Deleted member 143920
Although you did say that you were baised towards the Yorkists so...
- Status
Although you did say that you were baised towards the Yorkists so...
Yeah, that's what I was referring to. He's already killed one King, why not another? And the first one was his protege and cousin. He owes nothing to Edward of Westminster.
Yeah, that was just a disclaimer that I may see things in a particular way that make me think of certain outcomes.
As I said in my 2nd post, though, I see Warwick supporting Clarence as much more likely, though (no bias here cos I do not like Clarence).
Deleted member 143920
Issue is however, Westminster was the son and heir of a previous king and would be in this ATL, much more popular with the Lancastrians than what Clarence was with the Yorkists in OTL.
Not to mention that while Westminster replacing Edward 4th would be seen as a legitimate comeback by the lancastrians, as the Yorkists had done the same in 1461, Warwick removing Westminster and replacing him with little Henry wouldn't be seen more than just a power grab... you get what I mean?
And anyway, both Clarence and Gloucester would be dead...
Well.... Was he? The Yorkist propaganda machine had been suggesting Westminster was a bastard virtually since he was born. The mere suggestion of that may well turn people off. Even if he's definitely Henry's son, legally Richard of York and his heirs (Edward IV, Clarence, Gloucester) are the heirs of Henry VI after the Act of Accord.
Add onto that that he fled the country and spent half his life in France and that much of the Lancastrian support had fallen apart and it was only the specific events of otl 1469-71 that gave them a shot.
In 1469 Clarence was very popular with the Yorkists. It was only the events of 1470-1 that ruined his reputation.
I don't really get the point about a "legitimate comeback", though. And Warwick killing him to put what would be Henry VII as King is definitely a power grab, but so would killing Edward IV.
How are Clarence and Gloucester both dead in 1469 as well? Or was there some miscommunication as to when I was referring to? If it's post-alt-1470, why would they execute them, though? Gloucester perhaps makes sense but not Clarence. Otl he was named 3rd in succession after Henry and Edward Westminster, why are they killing him?
Deleted member 143920
Um alternate history... you really should read back through all the posts...
Deleted member 143920
If you read my post from here you would get a better idea of what I'm talking about.
Basically, Warwick kills Edward 4th while he is in captivity in 1469 and puts Westminster on the throne in exchange for his daughter's marriage to him.
Westminster then declares that Clarence and Gloucester have committed treason and therefore must be executed.
Anne gives birth to Henry who then marries Elizabeth of York to secure their claim to the throne and end the rivalry.
I knew what you were talking about and what you detailed below, but I'm trying to say that is completely unlikely.
What I take issue with is that Warwick would turn to Margaret to put her son on the throne when they're still sworn enemies in return for his daughter marrying him, when his other daughter is already married to Clarence, his own cousin. If Warwick kills Edward IV and gets away with it, he holds all the cards. And there isn't a doubt in my mind that he would pick his own cousin/son-in-law over the son of his sworn enemy who he had helped disinherit a decade prior. Plus George is already in England and is popular with the courtists there, as well as Warwick being the only possible "power behind the throne" rather than having to grapple with Margaret and potentially having himself offed.
Just going with you for a moment, no way would Warwick let Westminster do that to, again, his own cousins. One of whom is also his son-in-law.
Deleted member 143920
First: Warwick had 2 daughters, the elder daughter - Isabel was married to Clarence in 1469. The younger daughter, Anne (the mentioned in this thread) was already married to Westminster in OTL. The difference being that they are married because of different circumstances.
Second: I suppose your right in that Warwick would have to 'grapple with Margaret' should Westminster be put on the throne. However, he went with Henry 6th in OTL, so why couldn't he do the same for his son who would be supported by all factions of the lancastrians? (That's ATL btw)
Thirdly, he could just have Isabel's marriage to Clarence annulled as I don't think they had any children in 1469...
My guy, I know he had 2 daughters, that was basically my whole point. And in 1469 George was married to Isabel but Edward was NOT married to Anne Neville - that didn't happen until mid-late 1470. And there's no reason why that would change.
Well if Edward is supported by ALL Lancastrians, what is the point of Warwick being there? He's a Yorkist who helped get the last Lancastrian King killed. Why would they trust him? They'd want him out of the way asap. Warwick went with it otl because he could control Henry VI very easily and it was the only way of him keeping power. As said before, here Warwick holds all the cards. He's in control of the government, his daughter is already married to the guy who'd be King after Edward IV and his allies are in government.
And on the way to France in 1470 (so before the proposition of Anne marrying Edward was even being considered) Isabel gave birth to a child, so an argument of non-consumation is trumped. But with this timing Isabel must've been pregnant by the last few months of 1469. And they've also already got a papal dispensation saying they can marry. And pope trumps all.
Deleted member 143920
I knew this period was complicated, but not that complicated.
Anyway, im going to ask the mods to close/lock this thread as i realized it isn't the most plausible thread/timeline
- Status