Edward IV has a son in 1465, consequences?
- Thread starter VVD0D95
- Start date
Because then we can have a Isabella II of Castile and Alfonso VI of Portugal and a proper Juan/Joao/Joan of Iberia. If Alfonso is even half the man his father was then they shall forge a empire out of their fallen foes blood and bones while spreading the firebrand of the holy roman church across the waves with a strength unheard of through the ages of man!
That would be lovely yes?
That would be lovely yes?
Last edited:
If Edward has an heir, and they're facing the prospect of a Woodville succession, is it possible Warwick and Clarence bite the bullet and claim the throne outright for George ("Edward is a bastard!" "Blaybourne" etc.)?
It's doubtful whether they'd be at all successful and if Warwick and George have attempted to claim the throne in George's name, and failed and had to flee, might make it harder for their OTL alliance with the Lancastrians to happen.
Alternately they could try doing something with the alleged bigamy of Edward's marriage (if they manage to find out about it), but Eleanor Talbot is still alive at this point and that complicates matters- she'd likely deny things either because a) The precontract might never have existed, b) Pissing off the king is bad idea (and IIRC part of the reason she may have got involved with Edward was to secure certain lands for her widowhood), and c) She was religious and wouldn't want to admit to hooking up with the king.
It's doubtful whether they'd be at all successful and if Warwick and George have attempted to claim the throne in George's name, and failed and had to flee, might make it harder for their OTL alliance with the Lancastrians to happen.
Alternately they could try doing something with the alleged bigamy of Edward's marriage (if they manage to find out about it), but Eleanor Talbot is still alive at this point and that complicates matters- she'd likely deny things either because a) The precontract might never have existed, b) Pissing off the king is bad idea (and IIRC part of the reason she may have got involved with Edward was to secure certain lands for her widowhood), and c) She was religious and wouldn't want to admit to hooking up with the king.
With an earlier her, do you think Edward might have fewer issues with marrying Clarence to Warwick's daughter? That might placate Warwick enough to keep him from rebelling.
Few points:
Warwick and Edward were always going to clash at some point - it is almost inevitable - on the one hand you have a man who believes he has helped put his nephew on the throne, who is determined to maintain control, to increase his power, wealth and prestige on the other you have a man who is a successful soldier and who is King and who is determined to restore the respectability of the crown after the failure of Henry VI's reign. They differed on foreign policy for various reason and domestically Edward was more conciliatory in his first reign towards Lancastrians willing to come back into the fold which Warwick opposed (largely because he and his brother were the major beneficiaries of Edward's largesse and neither were in the mood to share)
Edward specifically did not want Clarence marrying Warwick's daughter because it removed a diplomatic bargaining chip (Clarence's marriage though with a male heir that is less valuable) and as it would give Warwick even more influence and power at the expense of other Yorkist peers and by the late 60s Edward was finding Warwick's resentment difficult.
The Queen's family had already been rehabilitated and certainly her father and brother had made peace with York before the marriage - the marriages of the Queen's sisters wouldn't have happened without the King's consent which suggests he was well aware that tying his wife's famly to nobles at his court was not a bad policy - particularly given in most cases the marriages were with families already connected to the Grey's and the Woodville's.
The one that probably really caused Warwick an issue was Buckingham's because he was probably the only available peer that was of suitable status for Warwick's daughters and a possible resentment would be Thomas Grey's betrothal to Anne Holland (the King's niece and heir to the Duke of Exeter) who might have made a match for Warwick's nephew (and his heir male) but both marriages were in the King's gift - and the Holland match was an easy and inexpensive way of endowing his step son the Buckingham match again was in the King's gift and the wardship was given to the Queen (and when a ward was given by the crown to a noble it was usually expected that they would arrange a marriage for the ward to their own family's advantage - hence Cecily Neville's marriage to Richard Duke of York).
The Queen delivering a son straight out of the gate is going to improve her position - though the resentment of her is greatly exaggerated.
It certainly makes things harder for anyone opposed to Edward's rule, a male heir makes him more secure. In the long-term it almost certainly means an easy transfer of power on Edward's death - a 17 year old heir is far harder to depose as he will have his own household and loyal followers etc and is in a much stronger position (there would be no question of a healthy 17 year old needing a regent).
Warwick and Edward were always going to clash at some point - it is almost inevitable - on the one hand you have a man who believes he has helped put his nephew on the throne, who is determined to maintain control, to increase his power, wealth and prestige on the other you have a man who is a successful soldier and who is King and who is determined to restore the respectability of the crown after the failure of Henry VI's reign. They differed on foreign policy for various reason and domestically Edward was more conciliatory in his first reign towards Lancastrians willing to come back into the fold which Warwick opposed (largely because he and his brother were the major beneficiaries of Edward's largesse and neither were in the mood to share)
Edward specifically did not want Clarence marrying Warwick's daughter because it removed a diplomatic bargaining chip (Clarence's marriage though with a male heir that is less valuable) and as it would give Warwick even more influence and power at the expense of other Yorkist peers and by the late 60s Edward was finding Warwick's resentment difficult.
The Queen's family had already been rehabilitated and certainly her father and brother had made peace with York before the marriage - the marriages of the Queen's sisters wouldn't have happened without the King's consent which suggests he was well aware that tying his wife's famly to nobles at his court was not a bad policy - particularly given in most cases the marriages were with families already connected to the Grey's and the Woodville's.
The one that probably really caused Warwick an issue was Buckingham's because he was probably the only available peer that was of suitable status for Warwick's daughters and a possible resentment would be Thomas Grey's betrothal to Anne Holland (the King's niece and heir to the Duke of Exeter) who might have made a match for Warwick's nephew (and his heir male) but both marriages were in the King's gift - and the Holland match was an easy and inexpensive way of endowing his step son the Buckingham match again was in the King's gift and the wardship was given to the Queen (and when a ward was given by the crown to a noble it was usually expected that they would arrange a marriage for the ward to their own family's advantage - hence Cecily Neville's marriage to Richard Duke of York).
The Queen delivering a son straight out of the gate is going to improve her position - though the resentment of her is greatly exaggerated.
It certainly makes things harder for anyone opposed to Edward's rule, a male heir makes him more secure. In the long-term it almost certainly means an easy transfer of power on Edward's death - a 17 year old heir is far harder to depose as he will have his own household and loyal followers etc and is in a much stronger position (there would be no question of a healthy 17 year old needing a regent).
VVD0D95
Banned
Hmm, this is true, I do imagine Warwick and George would likely try something during the 1470s if not before, Warwick could well try something during the late 1460s as he did otl, which could be worsened if Edward V's grandfather is his guardian at Ludlow.
Interesting points here, so, would Clarence be looking toward consolidating his own power at court, perhaps at Warwick's expense, or would he remain a fresh pick for Warwick to manipulate? As for Edward V's own court, I do imagine he'd have some fair Woodville exposure through his grandfather and uncle, and perhaps half brothers. Though seeing him with the future generation of nobles as well would be really cool.
Warwick still has the sheer force of personality to overpower and manipulate someone as weak/inconstant/opportunistic/disgruntled as Clarence.
VVD0D95
Banned
This is very true, I imagine some sort of rebellion in 1469 would likely still spring up then. Though, I do not think Warwick would turn to the Lancastrians, especially if there were overtures from the Yorkist side about Anne Neville.
VVD0D95
Banned
So, here's what I'm thinking for the list of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville's children:
Edward V (b. 1465) m Kunigunde of Austria (b. 1465)
Elizabeth (b. 1466)
Richard, Duke of York (b. 1467)
Cecily of York (b. 1469)
Margaret of York (b. 1472: d. 1479)
Anne of York (b. 1475)
George, Duke of Bedford/ Duke of Hereford (b. 1477: d. 1479)
Catherine of York (b. 1479: d. 1486)
Bridget of York (b. 1480)
Edward V (b. 1465) m Kunigunde of Austria (b. 1465)
Elizabeth (b. 1466)
Richard, Duke of York (b. 1467)
Cecily of York (b. 1469)
Margaret of York (b. 1472: d. 1479)
Anne of York (b. 1475)
George, Duke of Bedford/ Duke of Hereford (b. 1477: d. 1479)
Catherine of York (b. 1479: d. 1486)
Bridget of York (b. 1480)
It isn't rare for alliances to be further cemented by double marriages.Look at Louis II of Hungary and his sister for example.They were married to the Habsburg siblings,Ferdinand of Austria and his sister Mary.
VVD0D95
Banned
Aha true, though he could be hooked in again, if Edward offers him an olive branch. He'd likely still break it again though.
Edward needs a firm ally on the Continent more than anything else.While their sister can give some aid to the House of York,this is limited by her capacity as Duchess Dowager.Margaret of York's influence dissolves if Maximilian is unwilling to back her.Richard on the other hand has an obligation to back his brother unlike Maximilian.
Last edited:
He and George seems to be incapable to not screw up with Edward and a stronger woodville cliche will not make anything better
VVD0D95
Banned
This is true, though one wonders, would a nephew of Edward IV be more inclined to support him, especially if he is Duke of Burgundy and fighting for survival. Meaning Charles and Margaret have a son