter failure in military, diplomatic and economic matters and claim that the new people in his place are doing a far worse job than him? Nostalgia is a powerful thing, and it is not out of the realm of reason to think the man on the street in 1639 would look upon the crises of 1628 fondly. I am not saying the Duke would be white-washed and absolved. I am thinking more like his worst bungling would be overlooked compared to the exploits of the Earl of Strafford or his non-union TTL equivalent. And would not this Duke, sitting in Holland, and giving aid and comfort to the widow of the Protestant martyr of papist aggression on the Continent be able to contrast himself nicely against whatever TTL King's man in charge of sending Protestant English troops to pacify a rebelling Protestant Scotland during the Bishops' Wars? Suddenly, the man who (may or may not have) sold out La Rochelle is forgotten and is remembered as a bastion of rock ribbed Protestantism.

And now, with all that has transpired in OTL and TTL, can a political animal such as the Duke of Buckingham, aided and abetted by a network of family members still active in England, really stay away from the Army Plots of 1641? To pile on Lord Goring, but that dipshit was somehow in the midst of it and was relied upon to carry out a very, uh, cunning plan. Would Charles and his Early Access Marie Antoinette really turn down an old hand at plots and schemes to help them? And just how much worse would he make things? And would he sell them out quicker than the others? And how would he get along with the Queen's Men who were driving the plot?
 
Top