Edward of Middleham

The only son of King Richard III was a very sickly boy who died in his tenth or eleventh year. Here he is healthy and manages to survive to adulthood and escapes England after Bosworth. He settles in perhaps France or the Netherlands and has issue. Would his descendants take advantage of the initial failure of Henry VIII to have a male heir in order to re-gain the thrown?
 
doubtful, henry VII made sure his back was protected as he knew that he took the throne on the flimsiest and weakest link imaginable.
There was a 'return' of a pretender during Henry VII's time but this was culled and showed that the monarchy was finaly stabilising. the yorkists were quite happy with the line after henry VIII as he himself was halve yorkist and the private armies were diminishing in power
the lack of volatility, lack of strengh in comparisons with the rich tudor england and the fact that the iron hand of the tudors made sure that any rebellions were not really thought about on the scale that they were before would mean that there wouldent really make much difference

of course i culd be wrong :p
 
In OTL, Henry VII faced plots and rebellions in the name of various Yorkist claimants thoughout most of his reign. Edward, as the son of a king, would have a better claim than most of those. If he was going to try for the throne, he'd try it a lot sooner than the reign of Henry VIII, most likely in the equivalent of OTL's 1487 uprising.
 
It is possible that with a healthy heir, Richard does not lose at Bosworth. Perhaps he is in a better frame of mind and does not fight with almost suicidal recklessness. Perhaps Stanley does not betray him.
In either case, the Welsh pretender is sent packing and the true line of English kings continues.
 
That would have some interesting possibilities. Especially since Richard III was planning on remarrying in OTL.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A396029

http://www.r3.org/bosworth/texts/legends_princess.html

Of course with his son Edward still alive, Richard III might not be in such a rush to remarry. OTOH, Richard was only 33, so I expect he would remarry at some point. Not sure how Edward would react to a stepmother and perhaps some step-siblings.

If Richard III lives as long as his great-grandfather (his father and grandfather died violently) he's good for another 30 years, which leaves Edward of Middleham in his early 40's when he gains the throne.
 
A lot of the Yorkists disillusioned with Richard III threw in their lot with Henry Tudor, but if Richard had a living heir then they would be more reluctant to do this, and would look to the more traditional forms of trying to manoevre for position

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Which Yorkists are you referring to? Bosworth does seem to have been poorly attended on both sides.
 
Richard had many good points but in 1483 his usurpation or coup d'etat was a huge political shock up to the point he'd been a loyal supporter of his brother and unlike the middle brother George of Clarence had had a reasonable relationship with Edward's Queen and her family. However his actions even if you ignore the fate of his nephews (or acquit him of it) split the regime - he favoured people who he'd known for years whilst living in the north, disposed of Edward's favourites such as Hastings by doing so you could argue that he'd got rid of some of the main pillars of the Yorkist administration - Grey (the Queen's son) and Hastings were both hugely influential in the Midlands, Wales had been governed by the Woodvilles through the Prince of Wales (Buckingham was Richard's answer in Wales but his rebellion left a vacuum and the Herberts were not once what they'd been) in the South West again Grey (through the planned betrothal of his son to the daughter and heir of the Duchess of Exeter) was in exile. All of that played a part in the lack of support for Richard at Bosworth - he'd survived one major rebellion and it was touch and go whether he could survive another. The lack of an obvious heir played a part but it didn't dictate whether or not people turned up to support him.

There were a few recalcitrant Yorkists who would plague Henry VII for much of his reign - however its worth putting sentimentality aside most of them were in it for profit or had been offended by Henry at some point rather than men and women longing for a return of some lost Yorkist heir.
Margaret of Burgundy's main complaint was over her dower lands in England (and she'd argued with both her brothers about it before their deaths), John de la Pole had been a supporter of Richard (one of the few family members to support him in fact) but was happy to attend the Christening of Prince Arthur and was doubly a cousin to Elizabeth of York (through his mother Elizabeth Duchess of Suffolk and his wife a niece of Queen Elizabeth Woodville) his betrayal may have been largely brought about by Henry's style of government and a nagging sense of personal injustice - his brothers after his failure at Stoke were minor thorns but largely acting out of revenge over Henry's downgrading of their father's dukedom to an earldom. Most of them pawns for foreign monarchs eager to cause trouble (primarily Scotland, France and on and off the Empire).
Had Richard's son lived the likeliest is that Henry would have grabbed him and popped him in the tower with his cousin Warwick (comfortable house arrest) - if he failed and the boy escaped then I suspect he'd have found a home with his aunt Margaret who instead of backing people like Warbeck would have backed him instead perhaps an attempted invasion at some point in the 1490's and I suspect he might have been able to raise the North (where residual affection for Richard III lasted) but he would have struggled in the south (where Richard had always been weak)
 
Top