Elizabeth of York born a boy or born with a twin brother

The birth of a son earlier actually stabilises Edward's regime considerably.

Anti Woodville propoganda has two origins the complaints of Warwick in 1469 and those of Richard III in 1483 neither stand up too well to scrutiny as factually based (Richard's relationship with the Queen and her family up to 1483 was actually very good) - It was a standard convention or practice of the period for a rebel to attack those around a King rather than the monarch himself presenting themselves as a loyal subject merely trying to "save" the King from his evil advisers.

Warwick and Edward's relationship was already rocky before his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and got worse afterwards - largely because Edward was committed to a pro-Burgundian policy and Warwick favoured a French alliance to neutralise French support for the Lancastrian cause. Warwick was also exceptionally greedy and liked to present himself as the power behind the throne to foreign diplomats and the like.

It is rather like a young Henry VIII allowing Wolsey to run the country whilst he enjoys the benefits but eventually Henry grew up. Edward was quite happy to rely on Warwick to help gain and secure the crown but he wasn't necessarily going to allow Warwick to rule for him.

If you look at rewards and land grants the Neville's received far more than any of the Queen's immediate family. In financial terms the Woodville's were relatively poor (much of their estate relied on The dower of the Duchess of Bedford which was a life only estate and would not pass to her sons)

Anthony Woodville had a good reputation throughout Europe and it was very natural to appoint him to the Prince of Wales council (and I think a 1466 male heir would still be entrusted to him rather than the Queen's father) he was was already married to the Scales heiress, and his father was already on the council before the marriage.

The marriages of the Queen's unmarried sisters were largely to families who were strong Yorkist supporters and already had strong connections with the Queen (her mother in law was married to a Bourchier and the Grey Earls of Kent were related to her first husband) - there is also evidence the King encouraged the matches - unlike many of his aristocratic support the Woodville's were entirely reliant on Royal patronage (like many of Edward's household) which made their loyalty much easier to ensure compared to a wealthy aristocrat who could easily switch sides.

John Neville's marriage to the much married dowager Duchess of Norfolk - might actually have been quite useful for her - as a wealthy dowager with a rapacious family desperate for her lands she would have been a target for an arranged marriage to pass her estates to someone loyal to either her family or the King for the remainder of her lifetime - marrying the much younger King's brother in law provided safety for her and her estates.

The Woodville's were a useful and easy target for those unhappy with Edward.

Warwick's biggest bugbear after his declining influence was the lack of suitable husband's for his daughters and Edward IV's reluctance to allow Clarence in particular to marry Warwick's eldest daughter.

Clarence's betrayal might be stymied by a male heir born in 1466 his position as heir presumptive vanishes earlier and with a male heir Edward might be more willing to allow his marriage to Isabel Neville.

If Warwick doesn't rebel then a Lancastrian restoration becomes unlikely and Margaret of Anjou and her son remain pensioners of the French King through the 1470s. It also probably means a natural death for Henry VI rather than murder.

A Prince of Wales born in 1466 certainly postpones or delays a Warwick rebellion and it secures Edward's reign and certainly wipes out any Yorkist split on Edward IV's death.

IN 1483 assuming Edward IV dies on schedule then you have an adult Edward V on the throne (who may or not be close to his mother's family - people are not always fond of those responsible for their upbringing and education after all).
 
The birth of a son earlier actually stabilises Edward's regime considerably.

Anti Woodville propoganda has two origins the complaints of Warwick in 1469 and those of Richard III in 1483 neither stand up too well to scrutiny as factually based (Richard's relationship with the Queen and her family up to 1483 was actually very good) - It was a standard convention or practice of the period for a rebel to attack those around a King rather than the monarch himself presenting themselves as a loyal subject merely trying to "save" the King from his evil advisers.

Warwick and Edward's relationship was already rocky before his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and got worse afterwards - largely because Edward was committed to a pro-Burgundian policy and Warwick favoured a French alliance to neutralise French support for the Lancastrian cause. Warwick was also exceptionally greedy and liked to present himself as the power behind the throne to foreign diplomats and the like.

It is rather like a young Henry VIII allowing Wolsey to run the country whilst he enjoys the benefits but eventually Henry grew up. Edward was quite happy to rely on Warwick to help gain and secure the crown but he wasn't necessarily going to allow Warwick to rule for him.

If you look at rewards and land grants the Neville's received far more than any of the Queen's immediate family. In financial terms the Woodville's were relatively poor (much of their estate relied on The dower of the Duchess of Bedford which was a life only estate and would not pass to her sons)

Anthony Woodville had a good reputation throughout Europe and it was very natural to appoint him to the Prince of Wales council (and I think a 1466 male heir would still be entrusted to him rather than the Queen's father) he was was already married to the Scales heiress, and his father was already on the council before the marriage.

The marriages of the Queen's unmarried sisters were largely to families who were strong Yorkist supporters and already had strong connections with the Queen (her mother in law was married to a Bourchier and the Grey Earls of Kent were related to her first husband) - there is also evidence the King encouraged the matches - unlike many of his aristocratic support the Woodville's were entirely reliant on Royal patronage (like many of Edward's household) which made their loyalty much easier to ensure compared to a wealthy aristocrat who could easily switch sides.

John Neville's marriage to the much married dowager Duchess of Norfolk - might actually have been quite useful for her - as a wealthy dowager with a rapacious family desperate for her lands she would have been a target for an arranged marriage to pass her estates to someone loyal to either her family or the King for the remainder of her lifetime - marrying the much younger King's brother in law provided safety for her and her estates.

The Woodville's were a useful and easy target for those unhappy with Edward.

Warwick's biggest bugbear after his declining influence was the lack of suitable husband's for his daughters and Edward IV's reluctance to allow Clarence in particular to marry Warwick's eldest daughter.

Clarence's betrayal might be stymied by a male heir born in 1466 his position as heir presumptive vanishes earlier and with a male heir Edward might be more willing to allow his marriage to Isabel Neville.

If Warwick doesn't rebel then a Lancastrian restoration becomes unlikely and Margaret of Anjou and her son remain pensioners of the French King through the 1470s. It also probably means a natural death for Henry VI rather than murder.

A Prince of Wales born in 1466 certainly postpones or delays a Warwick rebellion and it secures Edward's reign and certainly wipes out any Yorkist split on Edward IV's death.

IN 1483 assuming Edward IV dies on schedule then you have an adult Edward V on the throne (who may or not be close to his mother's family - people are not always fond of those responsible for their upbringing and education after all).
Perhaps we can have the Plantagenet claims and possessions in France given to the Lancastrians, the Lancastrians are the senior male line heirs of Edward III after all.
 
Perhaps we can have the Plantagenet claims and possessions in France given to the Lancastrians, the Lancastrians are the senior male line heirs of Edward III after all.

That would never happen. It legitimises a threat to the Yorkist reign that they don't want to legitimise and upsets the French by giving away territory that they themselves claim as their own. It's a move that does nothing but weaken those in the lead and strengthen those who are losing, forcing the War of the Roses to continue. If the Lancastrians were to gain territory outside of England, it'll be by marrying into it. Find an heiress of Edward of Lancaster to marry and they have territory. But Edward IV will not hand over his territories or his claims to those he knows are his enemies. He's not a dumb man.
 
That would never happen. It legitimises a threat to the Yorkist reign that they don't want to legitimise and upsets the French by giving away territory that they themselves claim as their own. It's a move that does nothing but weaken those in the lead and strengthen those who are losing, forcing the War of the Roses to continue. If the Lancastrians were to gain territory outside of England, it'll be by marrying into it. Find an heiress of Edward of Lancaster to marry and they have territory. But Edward IV will not hand over his territories or his claims to those he knows are his enemies. He's not a dumb man.

The heiress that Edward of Westminister could marry is Catherine of Navarre or Isabella of Castile, Mary of Burgundy is under Yorkist guardianship.
 
The heiress that Edward could marry is Catherine of Navarre or Isabella of Castile.

Isabella is going through a bunch of betrothals and Castilian political intrigue, she'll not even consider the exiled heir for a country too far away to make a good union with her own country.

Catherine might be good if he's still wandering around when 1480+ comes around and she's now old enough to marry. But that will mean he's been exiled for 10+ years. Not good for his reputation.
 
Isabella is going through a bunch of betrothals and Castilian political intrigue, she'll not even consider the exiled heir for a country too far away to make a good union with her own country.

Catherine might be good if he's still wandering around when 1480+ comes around and she's now old enough to marry. But that will mean he's been exiled for 10+ years. Not good for his reputation.

A marriage with Mary of Burgundy is possible if he Edward of Westminister gives up his claims to the English throne.
 
A marriage with Mary of Burgundy is possible if he Edward of Westminister gives up his claims to the English throne.

No it isn't. Burgundy is the ally of Yorkist England, married to that cause by the union of Margaret of York and Charles, Duke of Burgundy. Even if Margaret of York dies, Charles is extremely committed to the Yorkist cause. Even if Edward of Lancaster gave up his claims to the Throne of England (impossible while his mother is alive and he is under her influence), he represents no discernable gains for Burgundy. Mary of Burgundy married where she did OTL to protect her interests and land holdings (a move that Anne of Brittany would later try and fail to mimic).
 
A marriage with Mary of Burgundy is possible if he Edward of Westminister gives up his claims to the English throne.

Which he wouldn't ever do. He's the best shot the Lancasters have.

You could instead marry him off to Kunigunde or the others I've mentioned as matches for alt-Edward. Closer of age to Ed Westminster are Joanna of Aragon (Ferdinand II's sister), Margaret of Brandenburg or her sisters Elisabeth and Ursula (daughters of the Elector of Brandenburg), Mary Stewart (James II's daughter), Joanna of Portugal (Afonso V's daughter), either Neville daughter if Warwick decides to rebel, Isabella or Eleanor of Viseu (Manuel I's sisters), Anna of Ryazan (only daughter of the Grand Prince of Moscow), Eleanor of Naples (Ferdinand I's daughter), Bona or Marie of Savoy (sisters of the Duke of Savoy), the Savoy sisters' niece Anne of Savoy, Margaret of Saxony (daughter of the Duke of Luxembourg), Sidonie of Poděbrady, her twin Catherine, or their younger sister Ludmilla (daughters of the King of Bohemia) Hedwig Jagiellon (Casimir IV's daughter), and Marie d'Orléans (Louis XII's sister).
 
There are problems with him marrying anyone - he is effectively penniless unless he regains his position in England - you are only going to marry off a valuable asset if you are a) at odds with Edward IV and want to annoy him or b) are willing to spend large sums on an invasion of England.

The best Edward of Westminster is going to do is a distant female connection of the French King and assuming Edward IV keeps Henry VI alive and confined then Westminster is only the heir and his father is only in his early fifties.

In England you have a strong and secure King with a growing brood of children who are going to be far more attractive than a mere claimant with little support to the more serious houses. Edward in OTL had strong ambitions for his children in terms of marriages. Diplomatically he was in a strong position given his reasonable relations with both Spain and Burgundy in opposition to France.

Louis XI's support was lukewarm for Edward of Westminster it was only Warwick's rebellion and England's pro-Burgundian alliance that prompted his support for Warwick and Margaret of Anjou's alliance and invasion.

If Edward has a son in 1466 then the knock-on will probably prevent an outright rebellion by Warwick and will strengthen Edward IV's hand - even if Warwick does rebel he might well be without Clarence and remember initially his rebellion was successful in forcing Edward into a number of concessions to Warwick which Edward then broke when he escaped Warwick's control leading to Warwick fleeing to France and cutting his deal with Margaret of Anjou.
 
There are problems with him marrying anyone - he is effectively penniless unless he regains his position in England - you are only going to marry off a valuable asset if you are a) at odds with Edward IV and want to annoy him or b) are willing to spend large sums on an invasion of England.

The best Edward of Westminster is going to do is a distant female connection of the French King and assuming Edward IV keeps Henry VI alive and confined then Westminster is only the heir and his father is only in his early fifties.

In England you have a strong and secure King with a growing brood of children who are going to be far more attractive than a mere claimant with little support to the more serious houses. Edward in OTL had strong ambitions for his children in terms of marriages. Diplomatically he was in a strong position given his reasonable relations with both Spain and Burgundy in opposition to France.

Louis XI's support was lukewarm for Edward of Westminster it was only Warwick's rebellion and England's pro-Burgundian alliance that prompted his support for Warwick and Margaret of Anjou's alliance and invasion.

If Edward has a son in 1466 then the knock-on will probably prevent an outright rebellion by Warwick and will strengthen Edward IV's hand - even if Warwick does rebel he might well be without Clarence and remember initially his rebellion was successful in forcing Edward into a number of concessions to Warwick which Edward then broke when he escaped Warwick's control leading to Warwick fleeing to France and cutting his deal with Margaret of Anjou.

Interesting, so with Edward IV having a son much earlier, is there no rebellion for Clarence?
 
Top