Edward of Middleham is born healthy

VVD0D95

Banned
As it says on the tin, let's say Edward of Middleham is born in 1473, and is born healthy what sort of consequences could this have for him and his family? One imagines that he'd likely stay in the north with his family until such a time as his father needs to head south to assume the protectorship. Now assuming Richard III does as he did otl and takes the throne, Middleham is now Prince of Wales, and is much healthier than he was otl, consequently instead of there being almost consistent pressure for Richard to produce a spare, there would be pressure for him to arrange a suitable marriage for his son and heir. I can imagine there being discussions of a marriage to Anne of Brittany, but also to a daughter of the Catholic monarchs. Would such a discussion wait until any and all challenges to Richard's throne are dealt with? Or would they be ongoing? And how might Edward's healthier survival affect things like Henry Tudor's ambitions and the survival of his own mother Anne Neville?

I am half tempted to say Anne would be around for slightly longer if her son survived, and consequently that might make Richard less rash and thus make him more considerate of the consequences of some of his decisions, thus potentially lessening support for Tudor.
 
Of course if Edward is born healthier, that may also mean that Anne is somewhat healthier too. I'm not going to say that she and Richard would manage a whole brood like Edward and Elizabeth, but one more surviving child, perhaps two, might be doable... Which again, would make Richard more secure, at least on the throne. Particularly if one of those children is a girl who can marry James IV or Charles VIII - though I doubt he'd pass up the chance of Anne of Brittany, if Edward of Middleham doesn't get her.

I'd love to see Juana of Castile married to a surviving Edward of Middleham who takes the throne as Edward VI - honestly, if Richard has a surviving heir, I can't see Tudor being able to win at Bosworth. Richard himself was unpopular, yes, but that doesn't necessarily translate to his son. I wonder whether you might get an Edward II/Edward III situation, where Richard is forced to abdicate in favour of his son... Juana would be of a good age to marry Edward, and it would be a more prestigious match, than Phillip of Burgundy, making her a Queen rather than a Duchess. If Isabella and Ferdinand still get the Hapsburg alliance in Juan and Margaret, after all.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Of course if Edward is born healthier, that may also mean that Anne is somewhat healthier too. I'm not going to say that she and Richard would manage a whole brood like Edward and Elizabeth, but one more surviving child, perhaps two, might be doable... Which again, would make Richard more secure, at least on the throne. Particularly if one of those children is a girl who can marry James IV or Charles VIII - though I doubt he'd pass up the chance of Anne of Brittany, if Edward of Middleham doesn't get her.

I'd love to see Juana of Castile married to a surviving Edward of Middleham who takes the throne as Edward VI - honestly, if Richard has a surviving heir, I can't see Tudor being able to win at Bosworth. Richard himself was unpopular, yes, but that doesn't necessarily translate to his son. I wonder whether you might get an Edward II/Edward III situation, where Richard is forced to abdicate in favour of his son... Juana would be of a good age to marry Edward, and it would be a more prestigious match, than Phillip of Burgundy, making her a Queen rather than a Duchess. If Isabella and Ferdinand still get the Hapsburg alliance in Juan and Margaret, after all.
Oh this is very reue and Anne having more children maybe a daughter and an extra son would be interesting to see.

and agreed, I can see Henry Tudor definitely lacking somewhat in support should he try an alt Bosworth here, perhaps some of the more prominent yorkists would stay with Richard?

and agreed Juana to Edward would be an interesting marriage to see, especially with how I imagine Edward to be
 

VVD0D95

Banned
@FalconHonour in terms of Richard and Anne, how does this sound re their family line:

Richard III of England (b.1452: d.1500) m Anne Neville (b.1456: d.1499)

Issue:

Edward V/VI of England (b.1473)

Cecily of Middleham (b.1475)

Anne of Middleham (b.1477)
 
Arguably without the emotional trauma of losing her son Anne might battle along against her illness a little longer, assuming it isn't butterflied entirely.

A longer lived Anne prevents the damaging rumours surrounding Richard's supposed interest in Elizabeth of York. That, combined with a healthy heir on the brink of adulthood, probably makes Richard's regime a fair bit more stable.

I can imagine there being discussions of a marriage to Anne of Brittany, but also to a daughter of the Catholic monarchs. Would such a discussion wait until any and all challenges to Richard's throne are dealt with? Or would they be ongoing?

Possibly there'd be something provisional in place, but didn't they insist on the removal of Warbeck and Warwick before sending over Katherine IOTL?
 
Last edited:

VVD0D95

Banned
Yes, that's what I meant. And the family tree looks good. Richard could use his daughters to bind would-be Tudor supporters to him... Foreign or domestic!
Ah I get you, yeah I was thinking Edward would be a slightly less arrogant twat compared to Phil, and perhaps more willing to actually listen to her.
Arguably without the emotional trauma of losing her son Anne might battle along against her illness a little longer, assuming it isn't butterflied entirely.

A longer lived Anne prevents the damaging rumours surrounding Richard's supposed interest in Elizabeth of York. That, combined with a healthy heir on the brink of adulthood, probably makes Richard's regime a fair bit more stable.



Possibly there'd be something provisional in place, but didn't they insist on the removal of Warbeck and Warwick before sending over Katherine IOTL?

Agreed, probably makes Henry even more desperate to marry Elizabeth to get some of her support over to him.

Hmm I thikn they did yes, though would Warbeck be as big a thing here? I suppose initially maybe, but once that's done then Richard's probably more attractive prospect no?
 
Richard himself was unpopular, yes, but that doesn't necessarily translate to his son. I wonder whether you might get an Edward II/Edward III situation, where Richard is forced to abdicate in favour of his son...

@BlueFlowwer can correct me on this, but wasn't most of Richard's unpopularity posthumous? I don't say he was the people's choice monarch, but AIUI, most of the "blackening" of Richard's name would've been from the disaffected Yorkists and the Tudors (see Murder of the Princes in the Tower which will likely be blamed on someone else - Stanley? Buckingham?)
 
@BlueFlowwer can correct me on this, but wasn't most of Richard's unpopularity posthumous? I don't say he was the people's choice monarch, but AIUI, most of the "blackening" of Richard's name would've been from the disaffected Yorkists and the Tudors (see Murder of the Princes in the Tower which will likely be blamed on someone else - Stanley? Buckingham?)
Oh, a lot of it was, yes, but you can't deny the widespread disaffection in the gentry that led to the rebellion of 1483. And going off primary sources - Crowland and Mancini among them, neither of them who seem to have written primarily at the behest of the Tudor monarchs, unlike More or Vergil - Richard seems to have been at least suspected of killing the Princes as early as the summer of 1483. So yes, he was blackened by the Tudors, but they seem to have built on what was already there rather than built a case out of thin air... But as I say, if we use King John and Henry III as an example, those that are disaffected with Richard may well be happy enough to reconcile with his son, if the opportunity arises...
 
Oh, a lot of it was, yes, but you can't deny the widespread disaffection in the gentry that led to the rebellion of 1483. And going off primary sources - Crowland and Mancini among them, neither of them who seem to have written primarily at the behest of the Tudor monarchs, unlike More or Vergil - Richard seems to have been at least suspected of killing the Princes as early as the summer of 1483. So yes, he was blackened by the Tudors, but they seem to have built on what was already there rather than built a case out of thin air... But as I say, if we use King John and Henry III as an example, those that are disaffected with Richard may well be happy enough to reconcile with his son, if the opportunity arises...

I'd point out that just because Crowland and Mancini weren't writing for the Tudors doesn't mean they were necessarily unbiased. Mancini, for instance, spoke limited/very little English, and his chief source was John Argentine, physician to the princes in the Tower. Not to mention that Mancini's "memoirs" sat unread for nearly 500 years. Now, not disputing Mancini's credibility, but he does say that Edward IV was illegitimate (which was likely a rumour he found floating around anyway), that Elizabeth Wydeville was the one to persuade Edward IV to execute Clarence, and that Dickon swore "bloody vengeance" for the execution of his "dear brother".

Mancini was a foreigner to England, who spoke very little/limited English, and who wasn't familiar with English customs/traditions/laws. Not to mention, he gets to England at the end of 1482, some postulate early 1483 (just before Edward IV dies), and leaves between July (Richard's coronation) and December. I'm not saying his book is unreliable, but I do think it might be as much of a case of reading a tabloid reporting on who's screwing whom as fact.
 
I'd point out that just because Crowland and Mancini weren't writing for the Tudors doesn't mean they were necessarily unbiased. Mancini, for instance, spoke limited/very little English, and his chief source was John Argentine, physician to the princes in the Tower. Not to mention that Mancini's "memoirs" sat unread for nearly 500 years. Now, not disputing Mancini's credibility, but he does say that Edward IV was illegitimate (which was likely a rumour he found floating around anyway), that Elizabeth Wydeville was the one to persuade Edward IV to execute Clarence, and that Dickon swore "bloody vengeance" for the execution of his "dear brother".

Mancini was a foreigner to England, who spoke very little/limited English, and who wasn't familiar with English customs/traditions/laws. Not to mention, he gets to England at the end of 1482, some postulate early 1483 (just before Edward IV dies), and leaves between July (Richard's coronation) and December. I'm not saying his book is unreliable, but I do think it might be as much of a case of reading a tabloid reporting on who's screwing whom as fact.

I know. But at least they are not paid Tudor spin doctors a la Virgil and More. 🙂
 
I know. But at least they are not paid Tudor spin doctors a la Virgil and More. 🙂

Tudor might not have been the one footing the bill, but spin doctor is certainly possible given who Mancini's patron was.

The two contemporary sources are, in many ways, equally problematical. Dominic Mancini was an Italian visitor to London during the spring and early summer of 1483 and his evidence is usually considered of particular value because he was a foreign eye witness with no axe to grind on either side. This easy reliance ignores key aspects of Mancini’s work, not least its title. Usually given as ‘The Usurpation of Richard III’, the full Latin title is actually ‘Dominici Mancini, de Occupatione Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium, ad Angelum Catonem Presulem Viennensium, Libellus Incipit’. Two things are significant here. ‘De Occupatione’ does not translate as The Usurpation but as The Occupation – The Occupation of the Throne of England by Richard the Third. Latin has words for usurpation, but none are used here and the title becomes a whole lot less sinister when the word Occupation is used.


The second significant item within the title is the identity of Mancini’s patron. Angelo Cato was Archbishop of Vienne and it was for him that Mancini’s report was penned. This is significant because Cato was a member of the French court, serving as personal physician to Louis XI for a time. This connection is crucial because Richard was a figure known to the French court and of interest to the cunning and wily Louis, who must have marked Richard as a man to watch after Edward IV’s campaign to invade France. Richard had disagreed with his brother’s decision to make peace and refused to attend the signing of the peace treaty. Louis had managed to secure a private meeting with Richard later, probably to size him up. Mancini was writing for a man close to Louis who would have had an image of Richard coloured by that relationship and this must impact both Mancini’s account and the reliance that we can place upon it. Mancini makes several errors that betray a lack of understanding of English society, politics and culture that lessen his reliability but the identity of his patron cannot be ignored too.

Mancini recorded the sermon given by Ralph Shaa by noting that Richard ‘so corrupted preachers of the divine word, that in their sermons to the people they did not blush to say, in the face of decency and all religion, that the progeny of King Edward should be instantly eradicated, for neither had he been a legitimate king, nor could his issue be so. Edward, said they, was conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late duke of York’. Like More, and unlike Virgil, Mancini records the dual accusation that Edward IV was a bastard and that his children were illegitimate too. It is highly significant that the stories of Edward IV’s illegitimacy are believed to have originated in France, at the court of Louis XI, where it was a standing joke. Mancini may have been aware of the story and included it for Cato’s benefit, or even, since Mancini tells us he is writing his memories later at Cato’s request, been fed the story by Cato to include. Having left England before events moved on, Mancini offers no evidence regarding the fate of Richard’s nephews.

Our other contemporary source is the redoubtable Croyland Chronicle. Although the author is anonymous he is understood to be very close to the Yorkist government and has been tentatively identified as Bishop John Russell, Richard III’s Chancellor. A trusted member of Edward IV’s government it is believed that Russell accepted the position of Chancellor only reluctantly after Bishop Rotherham was dismissed. Russell remained Chancellor until Richard III dismissed him in July 1485, shortly before Bosworth. The Croyland Chronicle continuation with which he is credited is believed to have been written shortly after Bosworth at the outset of Henry VIIs reign. Certainly the Croyland Chronicle is not favourable to Richard, criticising the vices of his court, particularly at Christmas, though this was the conventionally pious opinion of the Church.


On the subject of the sermon by Ralph Shaa, Croyland recorded that ‘It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester’. The coldly factual account makes no mention of an accusation laid against Edward IV, though this might be because Russell (if he was the author) would not give credence to such a claim against his former master. However, if that were the case, why record the allegation regarding his marriage and his sons? Why one and not the other when surely, if both were made, both or neither would have been recorded? Croyland’s evidence, when weighed with the other accounts available, would lead me to conclude that Ralph Shaa preached on the existence of a pre-contract and the illegitimacy of the princes but made no mention of Edward IV’s illegitimacy.


On the fate of the princes, Croyland offers the story that in late summer ‘public proclamation was made, that Henry, duke of Buckingham, who at this time was living at Brecknock in Wales, had repented of his former conduct, and would be the chief mover in this attempt, while a rumour was spread that the sons of king Edward before-named had died a violent death, but it was uncertain how’. Croyland seems to be explaining that a rumour that the boys were dead was deliberately created and spread as part of Buckingham’s Rebellion (which was, in fact, Henry Tudor’s Rebellion as discussed in a previous post). Nowhere does he, well-informed as he undoubtedly was, possibly at the very centre of Richard’s government, state that they were dead or that Richard ordered them killed. Writing under Henry Tudor, he would have nothing to fear from the accusation and everything to gain from a new king keen to know the fates of potential rivals. Why would such a well-informed man never once state that they were murdered? Perhaps because he knew a secret his new king would not like, that would only increase his insecurity. There is another source, uncovered amongst the College of Arms’ collection in the 1980’s that refers to a story that princes were murdered “be [by] the vise” of the Duke of Buckingham. Though there is discussion as to whether ‘vise’ should mean advice or device, there is nevertheless more evidence to relate Buckingham and his revolt to the death of the boys. Perhaps this ties in with Croyland’s tale but the rumour became confused, or perhaps it is the truth.

The conclusion of this brief tour of the sources available is that they offer no conclusive evidence. I doubt that Sir Thomas More meant to tell a factual history of King Richard III, but signposted the fact that he was writing in allegory and offering a moral tale. Virgil had his own agenda and his evidence contradicts that of a contemporary eye witness regarding Shaa’s sermon whilst he confesses to having no real knowledge of the fate of the princes beyond being certain that King Richard had them killed. Mancini’s evidence is brought into question when his patron and audience is considered. The allegation regarding Edward IV’s illegitimacy included by Virgil and More may have originated from Mancini’s account, created for a man at the centre of the origin of that story. Croyland, no fan of Richard’s, states that the pre-contract was the sole subject of the sermon and that the death of the princes was a deliberately concocted rumour to garner support for a rebellion. His evidence is dispassionate and devoid of agenda, making it the most reliable available to us.



Based upon what Croyland says, the pre-contract story was the reason the princes were declared illegitimate, was the only story given and must have been in circulation and widely believed enough to cause men of power to petition Richard III to take the throne. His silence on the matter of the fate of the princes is also frustrating but revealing. He claims that there was only ever a rumour of their deaths as part of a planned rebellion, never actually stating that they were dead, let alone that Richard ordered their murder.


Our only other guidance is the actions of those living through the spring and summer of 1483 in London. For example, Elizabeth Woodville’s eventual emergence from sanctuary in 1484 has always been problematical. If she knew that Richard had murdered her sons by Edward IV, why hand over her daughters like lambs to the slaughter? Richard promised to take care of them, but what does the word of a child murderer mean to their mother?
 

VVD0D95

Banned
So in a scenario where Richard has a healthy heir and two daughters and manages ro see off Buckingham and Tudor, would he be seen as a stabilising influence for englsnd or?
 
So in a scenario where Richard has a healthy heir and two daughters and manages ro see off Buckingham and Tudor, would he be seen as a stabilising influence for englsnd or?
I would say yes, the Wars of the Roses have been dragging on for almost thirty years by this point and people are probably tired of fighting on English soil. Edward of Middleham will probably be more of a symbol of hope than his father but that's just my opinion.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
I would say yes, the Wars of the Roses have been dragging on for almost thirty years by this point and people are probably tired of fighting on English soil. Edward of Middleham will probably be more of a symbol of hope than his father but that's just my opinion.
Agreed hopefully Edward doesn’t become Henry III tho!
 
So in a scenario where Richard has a healthy heir and two daughters and manages ro see off Buckingham and Tudor, would he be seen as a stabilising influence for englsnd or?
If he can safely marry Elizabeth of York out of the way yes. Still is pretty likely who ke killed his nephews (as they WERE a big danger for his rule AND he knew that). Warwick also would be at serious risk of dying young, after Anne’s death, if Edward of Middleham survived
 

VVD0D95

Banned
If he can safely marry Elizabeth of York out of the way yes. Still is pretty likely who ke killed his nephews (as they WERE a big danger for his rule AND he knew that). Warwick also would be at serious risk of dying young, after Anne’s death, if Edward of Middleham survived
This is very true, though one imagines once Tudor is dead most of the Edwardian yorkists would have to reconcile with Richard no?
 
Richard II would be no less ruthless than Henry Tudor in dealing with potential claimants - I see no reason why he couldn't stabilise England. Although his relatively early death proposed in 1500 will leave some unfinished business for Edward, most likely. Being that much older than Henry VIII Edward is unlikely to be drawn in to the religious turmoil in Europe to the same degree as Henry VIII was (pro or anti reformation) and certainly is not likely to fall out over hs marriages to the same degree with the pope (who else could??).

So a much later Church of England if it forms at all. Possibly going full on Wars of Religion as per France in Edward's son's (or grandson's) reign
 
Top