Earl of Warwick

The earl of Warwick,styled the "Kingmaker", has a healthy son. If he survives the Wars of the Roses, would'nt it make his sister's marriages less likely to the 2 Yorkist princes, since he will likely inherit most of the lands in question. Also, would'nt a son of the earl of Warwick have a stronger claim to the throne than Henry Tudor, since they both descend from the Beaufort line?
 
If the Kingmaker did have a son, mostly like named Richard for both his grandfather and father, and he did survive along with his two sisters then things would become complicated because of the inheritance.

If the Kingmaker is attained then, all three are disinherited from the Salisbury inheritance from their granfather. However, the Kingmaker held the Earl of Warwick jure uxoris (meaning by his wife) and so his children could inherit that because it would be questionable to attain his wife who didn't actively participate against Edward IV.* Anne de Beauchamp would live until 1492, though in OTL she was disinherited by her sons-in-law of her title and lands.

Most likely what ever happens to the Salisbury inheritance OTL, will still happen. The Kingmaker's son if he survived his mother, depending on his role in Bosworth, would become Earl of Warwick.* As for the Kingmaker's daughters, Clarence married Isabel as part of his joining the Kingmaker over his brother but as for Anne marrying Gloucester...coin flip.

Henry Tudor was the top Lancastrian claimant because he was of the most senior descent of the Beauforts, via his mother Maragret. Any male heir of the Kingmaker would have a junior claim.

*A lot of this depends on when this son is born. If he's old enough to join his father against Edward IV then he'll get attained as well. However if he isn't killed in battle or executed when Edward regains the throne and escapes to exile in France with the other Lancastrians and joins Henry Tudor's invasion, he'll get it back. If he's too young to participate then he'll still be his mother's heir as long as he lives unless he launches a rebellion against Edward VI or Buckingham's against Richard III, either dying or escaping to exile and getting attained until he joins Henry Tudor's invasion.
 
You're wrong here, for a fascinating and novel reason. The earldom of Warwick, first creation, descends in the female line. Warwick is a strategic bastion of the kingdom. Essentially, the king confers the title of earl on whomever marries the female heir through whom the title passes. Therefore the Kingmaker passed his title to his son-in-law George the Duke of Clarence. When George died (following Shakespeare I want to call him Clarence) everything his (titles and lands) went back to the crown because of his attainder due to treason. Nonetheless, shortly afterward his son Edward was made Earl of Warwick even though there was a sister who should have inherited by the traditional rules of the earldom.

The reason I guess is that they needed to give Edward a title and duke was too grand for the son of a traitor. It was after all the Wars of the Roses, and no one was thinking too purely in terms of tradition and precedence rather than expediency.

As to the paucity of the hereditary claim of Henry Tudor, so much ink and blood has been spilled over that we can say nothing more than has otherwise been said, other than that Henry Tudor was smart enough to claim after Bosworth that the crown was his by trial of battle, not inheritance.

And of course Henry Tudor ultimately killed Edward Earl of Warwick in what was very likely a framed escape attempt that provided an excuse to also rid himself of Perkin Warbeck. Ironically enough Lambert Simnel, the fake Earl of Warwick, outlived the real one a good long while taking care of kindly Henry VII's hawks.

So fearsome was our boy the fake Yorkies had a longer life expectancy than the real ones.
 
I'm going to have to disagree with you Dr. Waterhouse, the Earldom of Warwick followed the same rules of succession like other titles at the time. It was just that at the time of The Wars of the Roses, things regarding the Earldom's succession had gotten pretty...interesting.

First let's go all the way back to mid 1200s and 7th Earl of Warwick, both of them. The holder of the Earldom from 1242-1253 was Margaret du Beaumont who inherited from her brother, Thomas the 6th Earl. When she first inherited the title she was married to John Marshal who by jure uxoris became 7th Earl of Warwick, but he died the same year she inherited the title. Margaret and John didn't have any issue, however the title didn't go to any of John's brothers because it wasn't his to pass on. Margaret married John du Plessis in 1247 a favorite of Henry III who made him 7th Earl because of this marriage, they had no issue when she died in 1253. John du Plessis lived until 1263, but the last 10 years of his life he wasn't Earl of Warwick. Margaret was succeeded by her distant cousin, William Maudit who became the 8th Earl.

Now lets go to the 15th and 16th Countesses of Warwick. The 15th Countess of Warwick was the toddler Anne de Beauchamp, who succeeded at around 3 and died at around 6. Now because off the inheritance laws around there was serious question of how the estates would be split up, if at all. The 16th Countess of Warwick was another Anne de Beauchamp, married to Richard Neville son of Richard Neville jure uxoris Earl of Salisbury thus the monikers Warwick (son) and Salisbury (father) to distinguish the two. Warwick the Kingmaker was able to keep most of the estates intact, but lost a few pieces to Edmund Beaufort making him join York's side in the future. Warwick the Kingmaker only was called to Parliament and became influential because of his wife, who couldn't be called to Parliament thus being called the jure uxoris 16th Earl of Warwick.

When Warwick died in OTL, because he had no son and two daughters. Edward IV, George, and Richard basically just started dividing and fighting amongst themselves over everything Warwick had once had. All the estates connected to the titles of Salisbury and Warwick, Edward IV took into his possession even while Anne was alive (a sonless widow at that point was screwed). The titles of Salisbury and Warwick went to George via Isabel, again even though Anne was still alive. George and Richard battled over the Beauchamp and Despenser inheritances that Anne had received and her husband had used. What happened to Anne? Her sons-in-law sent her off to some out of the way place and didn't bat an eye.

If Richard Neville and Anne de Beachamp had had a son along with their OTL daughters, then that son would be in-line for the Earldom of Warwick (and all the estates connected to it however those could be "in custody" of Edward IV leaving only the aforementioned Beauchamp and Despenser inheritances for said son) once Anne died, unless he died before her or was attained by joining future rebellions against the Yorkists. Basically any attainder against The Kingmaker would only affect the Earldom of Salisbury because he was only Earl of Warwick by right of his wife who actually held the title.
 
It all depends when the son is born. If he is of similar age to Richard of Gloucester, it is concievable that the two may have been friendly and this increases the likelyhood of the son staying loyal. As for wether this scenario stops Gloucester marrying Anne Neville, I'm not so sure it does as she is still a daughter of a leading nobleman, whom Richard had known from childhood, and his mother Ceciely Neville is Anne's great-aunt and would presumably approve of the match. It may however stop Edward IV giving Gloucester the north (due to his control of many Neville castles) and thus butterfly away Richard's support base in yorkshire.
 
The Warwick title is an interesting one because over time it was judged that it could pass to a female relation (or her son or husband) in the event of extinction in the male line. However that was usually due to the power and prestige of the female's husband. It was certainly the case of Neville's accession to the Earldom through his wife.
Henry Duke of Warwick and 14th Earl of Warwick was succeeded by his infant daughter the 15th Countess (by modern methods).
When she died it was judged that Henry's full sister Anne was the heir despite the fact that his father had three older daughters this was partially because of a common law view that a full blood relative had better rights than someone of the half blood. It was deeply resented by the surviving Beauchamp sisters not so much the title but more especially the landed assets.
Under normal circumstances Richard Neville's rebellion and death would have meant an attainder which would have only affected his assets (those inherited from his parents that would have included the Salisbury inheritance of his mother as she predeceased him and the Neville properties in the North) - the Warwick assets should technically have remained with his widow (or any future 2nd husband of hers or to be inherited by her daughters in due course).
George of Clarence was already married to Isabel Neville and argued that he should have the lot, Richard of Gloucester when he married Anne was largely endowed out of the Neville inheritances in the North - the arguement George made was that as he married the elder he was entitled to the lot (despite his mother in law still living).
The King resorted to a dodgy Parliamentary Act to treat the widowed Countess as if she was dead and divying up the lot - depriving Warwick's heirs male (his brother's children) of their rights to the Neville inheritance for example.
The widow protested mightily but she got nothing until Henry VII restored her rights and then promptly allowed her to assign the lot to him to provide for her grandson.
If Anne has a son at some point before Warwick's death then he would certainly be entitled to succeed her as Earl of Warwick but I would assume in those circumstances Neville would have been attainted for treason and his estates forfeit - the son would probably still get the Warwick estates - but the Montacute/Neville inheritance would go to the crown.
 
Top