Lancastrian England
- Thread starter Pericles
- Start date
Story but in your own opinion what could it change ?
It is hard to see since it was a dynastic conflict in 2 parts of the same family.
I can clearly see what it changer to overthrown Richard II : a very different foreign policy and a new major conflict between England and France.
But for Edward V this is your TL.
So I don't know. You can have him be so much under the influence of the high church that Protestantism does almost not développement as much as it did in England.
It is hard to see since it was a dynastic conflict in 2 parts of the same family.
I can clearly see what it changer to overthrown Richard II : a very different foreign policy and a new major conflict between England and France.
But for Edward V this is your TL.
So I don't know. You can have him be so much under the influence of the high church that Protestantism does almost not développement as much as it did in England.
You need to establish some lasting solution for the problems of Henry VI's disability. Obviously, if things run long enough and Edward of Westminster reaches adulthood, that solves the problem. But until then, perhaps some arrangement with a formidable prince of the church?
The best POD would be to have the Lancastrians win the Battle of Tewkesbury, with both Edward IV and Richard Duke of Gloucester dieing in battle. Then there would be not real Yorkist threat. George Duke of Clarence had sided with the Lancastrians (in fact Henry VI had made him second in line after his Restoration) so I doubt he'll rouse any support. The only other threat would be Edward IV's infant son and he could be easily done away with. The main question is what happens next? Would Edward be made Lord Protector or would the Lancastrians continue the fiction of Henry VI ruing? Would the wars truely be over or would George try to rebel and claim the throne? How badly would Margaret de Anjou and Warwick butt heads? Who would take over the key government positions? I admit I have little idea as to the last one.
Edit: And Edward of Westminster would be Edward IV, not Edward V. The Lancastrians would never recognize the York reign as legitimate.
Edit: And Edward of Westminster would be Edward IV, not Edward V. The Lancastrians would never recognize the York reign as legitimate.
Actually, I'm just going to come right out and say it. The best point of departure would be for Henry VI to die at some point after the birth of Edward of Westminster. Otherwise, there's no getting around the singular problem the Lancastrians faced during the entire conflict, that during an age where kings were defined by their capacity to make war and keep order Henry VI could do neither. Even if he was a bit of a Joffrey (there has been a bit of a debate as to whether he was), Edward of Westminster would be a much stronger Lancastrian claimant.
And besides, the War of the Edwards sounds cool.
Also, Edward IV's father was Richard Duke of York.
And besides, the War of the Edwards sounds cool.
Also, Edward IV's father was Richard Duke of York.
Thank you! *And* I got Marguerite's name wrong.
I think, though, a very young Edward of Westminster would have the same problems as his father.
Thisis probably no help at all to the OP, but I think Reginald Pecock (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Pecock ) could be realistically wanked.
Still going for a slightly different Marguerite, or one with better friends. Though War of the Edwards *does* sound cool.
It is really hard to see a TL where you avoid some form of Yorkist victory.
Edward IV was a pragmatist (especially in the first reign) he was relatively generous to all but the most recalcitrant Lancastrian nobles.
He was harsher after the readaption of Henry VI but by then there weren't that many Lancastrians left to annoy him.
For the Lancastrian rule and line to continue you need a much earlier departure point as the previous poster said.
Preferably a Queen who is a) more popular b) not a symbol of England's failure in France and c) less reliant on the Somerset's (which greatly offended York)
An early death of Henry VI leaving his son as a child heir is one option - far harder to make war on a child - but also in medieval tradition you weren't criticising the King but his "poor" advisors - so that wouldn't necessarily avoid conflict especially if the infant Edward IV was dominated by Somerset and the Queen Dowager to the exclusion of York (who was owed huge amounts of dosh by the crown which in part prompted and drove his anger).
York did not claim the throne until almost the last minute - and there was reluctance in Parliament to his claim - unlike his son - but to exclude a prominant and wealthy peer, closely related to the King, who was regarded as an effective leader, was political suicide.
Edward IV was a pragmatist (especially in the first reign) he was relatively generous to all but the most recalcitrant Lancastrian nobles.
He was harsher after the readaption of Henry VI but by then there weren't that many Lancastrians left to annoy him.
For the Lancastrian rule and line to continue you need a much earlier departure point as the previous poster said.
Preferably a Queen who is a) more popular b) not a symbol of England's failure in France and c) less reliant on the Somerset's (which greatly offended York)
An early death of Henry VI leaving his son as a child heir is one option - far harder to make war on a child - but also in medieval tradition you weren't criticising the King but his "poor" advisors - so that wouldn't necessarily avoid conflict especially if the infant Edward IV was dominated by Somerset and the Queen Dowager to the exclusion of York (who was owed huge amounts of dosh by the crown which in part prompted and drove his anger).
York did not claim the throne until almost the last minute - and there was reluctance in Parliament to his claim - unlike his son - but to exclude a prominant and wealthy peer, closely related to the King, who was regarded as an effective leader, was political suicide.
I think we're starting to bifurcate towards two distinct points of departure.
Scenarios focusing on Edward of Westminster do better to occur later, precisely because then the nobles of England know they're not being left with another feckless child king. Perhaps the moment of greatest potential here is during the reademption. Edward is 17 at that point, he has Anne Neville as his queen, and he is aligned with his brother-in-law George duke of Clarence.
Yeah, I think we all know that's going to end well.
But it would make an awesome story, especially since rulers who were exposed to disorder and revolts earlier in life tend to develop strong personalities and an obsession with personal authority, like Ivan the Terrible or Louis XIV. Think specifically about the psychological effects of being made to flee with his mother through the countryside, the famous robbery story, and such as that. He would then spend a long reign consolidating his power, which is to say executing extended family, with his right hand men the Earls of Pembroke and Richmond. Also, we know Anne Neville is fertile because she bore Richard III his own Edward Prince of Wales so there would be a reasonably secure succession so long as he was.
The other option is to find Henry VI a consort other than Margaret of Anjou, and of course this leads us to a much earlier point. And I am not about to dispute this is the single worst match in the history of the English monarchy in terms of its political consequences. Seriously, a transporter accident combining the most inconvenient aspects of Elizabeth Woodville, Catherine Howard, Mary of Modena, and Wallis fucking Simpson could not cause as much chaos for the English monarchy as Margaret of Anjou did all by herself. Edward II could have crowned Piers Gaveston his consort in Westminster Abbey and it would have likely gone better than this match.
But the problem is that doing away with Margaret erases the problem. Without Margaret, the decades that follow lack the drama that we associate with the War of the Roses. It looks so completely different in so many ways that for all we know York may not even revolt. So while this option plausibly leads to the House of Lancaster surviving, it is unattractive to me. Also, I love Margaret as a historical personality, and love her especially as a foil and contrast for her husband and an inspiration for her son.
Scenarios focusing on Edward of Westminster do better to occur later, precisely because then the nobles of England know they're not being left with another feckless child king. Perhaps the moment of greatest potential here is during the reademption. Edward is 17 at that point, he has Anne Neville as his queen, and he is aligned with his brother-in-law George duke of Clarence.
Yeah, I think we all know that's going to end well.
But it would make an awesome story, especially since rulers who were exposed to disorder and revolts earlier in life tend to develop strong personalities and an obsession with personal authority, like Ivan the Terrible or Louis XIV. Think specifically about the psychological effects of being made to flee with his mother through the countryside, the famous robbery story, and such as that. He would then spend a long reign consolidating his power, which is to say executing extended family, with his right hand men the Earls of Pembroke and Richmond. Also, we know Anne Neville is fertile because she bore Richard III his own Edward Prince of Wales so there would be a reasonably secure succession so long as he was.
The other option is to find Henry VI a consort other than Margaret of Anjou, and of course this leads us to a much earlier point. And I am not about to dispute this is the single worst match in the history of the English monarchy in terms of its political consequences. Seriously, a transporter accident combining the most inconvenient aspects of Elizabeth Woodville, Catherine Howard, Mary of Modena, and Wallis fucking Simpson could not cause as much chaos for the English monarchy as Margaret of Anjou did all by herself. Edward II could have crowned Piers Gaveston his consort in Westminster Abbey and it would have likely gone better than this match.
But the problem is that doing away with Margaret erases the problem. Without Margaret, the decades that follow lack the drama that we associate with the War of the Roses. It looks so completely different in so many ways that for all we know York may not even revolt. So while this option plausibly leads to the House of Lancaster surviving, it is unattractive to me. Also, I love Margaret as a historical personality, and love her especially as a foil and contrast for her husband and an inspiration for her son.
Eliminating children was exceptionally rare - to attack a woman and her children (even if the husband was an enemy) was considered a real sign of dishonour. It just wasn't done.
IN 1455 at the first Battle of St Albans Richard of York had not even claimed the throne he was merely fighting for what he considered his rightful place in the governance of the realm as a leading peer.
If he is killed in that battle then those who favour his side against that of the Queen and Somerset are in the short-term bereft of a leader which might have calmed the situation somewhat.
But if Somerset survives St Albans and remains in power then the splits, complaints of poor government etc will continue.
In 1455 the York offspring are almost all children - Only Anne of York (b1439) is married to the Lancastrian Duke of Exeter.
Edward is around 13, Edmund 12, Elizabeth 11, Margaret 9, George 6, and Richard 3
The Duchess of York was also pregnant (the child would die in infancy).
It would be political insanity to attack them.
Also if York is killed the bigger problem is whether to attaint him depriving his sons of title and his wealth (although Cecily Neville's dower lands would mean them having some income) or be magnaminous and award their marriages and guardianship to prominant lancastrian supporters - or buy Warwick off by granting him custody of them.
Either way particularly Edward and Edmund are probably going to resent whatever happens.
York himself was not particularly popular - only Parliament if he packed it correctly tended to side with him because its members felt excluded by Margaret of Anjou's court circle who enjoyed most of the patronage.
Like many disputes this wasn't a war (or more truthfully a series of peace between rather brutal battles between the great and good and their poor retainers) about who had the greater claim to the throne it was about money and patronage and the exclusion of some (York and his friends) from the gravy train.
Killing York in 1455 leaves you with a resentful widow (more Proud Cis than the Rose of Raby at this point) and a resentful teenage boy with a very strong dynastic claim. A teenager who was forceful, attractive, and had great charm and pretty good political instincts.
On the otherside nothing has changed Margaret of Anjou remains in power, her husband remains feeble week and infectual, and the King's Beafort cousin's continue to dominate at court and in government.
Ripe for another outbreak of conflict within a few short years.
One option worth thinking about is - Henry VI dies leaving his infant son as Edward IV - during his first bout of 'madness' in late 1453/1454 - Richard of York as Protector takes control as regent - Widowed English Queen's even when the mother of King's took their chances where they could some gained influence (Isabella mother of Edward III) but most found that there was no role for them.
Richard who was regarded as an effective administrator and might make rather a dour if talented regent for the young Lancastrian King - who unsurprisingly finds himself betrothed to one of York's daughters.
York is satisfied that in the event of the boy dying the crown comes to him as there is now no Henry VI to insist on his Beaufort cousins being chosen.
Of course much will depend on how much influence Margaret of Anjou exerts and what efforts she will take to try and gain control - the Widow's War anyone?
IN 1455 at the first Battle of St Albans Richard of York had not even claimed the throne he was merely fighting for what he considered his rightful place in the governance of the realm as a leading peer.
If he is killed in that battle then those who favour his side against that of the Queen and Somerset are in the short-term bereft of a leader which might have calmed the situation somewhat.
But if Somerset survives St Albans and remains in power then the splits, complaints of poor government etc will continue.
In 1455 the York offspring are almost all children - Only Anne of York (b1439) is married to the Lancastrian Duke of Exeter.
Edward is around 13, Edmund 12, Elizabeth 11, Margaret 9, George 6, and Richard 3
The Duchess of York was also pregnant (the child would die in infancy).
It would be political insanity to attack them.
Also if York is killed the bigger problem is whether to attaint him depriving his sons of title and his wealth (although Cecily Neville's dower lands would mean them having some income) or be magnaminous and award their marriages and guardianship to prominant lancastrian supporters - or buy Warwick off by granting him custody of them.
Either way particularly Edward and Edmund are probably going to resent whatever happens.
York himself was not particularly popular - only Parliament if he packed it correctly tended to side with him because its members felt excluded by Margaret of Anjou's court circle who enjoyed most of the patronage.
Like many disputes this wasn't a war (or more truthfully a series of peace between rather brutal battles between the great and good and their poor retainers) about who had the greater claim to the throne it was about money and patronage and the exclusion of some (York and his friends) from the gravy train.
Killing York in 1455 leaves you with a resentful widow (more Proud Cis than the Rose of Raby at this point) and a resentful teenage boy with a very strong dynastic claim. A teenager who was forceful, attractive, and had great charm and pretty good political instincts.
On the otherside nothing has changed Margaret of Anjou remains in power, her husband remains feeble week and infectual, and the King's Beafort cousin's continue to dominate at court and in government.
Ripe for another outbreak of conflict within a few short years.
One option worth thinking about is - Henry VI dies leaving his infant son as Edward IV - during his first bout of 'madness' in late 1453/1454 - Richard of York as Protector takes control as regent - Widowed English Queen's even when the mother of King's took their chances where they could some gained influence (Isabella mother of Edward III) but most found that there was no role for them.
Richard who was regarded as an effective administrator and might make rather a dour if talented regent for the young Lancastrian King - who unsurprisingly finds himself betrothed to one of York's daughters.
York is satisfied that in the event of the boy dying the crown comes to him as there is now no Henry VI to insist on his Beaufort cousins being chosen.
Of course much will depend on how much influence Margaret of Anjou exerts and what efforts she will take to try and gain control - the Widow's War anyone?
Thanks, you have been a great help to my upcoming TL. So, the Yorkists are deprived of their inheritance and locked in the Tower. yeah, the Yorkists are screwed.
Reign Of The Red Rose:My Lancastrian TL
Reign Of The Red Rose
Prologue
In 1422, the great warrior-king of England, Henry V died and his infant son, Henry VI was crowned King of England, at the age of nine months. His uncles ruled for him and John of Bedford was regent. Henry VI’s mother, Catherine of Valois had an affair with a Welsh squire, Owen Tudor and produced two sons. Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond and Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke. Richmond married Lady Margaret Beauforte and had a son, Henry Tudor.
In France, the French rallied around the farmgirl Jeanne D’Arc, who became known to history as Joan of Arc. Joan defeated the English at Orleans and the French gained the upperhand. In 1431, Joan was burnt by the English as a heretic and Henry VI was crowned King of France. In 1435, the Dukes of Burgundy joined Charles VII of France and by 1453, the English had lost all their lands in France except Calais.
Henry VI married Margaret of Anjou in deeply unpopular marriage.Corrupt advisers, among them the Duke of Somerset, reigned. In 1450, the peasants in Kent rebelled, led by Jack Cade. Cade took London where he and his followers were appeased with the promise of free pardons. Later, they were hunted down and killed.
Henry went into a trance in 1453 so Richard, Duke of York, was made Lord Protector. Richard had Somerset arrested but what unable to try him for treason. Queen Margaret meanwhile gave birth to henry’s son, Prince Edward of Westminster, though rumors abounded that Edward was illegitimate, especially as the King was unable to acknowledge him. Then in 1454, Henry recovered. Somerset was released and York was thrown into the political wilderness.
York allied with Lord Warwick and rebelled. However, the Yorkists were defeated at the Battle of St Albans(the PoD)and York was killed. Warwick was captured and taken to London, where he was publicly beheaded. However, Henry VI was found dead, with an arrow lodged in his neck(the other PoD).
Reign Of The Red Rose
Reign Of The Red Rose
Prologue
In 1422, the great warrior-king of England, Henry V died and his infant son, Henry VI was crowned King of England, at the age of nine months. His uncles ruled for him and John of Bedford was regent. Henry VI’s mother, Catherine of Valois had an affair with a Welsh squire, Owen Tudor and produced two sons. Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond and Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke. Richmond married Lady Margaret Beauforte and had a son, Henry Tudor.
In France, the French rallied around the farmgirl Jeanne D’Arc, who became known to history as Joan of Arc. Joan defeated the English at Orleans and the French gained the upperhand. In 1431, Joan was burnt by the English as a heretic and Henry VI was crowned King of France. In 1435, the Dukes of Burgundy joined Charles VII of France and by 1453, the English had lost all their lands in France except Calais.
Henry VI married Margaret of Anjou in deeply unpopular marriage.Corrupt advisers, among them the Duke of Somerset, reigned. In 1450, the peasants in Kent rebelled, led by Jack Cade. Cade took London where he and his followers were appeased with the promise of free pardons. Later, they were hunted down and killed.
Henry went into a trance in 1453 so Richard, Duke of York, was made Lord Protector. Richard had Somerset arrested but what unable to try him for treason. Queen Margaret meanwhile gave birth to henry’s son, Prince Edward of Westminster, though rumors abounded that Edward was illegitimate, especially as the King was unable to acknowledge him. Then in 1454, Henry recovered. Somerset was released and York was thrown into the political wilderness.
York allied with Lord Warwick and rebelled. However, the Yorkists were defeated at the Battle of St Albans(the PoD)and York was killed. Warwick was captured and taken to London, where he was publicly beheaded. However, Henry VI was found dead, with an arrow lodged in his neck(the other PoD).
Reign Of The Red Rose
The only problem I have with this is that I think pivotal to the Yorkist ambitions in the 1450s is the succession. They are not yet thinking in terms of overthrowing a crowned king before he dies or killing him and then succeeding, but they are certainly looking to correct the "error" of the House of Lancaster's ascension.
Thanks. They didn't actually try to overthrow Henry VI in my TL, yet. I presume you are talking about my TL. If not, my mistake.
There is a way for the Plantagenets to regain Gascony, have Edward of Westminister marry Catherine of Navarre.