Lord Protector of Edward VI

If Richard III would of placed his 7 year old nephew Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick on the throne instead of taking the throne after deposing Edward V, would his reign as Lord Protector for the new Edward V or VI (depending on if they recognize that Edward V reign was ever valid) be smooth? Would he of been overthrown?

Edward Earl of Warwick, was the legitimate Lancastrian heir by law, and by blood the legitimate Yorkist heir. This would definitely undercut Henry Tudor's tenuous Lancastrian claim to the throne. It would also make it look more like Richard Duke of Gloucester was just following the law as he saw it, he did have a reputation as a legalist thinker. It would of put him under less suspicion even if the princes in the tower still died.

Richard would of had royal power for the next nine years and a guarantee to be the premiere magnate of the realm for the foreseeable future. Does anyone know if Richard ever considered this, and if not what could of made him go with this? If he did put his nephew on the throne, does he successfully defend his own position as Lord Protector? Does Warwick stay on the throne?
 
Assuming they still go with the Woodville kids being bastards then Warwick would be Edward V- the OTL Edward V was never a legitimate king- and you likely still have the Woodville clan fleeing into exile/sanctuary, from whence they can stir up trouble.

Now, Richard not taking the throne for himself probably helps his PR- IOTL him seizing the throne made the whole bastards thing seem like mere pretence, whereas replacing one nephew with another might make his actions seem more genuine.

He may also avoid the kerfuffle with his niece- IOTL the (probably spurious) rumours he wanted to wed her were based on the thought that this would shore up his throne (a mistaken assumption- seeking legitimacy from a marriage with Elizabeth is a tacit admission that the bastardisation of her and her siblings was bullshit).

However, would the realm go for this? IOTL Richard supposedly talked to all the people gathered in London for Edward V's coronation, persuaded them of the precontract and then accepted their offer of the throne, which was put down in parliament the following year. The reasons for that were that the realm wanted a strong, adult, king- which it doesn't get by replacing a 12-year old with a 7-year old. But I suppose if Richard is behind Warwick then that changes things.

Opponents will throw doubts on Warwick's claim based on Clarence's attainder. Can that be posthumously revoked?

Now, when it comes to the Princes, they'd probably still end up dead. I mean they'll still be the focus of plots and they pose as great a threat to Richard's regency ITTL as they did to his kingship IOTL. Though, again, it looks slightly better now that Richard's not on the throne.

So, the Woodville/Grey faction still takes flight and the Queen enters sanctuary- their enmity with Richard remains and they'll be pissed at Edward V's deposition; Hastings still ends up minus a head- his loyalty to Edward IV's legacy remains; Buckingham does something- being the right hand man of a regent is slightly less exalted than being the right hand man of a king, we don't know what his ambitions were with his rebellion IOTL but they likely remain; Tudor is still running around the continent (though butterflies could see him be captured in and extradited from Brittany); butterflies might stop Oxford from talking his way out of prison etc.

If the princes still die than an alliance of convenience betwixt Tudor and disaffected Yorkists still makes sense. However, if Richard's actions are tempered or have a better gloss on them because he hasn't seized the throne outright, their might be less disaffected Yorkists (though there'd still be alienation if he introduces northerners into the administration of the south after some alt-Buckingham rebellion). Considering Tudor's campaign was something of a miraculous Hail Mary IOTL, the odds are Richard (in Warwick's name) can beat him ITTL.

Also, would Warwick attract any support from the Neville affinity? I mean, most of his immediate male family in the Salisbury-Nevilles are dead as of the Kingmakers rebellion, but the kingmaker's sisters are married influential lay- one of them is the mother to Stanley's son Lord Strange. There's also more distant relations in the Barons Bergavenny and Latimer (though he's only 15 in 1483, IOTL he married a daughter of Humphrey Stafford, one of Richard's staunch supporters), as well as the Earls of Westmorland (though the current Earl would be in his 70s and mentally ill, his nephew and heir apparently did stuff in Scotland, so he may have worked with Richard).
 
Last edited:
Assuming they still go with the Woodville kids being bastards then Warwick would be Edward V- the OTL Edward V was never a legitimate king- and you likely still have the Woodville clan fleeing into exile/sanctuary, from whence they can stir up trouble.

Now, Richard not taking the throne for himself probably helps his PR- IOTL him seizing the throne made the whole bastards thing seem like mere pretence, whereas replacing one nephew with another might make his actions seem more genuine.

He may also avoid the kerfuffle with his niece- IOTL the (probably spurious) rumours he wanted to wed her were based on the thought that this would shore up his throne (a mistaken assumption- seeking legitimacy from a marriage with Elizabeth is a tacit admission that the bastardisation of her and her siblings was bullshit).

However, would the realm go for this? IOTL Richard supposedly talked to all the people gathered in London for Edward V's coronation, persuaded them of the precontract and then accepted their offer of the throne, which was put down in parliament the following year. The reasons for that were that the realm wanted a strong, adult, king- which it doesn't get by replacing a 12-year old with a 7-year old. But I suppose if Richard is behind Warwick then that changes things.

Opponents will throw doubts on Warwick's claim based on Clarence's attainder. Can that be posthumously revoked?

It is arguable that attainder can not bar a claim to the throne. They could look forward to almost a decade of adult male rule, instead of four years and then having the son of a hated Woodville on the throne. I also read somewhere that one of the main reason for Richard's coup is Edward V was uncooperative with Richard after Richard had his maternal uncle executed, and Richard didn't like his future prospects under Edward V's rule.

I know there wasn't much of a Lancastrian party left, but Henry Tudor got support only under the pretence that he was a senior Lancastrian claimant, if that couldn't even be entertained because the Lancastrian Heir sat on the throne, doesn't that make Henry basically null. Wouldn't the Dissaffected Yorkist look for another Yorkist claimant instead?



Now, when it comes to the Princes, they'd probably still end up dead. I mean they'll still be the focus of plots and they pose as great a threat to Richard's regency ITTL as they did to his kingship IOTL. Though, again, it looks slightly better now that Richard's not on the throne.

So, the Woodville/Grey faction still takes flight and the Queen enters sanctuary- their enmity with Richard remains and they'll be pissed at Edward V's deposition; Hastings still ends up minus a head- his loyalty to Edward IV's legacy remains; Buckingham does something- being the right hand man of a regent is slightly less exalted than being the right hand man of a king, we don't know what his ambitions were with his rebellion IOTL but they likely remain; Tudor is still running around the continent (though butterflies could see him be captured in and extradited from Brittany); butterflies might stop Oxford from talking his way out of prison etc.

If the princes still die than an alliance of convenience betwixt Tudor and disaffected Yorkists still makes sense. However, if Richard's actions are tempered or have a better gloss on them because he hasn't seized the throne outright, their might be less disaffected Yorkists (though there'd still be alienation if he introduces northerners into the administration of the south after some alt-Buckingham rebellion). Considering Tudor's campaign was something of a miraculous Hail Mary IOTL, the odds are Richard (in Warwick's name) can beat him ITTL.

Also, would Warwick attract any support from the Neville affinity? I mean, most of his immediate male family in the Salisbury-Nevilles are dead as of the Kingmakers rebellion, but the kingmaker's sisters are married influential lay- one of them is the mother to Stanley's son Lord Strange. There's also more distant relations in the Barons Bergavenny and Latimer (though he's only 15 in 1483, IOTL he married a daughter of Humphrey Stafford, one of Richard's staunch supporters), as well as the Earls of Westmorland (though the current Earl would be in his 70s and mentally ill, his nephew and heir apparently did stuff in Scotland, so he may have worked with Richard).
 
I also read somewhere that one of the main reason for Richard's coup is Edward V was uncooperative with Richard after Richard had his maternal uncle executed, and Richard didn't like his future prospects under Edward V's rule.

Edward V's half-brother Richard Grey was also executed, which he can't have been happy about. So yeah, Richard was already wary of the Woodvilles (they'd kinda infected the realm, risen above their station, the Queen was probably integral in getting Clarence executed), then he met up with Edward V, who proved loyal to his mother's family (which had raised him, after all) and vociferously objected to the arrests of Rivers, Grey and the like. At which point Richard got even more nervous about his ability to coexist with an adult Edward V.

I know there wasn't much of a Lancastrian party left, but Henry Tudor got support only under the pretence that he was a senior Lancastrian claimant, if that couldn't even be entertained because the Lancastrian Heir sat on the throne, doesn't that make Henry basically null. Wouldn't the Dissaffected Yorkist look for another Yorkist claimant instead?

But there aren't really any other obvious Yorkist claimants- John de la Pole Earl of Lincoln was loyal to his uncle IOTL and that probably doesn't change. There's not really any other male scions of the House of York- the only remaining members (other than Elizabeth and her de la Pole brood) are the childless Margaret in Burgundy and Anne St. Leger (Anne of York's daughter by her second marriage), a girl of eight.

I mean, if there was an obvious Yorkist claimant to rally around then that's were Yorkists alienated by Richard would go- yet there wasn't one, so they went to Henry Tudor, a Lancastrian who'd been in exile half his life and had a very remote claim to the throne. If there was a better candidate- one with a decent claim and willing to move against Richard- then they would've found him OTL.

As you say, the Lancastrians were basically extinct, so I'm not sure Tudor drew his support from being the senior Lancastrian claimant so much as the fact that he was an adult male claimant to the throne who was willing to have a go at deposing Richard (and would promise to marry Elizabeth of York).

In any case, as to the whole Warwick being the Lancastrian heir, was that whole agreement with Henry VI even legitimate? Is there a legal document there? Would Yorkists even recognise something promulgated by Henry VI? The whole thing seems kinda flimsy, doesn't it?

It doesn't seem that hard for opponents (like Henry Tudor) to present it as a legal fiction, forgery even, and I doubt it'd bring any hardcore exiled Lancastrians over to the new regime. Even if it is legitimate, legal niceties aren't going to stop Henry having a crack at the throne, nor will they prevent people discontented by the Warwick-Ricardian regime from joining him.
 
Edward V's half-brother Richard Grey was also executed, which he can't have been happy about. So yeah, Richard was already wary of the Woodvilles (they'd kinda infected the realm, risen above their station, the Queen was probably integral in getting Clarence executed), then he met up with Edward V, who proved loyal to his mother's family (which had raised him, after all) and vociferously objected to the arrests of Rivers, Grey and the like. At which point Richard got even more nervous about his ability to coexist with an adult Edward V.



But there aren't really any other obvious Yorkist claimants- John de la Pole Earl of Lincoln was loyal to his uncle IOTL and that probably doesn't change. There's not really any other male scions of the House of York- the only remaining members (other than Elizabeth and her de la Pole brood) are the childless Margaret in Burgundy and Anne St. Leger (Anne of York's daughter by her second marriage), a girl of eight.

I mean, if there was an obvious Yorkist claimant to rally around then that's were Yorkists alienated by Richard would go- yet there wasn't one, so they went to Henry Tudor, a Lancastrian who'd been in exile half his life and had a very remote claim to the throne. If there was a better candidate- one with a decent claim and willing to move against Richard- then they would've found him OTL.

As you say, the Lancastrians were basically extinct, so I'm not sure Tudor drew his support from being the senior Lancastrian claimant so much as the fact that he was an adult male claimant to the throne who was willing to have a go at deposing Richard (and would promise to marry Elizabeth of York).

In any case, as to the whole Warwick being the Lancastrian heir, was that whole agreement with Henry VI even legitimate? Is there a legal document there? Would Yorkists even recognise something promulgated by Henry VI? The whole thing seems kinda flimsy, doesn't it?

It doesn't seem that hard for opponents (like Henry Tudor) to present it as a legal fiction, forgery even, and I doubt it'd bring any hardcore exiled Lancastrians over to the new regime. Even if it is legitimate, legal niceties aren't going to stop Henry having a crack at the throne, nor will they prevent people discontented by the Warwick-Ricardian regime from joining him.
Henry Bourchier, 2nd Earl of Essex, heir general of Isabel of Cambridge, Edward IV's aunt, had the next strongest claim after the de la Poles. He would of been in his late teens in Richard III reign and nephew of Elizabeth Woodville. He was a little young and I do not know what his politics were. But he is a viable candidate, probably, especially if he married his cousin Elizabeth or Cecily.

Yeah, the agreement between Clarence and Henry VI was just as valid as Henry VI being on the throne. It was well known too. The battle was fairly close, and if it effected a couple of hardcore Lancastrians, especially if they are offered some kind of restoration and return from exile, it might be enough to effect the battle. Especially if a couple of Yorkist stay loyal because Richard III doesn't take the throne.
 
Edward V's half-brother Richard Grey was also executed, which he can't have been happy about. So yeah, Richard was already wary of the Woodvilles (they'd kinda infected the realm, risen above their station, the Queen was probably integral in getting Clarence executed), then he met up with Edward V, who proved loyal to his mother's family (which had raised him, after all) and vociferously objected to the arrests of Rivers, Grey and the like. At which point Richard got even more nervous about his ability to coexist with an adult Edward V.

Perhaps the example of what happened to Roger Mortimer when Edward III came of age may be another reason for Richard to act and to replace Edward V with Warwick.
 
Henry Bourchier, 2nd Earl of Essex, heir general of Isabel of Cambridge, Edward IV's aunt, had the next strongest claim after the de la Poles. He would of been in his late teens in Richard III reign and nephew of Elizabeth Woodville. He was a little young and I do not know what his politics were. But he is a viable candidate, probably, especially if he married his cousin Elizabeth or Cecily.

Ah, forgot about the Bourchiers ;). Where are you getting late teens from? A cursory look around seems to say he was born about ~1472, which would make him too young to be acting against Richard on his own. Though he does have Bourchier uncles around to make a move on his behalf.

His claim to the throne is remote (but so was Henry Tudor's) and he didn't seem to have any royal pretensions IOTL (he seems to have been loyal to the Tudors, and managed to note lose his head- which is a rarity for someone with a modicum of royal blood), but he is a potential alternative...

I'm not sure how much of an influence his mother's family would have on him, and if they fly the coop as IOTL they can't do much. His step-dad is George Grey, future Earl of Kent, but there isn't much info on him either.
 
Ah, forgot about the Bourchiers ;). Where are you getting late teens from? A cursory look around seems to say he was born about ~1472, which would make him too young to be acting against Richard on his own. Though he does have Bourchier uncles around to make a move on his behalf.

His claim to the throne is remote (but so was Henry Tudor's) and he didn't seem to have any royal pretensions IOTL (he seems to have been loyal to the Tudors, and managed to note lose his head- which is a rarity for someone with a modicum of royal blood), but he is a potential alternative...

I'm not sure how much of an influence his mother's family would have on him, and if they fly the coop as IOTL they can't do much. His step-dad is George Grey, future Earl of Kent, but there isn't much info on him either.

When I looked him up,Henry Bourchier, 2nd Earl of Essex, it said he was born in 1468 (just found a different reference to 1472, going to have to do a little more research) so mid to late teens, and by primogeniture if you discount the de la poles he would be the next in line. His claim is a lot clearer then Henry Tudors. Edward IV's father's, Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York, sister's heir general. You could argue Warwick is barred be his father's attainder, Richard III was debarred from the throne by treason and regicide, and de la Poles for supporting a Usurper, then you have a pretty clear claim for Essex.

Henry Tudor's mother was the heir general to John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset, the bastard son of John of Gaunt who was legitimized. It is arguable that the legitimization by Richard II was an act of parliament gave the Beauforts a claim to the throne. But, Henry IV specifically barred them from the throne by letters patent. It is arguable that the act of parliament takes precedent over letters patent, but that discounts that he Henry IV claimed the throne from his maternal decent from Henry III, which the Beauforts having a different mother do not have. If you claim Henry IV claimed the throne through his grandfather's male entail to the crown, that would still debarr Henry VII from the throne being his Beaufort claim came from his mother. If you claim Richard II's nomination was valid of Henry IV, then Henry VI's nomination of Clarence was valid and Warwick is the true King. You have to do a lot of finagling to get the Henry Tudor's claim to sound at all legitimate and this is simple outline of the broad points of the issue, that is why he didn't even try, he just claimed by right of conquest.
 
Last edited:
Henry VII had a pretty clear claim to the Lancastrian heritage - he was, first and foremost, the senior male descendant of John of Gaunt in England, and secondly he was the senior living relative of the last Lancastrian monarch, being the nephew of King Henry VI. The Lancastrian claim seems to have been a convoluted mess involving representation and male-preference (as in, Henry Bolingbroke takes precedence over Philippa of Ulster), which wouldn't negatively impact Henry Tudor's claims given there were no Lancastrian cousins to challenge his title. To say he claimed the throne by simple right of conquest is a rather disingenuous disregard for how he clearly, explicitly claimed the Lancastrian mantle - as seen in the Tudor rose, for example.
 
Henry VII had a pretty clear claim to the Lancastrian heritage - he was, first and foremost, the senior male descendant of John of Gaunt in England, and secondly he was the senior living relative of the last Lancastrian monarch, being the nephew of King Henry VI. The Lancastrian claim seems to have been a convoluted mess involving representation and male-preference (as in, Henry Bolingbroke takes precedence over Philippa of Ulster), which wouldn't negatively impact Henry Tudor's claims given there were no Lancastrian cousins to challenge his title. To say he claimed the throne by simple right of conquest is a rather disingenuous disregard for how he clearly, explicitly claimed the Lancastrian mantle - as seen in the Tudor rose, for example.

Though he did claim he had won the crown by conquest, and never made mention of his blood ties so far as I am aware
 
Though he did claim he had won the crown by conquest, and never made mention of his blood ties so far as I am aware

Henry VII's blood ties were weaks and the Yorks (with either Elizabeth or young Edward) had a much more strong claim (and Henry claim came from his still alive mother not from his already dead father) and do not forget who the Beauforts were never fully considered legitimate and viable heirs for the throne so Henry's best bet for holding the throne was marry Elizabeth of York (and he swear to marry her before the start of his campaign for bring more forces to his side). Henry VIII instead had a much stronger claim to the thone from his mother side and still he do not feel his crown safe...
 
Top