Edward V survives

Elizabeth Woodville completely throws out Edward IV's will, violates Richard's rights under that will wholesale, loses English territory, conspires with Henry Tudor...then takes Richard's wife and son hostage and demands a ransom during which Anne Neville suddenly. If you can't see why this would look bad...:rolleyes:

Especially considering that she is doing this out in the open. As in, everyone can see what she is doing, and they are all acting too stupid to actually do something about it.

Every single old blood royal descendant, such as the Buckingham's, Northumberlands, Norfolks and even the remaining Neville's can see this. They would literally rally around Richard and would present a threat to the Queen. Hell, they should actually be doing this, regardless of what the position that the Queen occupies. Disregarding the will is an absolute no-no. She would be crucified for that.

Elizabeth also makes it obviosu that she is out to get Richard by literally protecting the person who kidnapped Anne Neville. She makes no secret of it, and practically gloats it around court. Again, this would rally all the other nobles around Richard.
And lets not forget that she literally "invites" Richard to get his wife and son back. "Invites" him. He should have shown up with an army to get his son back, to prove a point to the upstart Queen. He is not taking her shit.
By the time you get to where the reconciliation is Richard should have revolted and all of the other magnates/nobles in the land would have practically joined him against the queen, seeing as how she had treated Richard.

Her attempts to secure an alliance with Henry Tudor. Not a bad idea. But, the fact that Henry actually submitted to the offer, and again, it was out in the open, especially if the French King knew, it would not be long before the English population knew. Of course, this is a good thing, being that it does offer a temporary relief of pressure, but the Queen is not acting with the consent of the nobility, or at least, Richard - who is the most powerful magnate in the land at that time - and is supposed to be the Lord Protector.
 
As just another example, page 27 claims that Richard was bent on marrying Anne in return for her share of the Warwick lands when it is historical fact that Richard permitted a split of those lands favoring George in return for George permitting the marriage.

I have a shitload of books on this era in english history, and i didn't even know that. Most of the authors portray this split as the brother and sisters at each others throats over the share of Neville property.

Your source is obviously highly biased. It tries to blame Richard of Gloucester for the execution of George of Clarence, when Richard is the only person on record who argued with Edward IV that George should be spared.

But even that source does not not show that Richard "already had a reputation for being ambitious and disregarding the law." In fact, it concludes he was "a typical member of and land-hungry and ruthless upper aristocracy."

I'm thinking that it is a Thomas More interpretation. Very Tudorish....


I suggest you read your own timeline. And Richard not marching against Elizabeth for her numerous crimes against him makes no sense. By the time she Elizabeth cuts the deal with Henry Tudor, her own sons should be deserting to Richard's side.

Of course she is. Elizabeth Woodville's kidnapping Richard's wife and son should bring every noble in England flocking to Richard's banner.

WITHOUT A DOUBT

CAPITALIZED FOR TRUTH!
 
Actually Thomas More's commentary on Richard were almost invariably based on material provided by Bishop Morton, author of the infamous Morton's Fork approach to revenue gathering used by Henry VII.

More's credibility on the subject has always been doubtful and Morton's effectively nil.
 
Actually Thomas More's commentary on Richard were almost invariably based on material provided by Bishop Morton, author of the infamous Morton's Fork approach to revenue gathering used by Henry VII.

More's credibility on the subject has always been doubtful and Morton's effectively nil.

That's because Morton was a True Lancastrian. Diehard fanatic. So anti-Yorkist that he escaped the Tower of London and fled to France. Which actually says alot.

Especially considering that he may have met Richard sometime.....
 
Personally I don't think Elizabeth Woodville would have tried to be regent, if anything she *might* try to have her brother, Anthony Woodville appointed.

In regards to Margaret of York, I can't say whether she would have taken on the post, given the situation in Burgundy, but I could her being the ideal female Regent if there was an ideal women for the job. This is a period when women having blood ties to the former monarch tend to work out as Regents. Anne Beaujeu comes to mind and then a little bit later on Margaret of Austria for Charles V. I'm getting at a sister or aunt of a child king working out as a better regent than the mother (Isabeau of Bavaria, mother of Charles VII and Catherine of Valois comes to mind and it definitely didn't work for Margaret of Anjou either). The mother tends not to work so well (exception is Scotland) if she's viewed as having her native country's interests at heart (Margaret of Anjou). I would exclude the Princes oldest sister, Elizabeth of York from discussion because she's still a teenager. But of course, just because a sister or an aunt of a child King being regent works in continental Europe, it doesn't mean it works in England.
 
No woman had ever been formally named as Regent in England.
In fact there was no real precedent for a formal regency as different circumstances had happened at different times - there was also the question of who should have political control and who would be the guardian of the young King's person in such cases.

It is pretty clear that on Edward IV's death the council of the late King had assumed government control which implies 1) that they were not going to name a regent or protector and 2) strongly implies that there was little suspicion of there being any difficulty. 3) that they intended to crown the King and govern in his name until he took personal control.

The sources suggest the Queen Dowager was not unhappy with what was happening (in fact during her reign as Queen Consort - Elizabeth never took any overtly political action in stark contrast to her predecessor Margaret of Anjou).
Hastings supposed letter to Richard of Gloucester suggesting the late King had left him all - in terms of some kind of protectorship - is perhaps more to do with Hastings lack of security following the death of his friend and the dislike we know existed between him and Dorset.
There is very little sound proof that Edward IV named Richard in that kind of role and at this period a King's will was not legally binding on either his surviving council members or Parliament.

There is no historical evidence of any discord between Richard, the Queen, Dorset or Rivers that predates his usurpation of the throne in 1483 - there is very little evidence that the Queen's family acted as a faction as how we would understand it either.

What you had in 1483 - is a teenager who would probably be capable of ruling within a short period of time.
You have one peer who in terms of his own influence is certainly threatened by the King's accession and the influence of his half brother and uncle - that is Hastings - though there is no evidence of what relationship Edward V had with his uncle Anthony Earl Rivers or his half brother Dorset (his other half brother Richard Grey was in his household at Ludlow).

You have another peer who has been excluded from areas that his family normally influenced - Buckingham who lost out to the Prince of Wales Council in Wales and has not been particularly well-treated by Edward IV. However with the Prince of Wales' as King and the Earl of Pembroke not particularly well regarded - a boy King might enable him to increase his influence (In OTL he was largely bought off by Richard at first with the reversion of some of the de Bohun inheritance that with the extinction of the Lancastrian line he felt he should have received)

The Lancastrian threat has been negated - Tudor is a footnote in history - who would have been nice to have at home in custody but isn't and certainly wasn't considered as any political threat.

With regard the law that has been much mooted - Richard of Gloucester was a direct beneficiary of his brother's dodgy land deals in the 1470s and certainly did not protest them. How the Warwick inheritance was divided between Edward's brother was highly unusual and though backed by an Act of Parliament was not a fair or equitable settlement.
Incidentally neither was the way Edward disposed the Norfolk and Exeter inheritances partically edifying either.
 
@mcdnab: I see what your saying about there not being a need for a regent. By Earl of Pembroke, are you referring to Edward V or someone else?
 
Sorry meant Earl of Huntingdon (William Herbert who was married to Elizabeth Woodville's sister and had surrenderd the earldom of Pembroke to the crown in 1479 in exchange for that of Huntingdon) - he wasn't as well regarded as his father and remained loyal to Richard after 1483 though did not fight at Bosworth.
The Herbert influence was not as high as all that by 1483 but they were one of the influential families in Wales.
 
Personally I don't think Elizabeth Woodville would have tried to be regent, if anything she *might* try to have her brother, Anthony Woodville appointed.

In regards to Margaret of York, I can't say whether she would have taken on the post, given the situation in Burgundy, but I could her being the ideal female Regent if there was an ideal women for the job. This is a period when women having blood ties to the former monarch tend to work out as Regents. Anne Beaujeu comes to mind and then a little bit later on Margaret of Austria for Charles V. I'm getting at a sister or aunt of a child king working out as a better regent than the mother (Isabeau of Bavaria, mother of Charles VII and Catherine of Valois comes to mind and it definitely didn't work for Margaret of Anjou either). The mother tends not to work so well (exception is Scotland) if she's viewed as having her native country's interests at heart (Margaret of Anjou). I would exclude the Princes oldest sister, Elizabeth of York from discussion because she's still a teenager. But of course, just because a sister or an aunt of a child King being regent works in continental Europe, it doesn't mean it works in England.
For your information, this board frowns on 'necromancy' (i.e. contributing to 'old' threads). You're new here, so this is just a warning from a fellow board member (I'm not anyone official).
 
Top