George Plantagenet remains loyal to Edward IV?

[pandizzy]

So basically, what would the results be if George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence remained loyal to his brother, King Edward IV, even after his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville? Would there be no Princes in the Tower or a Richard III? Would there be a George I, three hundred years earlier?

 

[CaptainShadow]

Oh ffs not another WotR thread.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

So basically, what would the results be if George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence remained loyal to his brother, King Edward IV, even after his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville? Would there be no Princes in the Tower or a Richard III? Would there be a George I, three hundred years earlier?

Likely George being alive means Gloucester doesn't try and take the throne. Instead, George gives the Wydevilles and Gloucester something they lacked OTL: a common enemy.

That said...I don't think George was smart enough to stay loyal. He was a grown up spoiled brat IMO. Always wanted more than he deserved "because". Maybe Isabel Neville doesn't die and George doesn't dive in at the deep end.
But even that seems unlikely. Since IIRC he was already lending his ears to Stillington

 

[CaptainShadow]

To answer your question, if George is loyal then he's probably married to Mary of Burgundy (assuming Anjou dies as OTL), so most likely the whole Princes in the tower schtick is butterflied. We can see a Richard III but not the Richard III ITTL. Seeing George becoming king would require you too kill off all of Edward's kids (or atleast his sons and you can have Liz of York marry him if you really want it).

George, Duke of Clarence (b. 1449) m. Mary I of Burgundy (b. 1457)

A) Mary of Burgundy (b. 1473) m. Charles VIII of France (b. 1479)

B) Charles, Count of Charolais (b. 1474) m. Joanna of Aragon (b. 1479)

C) Richard, Earl of Wiltshire (b. 1475) m. Charlotte, Countess of Rethel (b. 1473)

D) George, Earl of Pembroke (b. 1476) m. Elizabeth, Baroness Herbert (b. 1476)

E) Cecily of Burgundy (b. 1479) m. Ernst I, Holy Roman Emperor* (b. 1480)

F) Isabella of Burgundy (b. 1482) m. Louis V, Elector Palatine (b. 1478)

*ATL son of Maximilian and Sophia Jagiellon.

 

[material_boy]

Would there be no Princes in the Tower or a Richard III? Would there be a George I, three hundred years earlier?

No Princes in the Tower.

There very well may be a Richard III -- though it would be Richard of Shrewsbury, not Richard of Gloucester, in the event that Edward V dies young as a result of the illness he had in OTL.

No way George of Clarence becomes George I. Edward IV had too many children, and Clarence was neither as competent as Gloucester nor did he have a base of support comparable to Gloucester's northern allies, and so Clarence would almost certainly fail to usurp the throne in ATL where Gloucester succeeded in OTL.

Instead, George gives the Wydevilles and Gloucester something they lacked OTL: a common enemy.

That is an interesting thought, though it seems equally possible that Clarence and Gloucester would be united against the Woodvilles. Certainly, Clarence proved during Warwick's rebellion that he was willing to use all the same tactics Gloucester would more than a decade later.

To answer your question, if George is loyal then he's probably married to Mary of Burgundy (assuming Anjou dies as OTL)

A more likely POD would be Isabel living past 1477 and until at least 1483, thus preventing the fallout over Mary of Burgundy, or that he was ordered to take his post in Dublin since he was supposed to be serving as lord lieutenant of Ireland at this time, thus removing him entirely from the court politics that cost him his life.

 

[CaptainShadow]

A more likely POD would be Isabel living past 1477 and until at least 1483, thus preventing the fallout over Mary of Burgundy, or that he was ordered to take his post in Dublin since he was supposed to be serving as lord lieutenant of Ireland at this time, thus removing him entirely from the court politics that cost him his life.

This could be interesting, but George has already "betrayed" Edward by this time. We'll need a PoD before Warwick's rebellion to fulfill OP's terms.

That is an interesting thought, though it seems equally possible that Clarence and Gloucester would be united against the Woodvilles. Certainly, Clarence proved during Warwick's rebellion that he was willing to use all the same tactics Gloucester would more than a decade later.

I agree with this.

 

[material_boy]

This could be interesting, but George has already "betrayed" Edward by this time. We'll need a PoD before Warwick's rebellion to fulfill OP's terms.

Oh, I had assumed OP meant in the late-70s given that Edward had forgiven Clarence ahead of the Battle of Barnet. A more specific POD would be helpful as to speculate on the consequences.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

though it seems equally possible that Clarence and Gloucester would be united against the Woodvilles.

Darned unlikely. Clarence felt Dickon got all the "good" bits of the Neville lands. He also disliked the idea that Dickon had "kidnapped" Anne Neville from George's custody and on-and-on the reasons went. Dickon certainly wouldn't trust Clarence (Edward sure as Hell didn't). Besides, who would be "better" for Dickon to side with? Clarence? Who'll want to take back a lot of the lands that Edward IV decided would go to Dickon? Or Elizabeth Wydeville-Edward V who'll back him to keep those lands (mostly)

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

in the event that Edward V dies young as a result of the illness he had in OTL.

I've heard this from several sources (but unfortunately they're mostly trying to exonerate Richard III from murdering his nephew, and generally paint it as a sort of "euthanasia" instead), but what exactly was wrong with him? FWIG, prior to 1483, there was nothing wrong with his health.

 

[CaptainShadow]

Darned unlikely. Clarence felt Dickon got all the "good" bits of the Neville lands. He also disliked the idea that Dickon had "kidnapped" Anne Neville from George's custody and on-and-on the reasons went. Dickon certainly wouldn't trust Clarence (Edward sure as Hell didn't). Besides, who would be "better" for Dickon to side with? Clarence? Who'll want to take back a lot of the lands that Edward IV decided would go to Dickon? Or Elizabeth Wydeville-Edward V who'll back him to keep those lands (mostly)

FWIR Richard quit claimed his Anne's share of the property in return for permission to marry her. Or was that propaganda?

I've heard this from several sources (but unfortunately they're mostly trying to exonerate Richard III from murdering his nephew, and generally paint it as a sort of "euthanasia" instead), but what exactly was wrong with him? FWIG, prior to 1483, there was nothing wrong with his health.

Richard did have a doctor sent to Edward in 1483 apparently, and IIRC it had something to do with his jaw.

 

[FalconHonour]

Oh ffs not another WotR thread.

You know you don't have to read them, don't you? I tend to avoid most of what isn't Tudor/WOTR because I don't know enough about the real history to make them interesting. If you're getting sick of WOTR threads, just skip them for a while...

So basically, what would the results be if George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence remained loyal to his brother, King Edward IV, even after his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville? Would there be no Princes in the Tower or a Richard III? Would there be a George I, three hundred years earlier?

To keep George loyal, I think you'd need a mixture of factors
- Edward marrying a foreign princess who doesn't have loads of siblings to swamp the marriage market
- If Edward *did* marry Elizabeth, I think they'd need a son right off the bat, so that George doesn't have nearly as long where he's the closest male to the throne...
- Edward allowing the George/Isabel match, at the very least, and possibly refusing Richard/Anne so that Isabel and George can inherit the whole Warwick Inheritance.

Of course, if Edward and Elizabeth had a son right off the bat in 1465/66, then the boy would be seventeen or so when his father died, so you probably wouldn't have a Princes in the Tower Scenario anyway - the boy would be old enough to rule in his own right. Yes, the Woodvilles would still be influential at Court, having raised the Prince and being his maternal relatives, but he would be old enough that he wouldn't be seen as so much of a Woodville pawn as people supposedly feared Edward V would have been.

 

[FalconHonour]

I've heard this from several sources (but unfortunately they're mostly trying to exonerate Richard III from murdering his nephew, and generally paint it as a sort of "euthanasia" instead), but what exactly was wrong with him? FWIG, prior to 1483, there was nothing wrong with his health.

According to Mancini, he had an abscess in his jaw the last time Dr Argentine saw him in 1483. Infections like that could easily have killed in those days. In fact, I think that's exactly what did happen to the Princes. They died of natural causes in the Tower, but Richard couldn't display their bodies because he'd be accused of poisoning them, but he couldn't produce them either when people demanded it, because they were dead...

 

[CaptainShadow]

You know you don't have to read them, don't you? I tend to avoid most of what isn't Tudor/WOTR because I don't know enough about the real history to make them interesting. If you're getting sick of WOTR threads, just skip them for a while...

It was a bad joke in reference to the plethora of recent ~WotR threads, I apologize if I offended you.

 

[material_boy]

Darned unlikely. Clarence felt Dickon got all the "good" bits of the Neville lands. He also disliked the idea that Dickon had "kidnapped" Anne Neville from George's custody and on-and-on the reasons went. Dickon certainly wouldn't trust Clarence (Edward sure as Hell didn't). Besides, who would be "better" for Dickon to side with? Clarence? Who'll want to take back a lot of the lands that Edward IV decided would go to Dickon? Or Elizabeth Wydeville-Edward V who'll back him to keep those lands (mostly)

Sure, Clarence and Gloucester disputed the Warwick in inheritance, but we also know that Elizabeth Woodville and Richard of Gloucester disliked and distrusted one another as well. I'm not saying you're wrong -- I'm just saying I genuinely don't know who Gloucester would ally himself with, if either. He may just sit back and let Clarence and Elizabeth Woodville destroy each other before stepping in as the savior of the realm.

I've heard this from several sources (but unfortunately they're mostly trying to exonerate Richard III from murdering his nephew, and generally paint it as a sort of "euthanasia" instead), but what exactly was wrong with him? FWIG, prior to 1483, there was nothing wrong with his health.

Richard did have a doctor sent to Edward in 1483 apparently, and IIRC it had something to do with his jaw.

We know that Edward V was visited by doctors several times, and the skeletons found in the Tower centuries later did show signs of osteomyelitis of the jaw in one of the boys, which was likely to be fatal with the medicine of the day.

According to Mancini, he had an abscess in his jaw the last time Dr Argentine saw him in 1483.

Did Mancini actually record that it was an abscess? I thought that he simply recorded Dr. Argentine's visits. (Google isn't giving me a quick answer, so I guess I'll to get a book off the shelf and look ...)

In fact, I think that's exactly what did happen to the Princes. They died of natural causes in the Tower, but Richard couldn't display their bodies because he'd be accused of poisoning them, but he couldn't produce them either when people demanded it, because they were dead...

Well, not to turn this into a threat about whether Richard III did the deed, but there's no evidence that Richard of Shrewsbury was ill as well and it would be quite the coincidence for them both to die of natural causes so soon after one another -- especially if we're to believe that Edward V died of osteomyelitis, which is not contagious.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

FWIR Richard quit claimed his Anne's share of the property in return for permission to marry her. Or was that propaganda?

https://rebeccastarrbrown.com/2019/09/06/part-six-richard-iiis-marriage-the-neville-inheritance/

This might be useful:

The Case Against George, Duke of Clarence​

...
George was on hand for Elizabeth’s debut at court in Reading in September 1464. It’s likely he was privy to Warwick’s unhappiness with the Woodville match, but less clear what he himself thought of it. Warwick desired that George and Richard would marry his two daughters, making the girls royal duchesses and giving the boys their inheritance. Edward was less enthused by the match, perhaps by now not trusting Warwick’s motives, but apparently also wishing to keep his brothers unmarried for diplomatic reasons in the hopes of securing the sort of marriage alliance he himself would no longer be able to undertake. He would eventually refuse it outright, incensing Warwick.


By 1469 Warwick had not only decided he had had enough, but he had convinced George to join him in an uprising against Edward. George’s thought process in all of this is unclear, though certainly his actions give us some idea. What we don’t know is how intelligent he was, how easily manipulated he was, the nature of his relationship with Warwick, or the nature of his relationship with his mother and siblings. What he got out of an alliance with Warwick is simple – Warwick had helped topple one sitting king already, this time he would do it to put George on the throne. George had been well-looked after by his brother during his reign, and there is no sign of personal animosity between the two, though it’s safe to say they weren’t particularly close given a simple lack of proximity. But George would have had every expectation that he would be a wealthy and powerful man under Edward’s rule, and given that in 1469 he was 20, he had long left Warwick’s household and would have been exposed to Edward, his court and his government.


Apparently George thought he could do better. Warwick, for his part, wanted a king that he could control and George, younger and willing to marry his daughter, was a seemingly safer bet. Rebellions in the north took Edward out of London in the spring of 1469, at which point Warwick and George disseminated rumors through the capitol that Edward was a bastard of his mother, Cecily, and George was his father’s true heir. George, meanwhile, accompanied Warwick and his family to France where he married 17-year-old Isabel Neville on July 11th. On the 12th, Warwick and George openly declared their support for a new uprising started by one of Warwick’s captains. The two sides came to blows on July 26th at the Battle of Edgecote Moor, Warwick and George won and Edward became their prisoner.


Outright Rebellion: 1469 – 1471


For about two months Warwick and George appeared victorious. Edward was shuttled between Warwick’s homes of Middleham and Warwick Castle in the north, while they attempted to take control of the government. On August 12th, they executed Queen Elizabeth’s father and brother (the one married to Warwick’s aunt), a move which did nothing to endear them to her. But England had just had eight years of relative peace and lacked the appetite for more war, particularly one that would have deposed a king largely popular with his people. Indeed, had Warwick and George been successful in making George king, it would have been the first time in history two deposed kings remained alive and in England (Henry VI had been being held as a prisoner in the Tower of London since 1465).


Edward was released in September after a light taste of anarchy in London and quickly resumed control. He forgave Warwick and George, ensuring they were at court three months later for Christmas festivities and forcing them to make peace with Queen Elizabeth and the rest of the Woodville clan.


The reconciliation wouldn’t last long, but here’s where it gets a bit bizarre. Warwick’s clear fury over having been boxed out makes sense, as does George’s ambitions. Their next actions, though, wouldn’t be as clearly supportive of those feelings for they aligned themselves with their former enemies, the House of Lancaster. Marguerite of Anjou had been biding her time in France for nearly a decade, raising her son and relying on the charity of her Valois relatives and Lancastrian supporters. Warwick, tapping into his relationship with Louis XI, allowed the French king to facilitate a rapprochement between him and Marguerite, who loathed him.


In March 1470 Warwick and George goaded yet another uprising and supported it, however this time they were less successful. The rebellion ended in the disastrous Battle of Losecoat Field and Warwick and Clarence were forced to flee England in a hurry. By this point, Isabel Neville was heavily pregnant. On the ship crossing the Channel she went into labor and, aided only by her mother and younger sister, gave birth to a stillborn child whose corpse was thrown overboard.


Warwick and his party began shadowing the French court, eventually meeting with Louis XI and submitting to the authority of Marguerite of Anjou, essentially disavowing the very existence of the House of York. So, what did George get out of this? On the face of it, nothing. Had the spring of 1470 uprising been successful, it’s possible there would have been another opportunity to be made king, but by the time he and the Nevilles landed in France, his chance had passed. Warwick’s best shot at victory was having the support of the disenfranchized Lancastrian magnates who already hated the Yorkist king, but in order to access them he needed to make peace with Marguerite of Anjou. And Marguerite was certainly never going to support George for king when she had a husband sitting in the Tower and a beloved 17-year-old son poised in the wings.


At what point George realized he had bet on the wrong horse is unclear, but it’s likely that whenever he did there was nothing he could do about it. Warwick, Louis and Marguerite negotiated through the spring and early summer and the final result included the betrothal of Marguerite’s son, Prince Edward, to Warwick’s younger daughter, Anne Neville.


In September, Warwick and George returned to England where their cause was supported by Warwick’s younger brother, John Neville, Marquess of Montagu. Montagu’s betrayal of Edward came as a surprise to the King, who was forced to flee England in a hurry for the Netherlands, finally ending up in Burgundy. Henry VI was brought out of the Tower and reinstated as king. Queen Elizabeth, for her part, had fled for sanctuary in Westminster Abbey with her children when Edward left the country – that November she gave birth to her first son, named for his father.


Meanwhile, back in France where George’s wife, Isabel, still remained, Prince Edward and Anne were married in December in recognition of Warwick’s success. And in Burgundy, King Edward was hard at work trying to persuade the Duke to supply him with men and money. In 1468, Edward and George’s sister, Margaret, had been married to Duke Charles and it was her influence with her husband that finally prompted him to take the meeting and agree to support the Yorkist cause. This move also led to a fun triangle of England, France and Burgundy all declaring war on each other in the midst of England’s civil war, because what else?


George was less than thrilled with his life choices. In the span of a year he had publicly accused his mother of being a whore, betrayed his brother, alienated his entire family, married into another family that had given up on him, lost his eldest child and likely supported the reinstatement of a government that would never fully trust or honor him. Even if he was named Prince Edward’s heir, he had no reason to believe Anne Neville wouldn’t subsequently give birth to healthy sons, displacing him in the succession. By January 1471, George had begun meeting with his mother and eldest sister, Anne, both of whom convinced him to desert Warwick.


He did just that. In March, Edward and the rest of the Yorkist army (supported by Burgundians) landed in England and instead of joining Warwick to meet them, George returned to his brothers. What George thought would happen next is anyone’s guess, but he appealed to Warwick to follow his suit and help Edward oust the Lancastrians…brought in by Warwick. Likely, they were far past the point of return and Warwick knew this. He refused to speak to George and stuck to his cause. The two armies would meet at the Battle of Barnet on April 14, 1471 in a fight that Edward resoundingly won and which ended in Warwick’s death.


Making Enemies of Everyone Else: 1471 – 1478


Edward’s victory would be complete by May when Lancaster was defeated at the Battle of Tewkesbury and Prince Edward was killed. Henry VI was quietly executed within the Tower and Marguerite of Anjou placed under arrest until 1475 when Louis XI paid her ransom to bring her back to France to live out her days in poverty.


George’s wife, Isabel, had left the Lancastrian party when they arrived in England and learned Warwick had been killed. Her sister, Anne, married to Prince Edward, was not so lucky. She remained with Marguerite until Tewkesbury, at which point she was escorted back to London and placed in George and Isabel’s household. Warwick’s widow, the Countess, had similarly fled the Lancastrians when she learned of her husband’s death, but she had less options than Isabel and she chose to seek sanctuary.


With the Countess and Anne were the widows of attainted traitors, George found himself in the position of controlling the bulk of the Neville/Beauchamp inheritance through Isabel, a surprising spot for a man with his track record for poor judgment and regular treason. But in the clear pattern of George’s luck, he wouldn’t remain that way for long and his younger brother, Richard, expressed a desire to marry Anne, essentially splitting the inheritance in half.


Whether George knew that his ability to access and hold this inheritance was his last shot of providing for himself while Edward remained on the throne, or whether he was just an idiot is unclear, but George decided to fight back against Richard. The two brothers sparred throughout the rest of 1471, resulting, at some point, in Anne’s rumored “disappearance.” It’s been reported that George either hid Anne deep inside London or that she, seeking to escape her brother-in-law, fled there for Richard to find her. In any event, by the end of 1471 Anne had been removed from George’s household and lived in a religious house until the spring of 1472 when she finally married Richard.


The long and short of the inheritance drama was that George received the lion’s share (which remains baffling to me, but Edward appears to have been a rather forgiving brother). What Isabel and Anne made of this unknown – we have no idea whether either wanted to marry George and Richard, whether their marriages were happy or how they felt about Warwick and George’s treason. The one factor that should be considered, however, is that they had known the brothers since girlhood, the boys having been brought up in their parents’ household.


For that matter, nor is it known when or how George and Richard mended their relationship after the showdown over the Neville fortune, or if they ever truly did.


The next summer, on August 14, 1473, Isabel gave birth to a daughter, christened Margaret. She would be followed in the nursery on February 25, 1475 by a son, Edward, who was given the title of Earl of Warwick at birth. She would give birth to a short-lived second son, Richard (at least one sign that George and Richard did make up) , on October 6, 1476, however the birth apparently took a toll on her health. She would die on December 22nd, prompting George’s downfall.


For reasons not entirely clear, George became convinced that Isabel was murdered. Specifically, that she was poisoned by her lady-in-waiting, Ankarette Twynyho. George had her arrested in April 1477, forced an illegal trial and verdict and then had her hanged, essentially murdering her. Simultaneously, George was pursuing the new Duchess of Burgundy, stepdaughter of his sister, Margaret. While Margaret was enthused, the new Duchess was less so and even less still was Edward who in no way wanted his treasonous younger brother running a crucial and wealthy European duchy. Clarence, once more, seemed to feel his that his rise to greatness was being thwarted by his older brother.


The”why” of what happened next is debatable, but soon after Twynyho’s death one of George’s retainers was arrested, where, under torture, he confessed to using “black arts” to imagine Edward’s death, leading to the conclusion that George was hoping and preparing for his own accession to the throne (despite the presence, at this point, of Edward’s young sons). George responded by bidding a former Lancastrian, Dr. John Goddard, to enter Parliament and declare George and his retainer’s innocence. George was then hauled before Edward who ordered his arrest.


George was held in the Tower of London and put on trial, at which point he was found guilty of treason and privately executed on February 18, 1478. Privately is key here, and a morbid show of familial loyalty, for unlike most executions of traitors, George wasn’t paraded before a crowd to be executed. Rumor has it that Edward allowed George to select the mode and George, partial to malmsey wine, requested to be drowned in a butt of it.


Now, why did he die? Of all the things that George did, what he was actually arrested for seems to be the least of it. But what is left out of this are reports that George had been re-surfacing the rumors of Edward’s illegitimacy (once again slandering his mother, Cecily, who begged Edward not to execute him). George had done this effectively less than a decade before when he rebelled with Warwick, so it’s unclear why this would grossly offend Edward now. Then there is the question of whether or not George impugned the legitimacy of Edward’s children via his wife, Queen Elizabeth. And this where the conspiracies get really fun, with some Ricardians alleging that George knew about the alleged pre-contract between Edward and Eleanor Talbot, which, if it occurred, made his marriage to Elizabeth null and void. And if that was true, then an argument could be made that all the York princes and princesses were bastards. It could be made because it very well was made five years later by Richard of Gloucester when he deposed his nephew and named himself Richard III.


Weight to this theory is given by the arrest and imprisonment of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells, for a few weeks in 1478, leading to the possibility that Stillington had knowledge of or had been involved in some way with Edward’s pre-contract and told George. It was Stillington, after all, who “broke the news” to Richard in 1483 that he, and not Edward V, was the rightful king because of this very pre-contract.


The power of this theory only works if you believe that Edward was truly already married before he secretly wed Elizabeth Woodville. But to do so is to ignore the various, imaginative ways that the House of York had regularly slandered their rivals by questioning their legitimacy. Marguerite of Anjou’s son, Prince Edward, was called the bastard offspring of the Queen’s affair with the Duke of Somerset, while Cecily Neville’s own sons tarnished her name repeatedly in their mud-slinging against one another. It was politically effective, with historians to this day debating these various women’s fidelity.


Is it possible that this is why George died? Sure. Any number of theories about who killed the Princes in the Tower are possible, and it is certainly possible, if unlikely, that George was an early victim of the 1483 rebellion.


More likely, though, is that Edward was older, more cautious and had no political reason to keep his brother around. In 1469 and 1471 he had been 27 and 29, respectively. By 1477/1478, he was 35-36, middle-aged by 15th century standards, and he had his son’s inheritance to protect. Faced with his own mortality and the possibility that he would die when his son was a minor or a young man, it was less benign to leave around a younger brother who had made his own ambitions for the throne so public. Richard, at this point, had never appeared to be anything but loyal.


And, by now, Edward probably actively disliked George. The 1469 rebellion was short-lived enough to be stomached. The 1471 reconciliation was brought about by political necessity and the overwhelming pressure of their mother and sisters. Had George kept his mouth shut, it’s possible Edward would have let him live as a courtesy to their female relatives.


There is also the distinct possibility that George was mentally ill, a theory that has gained traction given similar rumors that surrounded his son, Edward of Warwick. This is also a possibility, though I don’t find the arguments particularly compelling. To attribute madness to George due to a lack of comprehension of his motives feels premature, as does not acknowledging that Edward of Warwick’s mental health (if poor) may have been undermined by spending the vast majority of his life isolated under lock and key.

 

[pandizzy]

The pod I intended was for George to never have betrayed his brother in the first place maybe he doesnt participate in the Warwick rebellion. If someone has Edward marry a foreign princess, then neither Warwick nor George become traitors.

Me saying George I was just trying to intice some creativity

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Did Mancini actually record that it was an abscess?

Sorry, but (facts aside) I tend to take Mancini with a good dose of salt:

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's a foreigner. Plus, this part (emphasis mine):

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.

From another source:

Edward was described as “weak and very sickly, as also was his brother”, by a contemporary, Sir George Buck, a historian who later served under Queen Elizabeth I.

He also believed Edward probably died while living in the Tower.

In his accounts from the time, Sir George added: “But whatsoever he died, I verily think that he died of a natural sickness and of infirmity.”

However, this account does counteract reports written by the physician who attended Edward V, John Argentine, which do not mention Edward being ill.

Now the young Prince Edward was never once in his lifetime described as sickly or unattractive. Indeed, he was described, in glowing terms, as a veritable young Apollo and a budding scholar of high intellect…
A contemporary writes:

“He had such dignity in his own person, and in his face such charm that however much they might gaze, he never wearied the eyes of beholders.”

“… I should not pass over in silence the talent of the youth. In word and deed, he gave so many proofs of his liberal education, of polite, nay rather scholarly attainments far beyond his age; all of these should be recounted, but require so such labor, that I shall lawfully excuse myself the effort. There is one thing I shall not omit, and that is, his special knowledge of literature, which enabled him to discourse elegantly, to understand fully and to disclaim most excellently from any work whether in verse or prose which came into his hands, unless it were from among the more abstruse authors.”

Although young Edward’s household was in Ludlow, he was not hidden away from the world in any wise. From 1480 onwards, there are at least eight recorded instances when he was involved in public activities with his father, Edward IV, or at court with his parents.

Whereas the aforementioned George Buck is the only one that mentions Edward V being in poor health and his sole proof of that was that "none of his full siblings lived to a great age". Osteomyelitis (or Langerhans disease which is the other theory) both cause visible swelling and discomfort. How is it, that with eight showings of himself to a court and to the public no record has come down to us that he was sickly? Sure, it was in Tudor's interests to blame Richard III for their death, but one woudl think someone would've argued that Edward V's "ill-health" was divine punishment for the crimes of his father? No one had any problem blaming Edward of Middleham's health on his dad's crimes, after all.

 

[FalconHonour]

It was a bad joke in reference to the plethora of recent ~WotR threads, I apologize if I offended you.

None taken, just didn't realise it was a joke and wanted to point that out

 

[HortenseMancini]

To keep George loyal, I think you'd need a mixture of factors
- Edward marrying a foreign princess who doesn't have loads of siblings to swamp the marriage market
- If Edward *did* marry Elizabeth, I think they'd need a son right off the bat, so that George doesn't have nearly as long where he's the closest male to the throne...
- Edward allowing the George/Isabel match, at the very least, and possibly refusing Richard/Anne so that Isabel and George can inherit the whole Warwick Inheritance.

So basically, prevent Warwick's rebellion in the first place? Or at least in reference to the first and third points.

 

[material_boy]

@Kellan Sullivan Yes, Mancini is a foreigner, but that is an asset here, as is noted in the first paragraph you quote.

Objectivity was not the concern of chroniclers (and won't be for several more centuries). Writing on current events and history was done to make a point. This era of English history has some of the most partisan writings in its history, as the Lancastrian and Yorkist (and later Tudor) camps hardened and their supporters produced ever-wilder propaganda. (For instance, the Yorkist history that Henry VI died from grief on the news of his son's death.) Mancini is an outside observer, and while there is a loose connection to the French court, he is still by far the closest we will ever come to an unbiased source in this era.

As for possible swelling of Edward V's jaw, I'm not sure we should expect that to be recorded. Negative physical attributes of were not often recorded.