Edward III of England

WI: His two sons who died in infancy had survived long enough to have issue? They were William of Hatfield (b. 1337), and William of Windsor (b.1348). The second William would not have been called that if his elder brother had survived. This means that there would have been descendants of 7 sons of Edward III alive at the time the War of the Roses breaks out. How does this complicate that matter, or perhaps not all of the descendants get involved?
 
Well, you've set up an interesting dynastic situation however by doing so you've basically made the possiblity of a "Wars of the Roses" event becomes very low. For one thing, William would be the 2nd-son after The Black Prince and should his elder brother's line fail then he or his direct-male descendents would be next in line thus really pushing back the descendents of John of Gaunt in the line of succession.

So if events still happen as OTL and Henry Bolingbroke returns to England to claim his rightful title of Duke of Lancaster, which results in other nobles joining his cause leading to the capture of Richard II (and that's assuming he's the same as OTL). Then if there is going to be a new King, then the only chance Henry has is if William's line is represented only be women or by young children just as Lionel of Antwerp's was. If it still happens that Henry becomes King because the other candidates were too young, then there is going to be a lot of potential "rightful" claimants popping up that Henry V might not be able to conquer Normandy or have to marry an English noblewoman who is the sole heiress of William or Lionel that her marrying someone else would create a dynastic headache thus resulting in no marriage to Catherine thus no Henry VI as in OTL because the mental problems inherited from grandpa Charles don't occur. The "Wars of the Roses" event might happen several decades earlier or just be butterflied away altogether.

That's just my real quick take to your question.
 
Actually, Edward III had three children who died in infancy : the two you mentionned, William of Hatfield (1337) and William of Windsor (1348), but also a third child, Thomas of Windsor (1347).

Only William of Hatfield's survival would make a significant change in History though. If everything goes as OTL and the Black Prince and his eldest son Edward of Angoulême (1365-1372) die on Schedule, then when Richard II will ascends the throne at age 10, his heir will be William of Hatfield (he would 40 in 1377, so there is a chance he would be still alive) or one of William's children (it is very likely that there would be one).

This fact can butterfly away the Roses War as William of Hatfield is older than Lionel of Clarence, John of Gaunt and Edmund of Langley from whom descend both the Lancasters (via John of Gaunt) and the Yorks (who descend both from Lionel of Clarence and Edmund of Langley).

Unless William's line turns out to be exclusively female, his sons are likely to become the next in line after Richard II and Henry Bolingbroke's position will be weaker than OTL.

And even if William's line turned out to be exclusively female, this would change the Roses War in itself: the Lancasters would still be one of the two sides fighting, but the other wouldn't forcibly be the Yorks but descendants of William.

Also, an interesting fact would be that William would be 40 when Richard II is crowned King at age 10. If William is a very ambitious guy, it is highly possible that he tries to snatch the crown for himself.
 
Top