Heirs of Edward IV

The marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville produces no surviving sons. Who would then be the heir to the throne? Would Princess Elizabeth become queen in her own right? Or would Richard of Gloucester claim the throne?
 
Complicated lol - in essence no woman had successfully succeeded to the English Throne - depends on Edward's personal view during his lifetime and the actions of those after his death - certainly George of Clarence will expect to succeed his brother probably ensuring he meets the same fate - it is worse for Edward in that until the extinction of the male line of the house of Lancaster he is claiming the throne through a female line of descent (once Edward of Lancaster is dead then Edward IV is both the senior heir male and heir general of Edward III) - it will also depend on whether Elizabeth is married at the point of her father's death and to whom and bearing in mind Elizabeth Woodville's final pregnancy was only a year or so before Edward's death he might assume a boy will eventually arrive.
He has a choice - naming as heir his nephew Edward Earl of Warwick (the senior male heir not withstanding his father's betrayal) naming his brother Richard or naming his daughter Elizabeth and letting them all fight over it after his death (the most likely solution).
Elizabeth and her descendants will always have a very strong claim irrespective of Edward's decision even if he goes to Parliament to establish male only succession (and if he does so he will look like a hypocrite given his initial claim to the throne) -the alternate would be to marry Elizabeth off early and name her firstborn son assuming she has one as heir - keeping with tradition etc.
 
I think the Earl of Warwick is out, because of his father's continual betrayals. Edward might just marry his daughter off to his brother Richard (whose reputation hadn't been tainted at that point) to cement the throne remaining 'in the family'. I don't see E4 as progressive enough to think his daughter could hold the throne.
 
I think the Earl of Warwick is out, because of his father's continual betrayals. Edward might just marry his daughter off to his brother Richard (whose reputation hadn't been tainted at that point) to cement the throne remaining 'in the family'. I don't see E4 as progressive enough to think his daughter could hold the throne.

Richard had a wife though? Wouldn’t he just betrothed/marry his eldest daughter to Richard’s son?
 
Richard had a wife though? Wouldn’t he just betrothed/marry his eldest daughter to Richard’s son?

Liz was born in 1466, Richard's son Edward of Middleham was born in 1473 at the earliest (his birth is either 1473 or 1476), which is a pretty big age gap. And even if they do go with such an arrangement Middleham was apparently pretty frail, so if he dies without kids everything will get screwed up anyway.

Would Richard and the Woodvilles manage to get along in such an arrangement? Or would there be squabbling over who's in charge and who gets what? There apparently wasn't any bad blood between them prior to 1483 IOTL, and if they don't have a royal prince then the Woodvilles might be more conciliatory.

Regarding Richard's wife, if Edward IV avoided the illness that killed him he could easily last a few more years and outlive Anne Neville (if she still gets whatever killed her- TB and Cancer are two of the more common suggestions). But uncle/niece marriages weren't much of a thing in England, as evidenced by the reaction to rumours Richard planned to marry her IOTL.
 
Would John Earl of Lincoln (reportedly later named heir by Richard) be a possible choice for husband?

In a scenario where Elizabeth is supposed to succeed to the throne in her own right? Because if Richard is being set up as his brother's heir he mightn't want his nephew married to someone with an arguably superior claim, and Richard could easily foresee discord between his own descendants (either a surviving Middleham or children of a second marriage) and those of John and Elizabeth. In a scenario where Middleham croaks but Anne is healthy and Richard resigns himself to not having any more legitimate kids and having Lincoln succeed him, then he might be okay with the match.

In any case, it depends on timing somewhat, and whether Lincoln has already married Margaret Fitzalan.
 
If Edward IV is resigned to the fact that he isn’t getting any sons, then he needs to already been preparing Elizabeth for the tasks of rulership. Also Elizabeth will need to be nearby when Edward IV dies so that her uncle Richard won’t be getting any ideas about pulling any shenanigans like OTL. In my opinion the choice won’t be between Elizabeth or Richard, it will be either Elizabeth is crowned Queen right anyway or become Queen after another round of civil war. As for the choice of a husband, I would actually marry her to Henry Tudor as a sort of peace offering to the remaining Lancastrians (as King Consort, Henry Tudor will have a huge incentive to keep both Gloucester and Lincoln from trying any funny business).
 
If Edward IV is resigned to the fact that he isn’t getting any sons, then he needs to already been preparing Elizabeth for the tasks of rulership. Also Elizabeth will need to be nearby when Edward IV dies so that her uncle Richard won’t be getting any ideas about pulling any shenanigans like OTL. In my opinion the choice won’t be between Elizabeth or Richard, it will be either Elizabeth is crowned Queen right anyway or become Queen after another round of civil war. As for the choice of a husband, I would actually marry her to Henry Tudor as a sort of peace offering to the remaining Lancastrians (as King Consort, Henry Tudor will have a huge incentive to keep both Gloucester and Lincoln from trying any funny business).

The other lancastrian choice would be the King of Scotland.
 
Historically, before he kicked it, Edward IV had invited Henry Tudor back to England. Restore him to his title of Earl of Richmond (maybe make him a Duke?) and marry him to Elizabeth, then kill off Richard in Scotland; George's boy is a problem, but Margaret Pole was friendly with her cousin and the future Earl of Warwick was, apparently, as thick as cow dung, so that rules him out. And Richard's son dies in 1484, boom, that's him gone too. That just leaves the de la Poles. Henry VII historically executed them here - maybe Elizabeth would if it put her children in danger by having them around?

Bang, bang, bang, they drop like flies.
 
Historically, before he kicked it, Edward IV had invited Henry Tudor back to England. Restore him to his title of Earl of Richmond (maybe make him a Duke?) and marry him to Elizabeth, then kill off Richard in Scotland; George's boy is a problem, but Margaret Pole was friendly with her cousin and the future Earl of Warwick was, apparently, as thick as cow dung, so that rules him out. And Richard's son dies in 1484, boom, that's him gone too. That just leaves the de la Poles. Henry VII historically executed them here - maybe Elizabeth would if it put her children in danger by having them around?.

Isn't the idea Clarence's son suffered a mental disability a mere rumour based on a single chronicler saying he "couldn't distinguish a goose from a capon"? Which is entirely understandable without Edward being disabled- of course a kid who has been imprisoned since he was 10 and denied an education and meaningful human contact is going to be a little off, but that doesn't mean he suffered some intrinsic mental incapacity.
 
Yup it's all much later and there's little to suggest there way anything wrong with Warwick in early childhood or under Richard.

On the de la Pole's - the idea that Lincoln was Richard's heir is exaggeration and there is no hard evidence he was named as heir after the death of Richard's son - he was merely the only adult male relative Richard had.

You can hardly have him succeed in preference to his female cousin's when his claim rests on his living mother.

On Tudor - it is true that Margaret Beaufort lobbied Edward IV for her son's return (she was close to the royal family and wanted her son home in order to inherit her property) - there was no real formal invitation - his cause was regarded as a lost one and there was little Lancastrian support left. There was little incentive for Edward at this point to get him home - if Margaret died whilst her son was still in exile - her property could be appropriated by the crown.

In strict succession terms Richard's lawful heir under the normal standards of primogeniture would have been his niece Anne St Leger - if you accept the exclusion of Clarence's children and the daughters of Edward IV -

Richard III, Anne St Leger *daughter of Anne of York*, Elizabeth Duchess of Suffolk, John de la Pole, 1st Earl of Lincoln, Edward de la Pole , Edmund de la Pole, Humphrey de la Pole, William de la Pole, Richard de la Pole, Elizabeth de la Pole, Anne de la Pole, Catherine de la Pole, Margaret Duchess of Burgundy, issue of Isabel Countess of Essex (sister of Richard 3rd Duke of York)

As I said earlier the choice Edward faces is Elizabeth I, Edward V (the Earl of Warwick) or his brother Richard III - likeliest is he pushes for his daughter to succeed and arranges an early marriage for her with either a husband strong enough to defend her rights or high in the succession themselves - Warwick is nine years younger than Elizabeth but a match wouldn't be impossible if it secured the throne for the two of them for example - otherwise a strong foreign Prince of a better age. Edward IV was popular and might have been able to carry parliament to approve his daughter's rights as his heir.


Isn't the idea Clarence's son suffered a mental disability a mere rumour based on a single chronicler saying he "couldn't distinguish a goose from a capon"? Which is entirely understandable without Edward being disabled- of course a kid who has been imprisoned since he was 10 and denied an education and meaningful human contact is going to be a little off, but that doesn't mean he suffered some intrinsic mental incapacity.
 
Top