Elizabeth of York born male

What if Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville's first child, born on 11th February 1466, had been a son instead of a daughter.

If Edward IV still dies in 1483 he'd be succeeded by a 17 year old son, old enough to avoid a minority.

What happens next? Does Gloucester still make a play for the throne, or would he even need to?

Presumably Henry Tudor will either rot in exile or hope for a pardon from the new King and a restoration of his Earldom of Richmond.
 
I'd say no since OTL he began by striking against the Woodviles (me? Biased?), so he'd probably be content as is unless he feels they have too strong a hold on his nephew.
 
Things would have turned different if Elizabeth of York had been born a male. Edward IV's male successor would have been 17 and not 12, thus he would not have required a Regency from Richard of Gloucester (OTL Richard III). Thus, there would have been no squabbling of power between Richard and the Woodvilles.

Not having the position of Lord Protector of the Realm might lead the Duke of Gloucester not to usurp the crown. He can still try to contest his nephew, but I think he would be in a weaker position than OTL. I imagine Richard's attitude towards the new king will depend on a lot of factor, including the personnality of his nephew (some historians say Richard thought of OTL Edward V more as a Woodville than a member of the House of York), the Woodvilles' influence and attitude, the relationship between Richard and his nephew and Richard's own ambitions (they probably played a part in his usurpation of the crown).
At best, the Duke of Gloucester remains a loyal servant of the crown, a popular figure and the strongest Lord in Northern England. At worst, he rebels against his nephew and tries to usurp the crown.

As for Henry Tudor, I'm not sure he will stay in exile to rot. A pardon seems out of question as Henry is the Lancastrian heir and thus a rival for the new king. Not to mention that Edward IV was already concerned with Henry Tudor shortly before his death : I don't see why Edward's successor wouldn't try to get his hand on Tudor. The Lancastrian would also probably try to reclaim the crown whenever possible, but it will probably be harder to reclaim than OTL.
 
Well, Henry Tudor is the Lancastrian successor in the sense that Henry de la Pole was the Yorkist successor. At some point the long struggle has to end. But as far as Henry Tudor - well, he may never be forgiven, but if Brittany is still absorbed by an expansionist France, the Valois may either use him as a tool or turn him over for leverage.

My undergrad English history prof once noted that Richard III grew up in the War of the Roses -his whole experience was that power could always be gotten through violence. While he may have gone too far even for 15th Century England, it wasn't entirely unreasonable from his perspective that the gamble could have paid off. I think going after an adult nephew is a bridge too far even for him, but there's always poison or other mysterious deaths - Richard certainly wasn't above that.
 
Well, Henry Tudor is the Lancastrian successor in the sense that Henry de la Pole was the Yorkist successor.

I'm not even sure Henry Tudor would be a factor ITTL. Considering Edward IV has a four year-old male heir by the time 1470 comes around, would Margaret launch her invasion, and if she did, would she be so successful? As I recall, a lot of political anxiety on the part of Yorkists and what we might call the 'middle ground' was drawn from Edward IV's continuing lack of a male heir by that point. Some potential for butterflies here, I feel.
 
I'm not even sure Henry Tudor would be a factor ITTL. Considering Edward IV has a four year-old male heir by the time 1470 comes around, would Margaret launch her invasion, and if she did, would she be so successful? As I recall, a lot of political anxiety on the part of Yorkists and what we might call the 'middle ground' was drawn from Edward IV's continuing lack of a male heir by that point. Some potential for butterflies here, I feel.

Wonder if any of those include Edward IV living longer (or the reverse).

And while wondering, what happens to Clarence?
 
Elizabeth of York

If Edward IV's first child is a surviving son, who is 17 when he dies, it is possible that he could already be married and have children of his own by the time his father dies. I don't see Richard actually making a bid for the thonre or attempting to overthrow his nephew. But I do see anti- Woodville factions coming into play, and Richard is a natural leader of them.
 
Few points:

If Elizabeth of York had been born male - then the House of York is going to survive simple as.

You can assume a few things -
1) Our new Edward Prince of Wales is going to have the same upbringing - Ludlow under the control (from the 70s) or Anthony Earl Rivers (brother of the Queen)
2) A 17 year-old will assume the throne with no need of any arrangements other than the existing council joggling for position.
3) The assumption of an anti Wydeville view among the Yorkist nobility is based on Lancastrian Warwick propoganda in 1469/70 (a fact based examination shows in the first reign of Edward IV Warwick's gains in terms of prestige, power and wealth dwarfed those of the Queen's large family)
and post 1483 propoganda aimed a denigrating the family of the former Queen.
4) Richard of Gloucester's relationship with the Queen and her family was actually quite good prior to the death of Edward IV - no reason to think that wouldn't continue if Edward V allows him to continue his governance of the north.
5) Edward IV is likely to have continued to push for a strong foreign dynastic marriage for his heir - his plans for otl Edward V was for Anne of Brittany that is likely to continue despite the difference in age (Anne was born in 1477), other options might include the daughters of Isabella of Castile (which would ironically bring some Lancastrian blood to the table) - however all of these are much younger than otl Edward V - but if he has at least one younger brother there is time to wait. It may also be that instead of Elizabeth of York being betrothed to the dauphin Charles - it might be that Edward Prince of Wales might have been betrothed to Joan of France (daughter of Louis XI born in 1464) in otl she was married in 1476 to Louis of Orleans but the alternate is possible -
6) Henry Tudor remains forgotten in Brittany or France or wherever he wandered - he is more than likely to come to terms eventually given that in England he would have been the heir of his very rich mother but given her third husband's strong Yorkist connection i wouldn't have banked on it...her wealth was a powerful attraction to keep her son well away.
 
Few points:

If Elizabeth of York had been born male - then the House of York is going to survive simple as.

You can assume a few things -
1) Our new Edward Prince of Wales is going to have the same upbringing - Ludlow under the control (from the 70s) or Anthony Earl Rivers (brother of the Queen)
2) A 17 year-old will assume the throne with no need of any arrangements other than the existing council joggling for position.
3) The assumption of an anti Wydeville view among the Yorkist nobility is based on Lancastrian Warwick propoganda in 1469/70 (a fact based examination shows in the first reign of Edward IV Warwick's gains in terms of prestige, power and wealth dwarfed those of the Queen's large family)
and post 1483 propoganda aimed a denigrating the family of the former Queen.
4) Richard of Gloucester's relationship with the Queen and her family was actually quite good prior to the death of Edward IV - no reason to think that wouldn't continue if Edward V allows him to continue his governance of the north.
5) Edward IV is likely to have continued to push for a strong foreign dynastic marriage for his heir - his plans for otl Edward V was for Anne of Brittany that is likely to continue despite the difference in age (Anne was born in 1477), other options might include the daughters of Isabella of Castile (which would ironically bring some Lancastrian blood to the table) - however all of these are much younger than otl Edward V - but if he has at least one younger brother there is time to wait. It may also be that instead of Elizabeth of York being betrothed to the dauphin Charles - it might be that Edward Prince of Wales might have been betrothed to Joan of France (daughter of Louis XI born in 1464) in otl she was married in 1476 to Louis of Orleans but the alternate is possible -
6) Henry Tudor remains forgotten in Brittany or France or wherever he wandered - he is more than likely to come to terms eventually given that in England he would have been the heir of his very rich mother but given her third husband's strong Yorkist connection i wouldn't have banked on it...her wealth was a powerful attraction to keep her son well away.
I agree! Interesting points..I don't think anyone really took Henry Tudor very seriously at this point. And with a Yorkist king on the throne, I doubt many Lancastrians even considered him a rival. Edward IV and Elizabeth of York had many children, perhaps if there oldest had been a boy, he would have had several other brothes.
 
Given the behavior of the Woodvilles you can trust that anti-Woodville factions will emerge regardless of what Richard is doing up in York.

As for Richard's relationship with the Woodvilles, it was fairly good as long as his brother reigned and prevented the Woodvilles from going out of their way to provoke Richard so it all depends on what the relationship between Richard and this older nephew actually is when his brother dies...but the Woodville family loyalty doesn't leave much room for hope.
 
I think Richard remains in the North, as the King's most powerful servant. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Richard would indeed be on good terms with his nephew given his relationship with John de la Pole who was of a similar age as the new King would be and his supposed favouritism of Elizabeth of York in OTL. Speaking longer term the Yorkists seem well placed to last through to the 1500's and I can see a Tudor rebellion maybe with the Stanleys and Buckinghams involvement similar to OTL only this time instead of betraying Richard they rebel against a King who has excluded them from power.
 
THis is often mentioned but it really really doesn't stand up well.

People tend to treat the Woodville's as if they a) acted rapaciously in acquiring wealth and position, b) acted together in concert and as a block and c) Irritated everyone through their greed for power.

None of the above are particularly true or accurate.

Given the behavior of the Woodvilles you can trust that anti-Woodville factions will emerge regardless of what Richard is doing up in York.

As for Richard's relationship with the Woodvilles, it was fairly good as long as his brother reigned and prevented the Woodvilles from going out of their way to provoke Richard so it all depends on what the relationship between Richard and this older nephew actually is when his brother dies...but the Woodville family loyalty doesn't leave much room for hope.
 
THis is often mentioned but it really really doesn't stand up well.

People tend to treat the Woodville's as if they a) acted rapaciously in acquiring wealth and position, b) acted together in concert and as a block and c) Irritated everyone through their greed for power.

None of the above are particularly true or accurate.

I agree the Woodvilles didnt irritate everyone but they did irritate some very important people such as Warwick, Hastings and Buckingham. As for acquiring wealth and power the marriage of John Woodville to the aged Dowager Duchess of Norfolk seems to suggest the Woodvilles had few morals if there was a gain to be made for their family.
 
Top