It is often stated, that if Ed IV lived few year longer fall of House of York would be avoided, but what about reverse scenario-Edward dies few years earlier, in spring 1477? On one hand his sons are even younger than when he died IOTL, but their situation should still be better than in 1483, and reason for this is simple-their uncle, George of Clarence, is still alive, so if Edward's sons are deposed, then Clarence is next in line. As almost nobody wants Clarence on the throne, would it save Edward's sons?
Edward IV dies earlier
- Thread starter Jan Olbracht
- Start date
-
- Tags
- edward iv
Clarence was a near incompetent drunkard, his regency won't go well.
So Gloucester would try to replace him as regent? And being (too) ambitious, wouldn't Clarence try to usurp the throne? Also, what about his marriage plans-his sister Margaret wanted him to marry Mary of Burgundy, there is no Edward IV to prevent that marriage and Gloucester would be happy if Clarence leaves England.
Not as much Gloucester tries to be regent, more likely he's made one.
Considering Clarence's character, would Ed4 even leave him as regent/lord protector?
Men don't go off to make marriages, maybe when (if) Mary ascends.
Also, Clarence has children, and isn't attained, so no usurpation by neither Gloucester nor Clarence would usurp/claim their right. Clarence was stupid but not THAT stupid......
Can't see Clarence being made regent. At best, maybe he gets a role on a regency council (with Gloucester, Rivers... Hastings, some Bourchiers?), but even that's a bit of a longshot.
The Woodvilles probably buddy up to Gloucester here, rather than trying to shut him out of power as they did historically, because of the threat of Clarence. Gloucester, for his part, has his own tensions with Clarence over the Warwick inheritance. No one in the Yorkist establishment has any reason to trust Clarence and that, combined with his own questionable competence, make it unlikely he'll get anywhere.
Perhaps he does something stupid (brings up the pre-contract story? Claims he was recognised as Lancastrian next-in-line after Edward of Westminster during his betrayal in 1469-70?) and gets himself killed. Then maybe the Woodvilles and Gloucester start squabbling.
The Woodvilles probably buddy up to Gloucester here, rather than trying to shut him out of power as they did historically, because of the threat of Clarence. Gloucester, for his part, has his own tensions with Clarence over the Warwick inheritance. No one in the Yorkist establishment has any reason to trust Clarence and that, combined with his own questionable competence, make it unlikely he'll get anywhere.
Perhaps he does something stupid (brings up the pre-contract story? Claims he was recognised as Lancastrian next-in-line after Edward of Westminster during his betrayal in 1469-70?) and gets himself killed. Then maybe the Woodvilles and Gloucester start squabbling.
But would Clarence be happy with leaving England? I think he'd try to both be regent/king in England and marry Mary of Burgundy, possibly even dreaming about imperial crown.
Window of opportunity is not wide, as if Edward IV dies in March 1477 ITTL, Mary of Burgundy married in August.
Who would be lord protector according to you? Gloucester or one of the Woodvilles?
Also @Jan Olbracht is Bedford still born?
A marriage with Mary of Burgundy is a big deal because it pulls England into Louis XI's attempt to move in on her rather unwieldy inheritance. English military support means that this turns into a wider conflagration, one that the English had a real chance to do well in judging from Louis's willingness to basically bribe them to go away in Edward IV's war that decade, as well as England's large pool of trained military manpower combined with Burgundian wealth in the northern provinces.
It's not unimagineable, I think, for a real attempt at getting Normandy and parts of Gascony back. Keep in mind that England's nobility thought of themselves as having French lands stolen from them, and would unify behind the effort. The problem I think comes when Edwards heirs and Gloucester have to figure out a handover of power.
This all relies on a narrow timetable, though, and the willingness of Clarence to be satisfied with co ruling Burgundy rather than being protector and regent in England.
It's not unimagineable, I think, for a real attempt at getting Normandy and parts of Gascony back. Keep in mind that England's nobility thought of themselves as having French lands stolen from them, and would unify behind the effort. The problem I think comes when Edwards heirs and Gloucester have to figure out a handover of power.
This all relies on a narrow timetable, though, and the willingness of Clarence to be satisfied with co ruling Burgundy rather than being protector and regent in England.
Last edited:
But it still exist, so I imagine than Clarence would try to usurp his nephews precisely just to sell himself to Mary (as a king of England, George could provide more help to her than Maximilian).
The english would focus on Gascony, not Normandy.
The HYW has ended, the nobility is 75% dead, I don't think a war will be popular.
Gloucester is Regent/Lord Protector, he has the power.
An usurpation without making them illegitimate? Ain't gonna happen, if anything, he'll end up with a civil war and making himself even less attractive to Mary.
The claims to Gascony certainly were longer in tenure, so I take your point, but establishing a base of power there may be difficult, unlike with Normandy having proximity to Calais. Normandy also saw far more land claims of English families, while Gascony was a royal duchy.
As for England's nobility, its decimation didn't particularly make it all that capable of opposing a war that ostensibly it would benefit from. Edward IV was a powerful monarch, and quite frankly, Henry VII was less of a Lancastrian raising traditional supporters to win and more of a foreign conqueror using a mercenary army and being lucky to have the Stanley connection through his mother. The Lancastrians were decimated after 1471 and were a non factor at this point in time.
The war likely would have been popular because of all of the excess military manpower in England through the livery/retinue system that needed something to do in this period. If there was no war, and you have a weak child king with a relatively young, even if capable, protector, you will get brigandage to an unacceptable degree, very quickly.
But Stillington could come up with his story earlier, who would stop him?
Who's to say Stillington doesn't die?
Wasn't he affiliated with Gloucester? Why would he strengthen Clarence's claims? At most, he spills it to Gloucester, who either has him killed/executed, or orders him to stay silent (cuz he's a priest and stuff)
I think Gascony would be the focus here, Normandy was pro-french, maybe some areas come under England, but I don't think they'll keep it for long.
I'll look into the others.
I imagine Gloucester would be more palatable to the wider aristocracy?
Edward IV might even name him as such (it’s controversial to pass over the older brother for the younger, but the older brother is Clarence, so...).