Warwick is a child at that time. The stability of England is gonna demand a grown adult. Not to mention that Warwick is banished from the line of sucession due to his father's treason.

Afaik there was nothing in the Attainder that said so. It merely extinguished the Royal Dukedom of Clarence. Any exclusion of his children from the throne was only by implication, and there was no legal precedent to determine the matter.

The absence of a murder charge deprives Richard's opponents of a juicy bit of propaganda, but doesn't remove his basic problem - that their death (however it happened) makes Elizabeth the next heir and clears the way for his Yorkist and Lancastrian opponents to combine against him by a betrothal of Henry Tudor to EoY. He's still up the creek, esp after the death of his son.
 
Dynastically the York's face a problem
Edward IV's wife has given him a brood of daughter's but no male heir - he faces naming his eldest daughter his heir making her a great marital catch.
If she is married to a foreign prince but is resident in England before Edward's death then the English are faced with a foreign army pushing to ensure her succession and that improves her chances of a smooth succession particular if she has support domestically which she might from the royal household and key players such as her half brother Dorset and say Hastings and perhaps her devoted uncle Richard.
Now if in 1476 the Louis XI considers rather than marrying his son the dauphin to the English princess knowing that Edward and the English wouldn't tolerate such a personal union - he instead of marrying Orleans to his daughter he suggests Orleans is betrothed to the ten year old English heiress - a great match and suits Louis in that it gets rid of the reviled branch of the family - and the Duke is packed off to England in around 81/82 perhaps avoiding him posing a threat to the potential regency of Louis' daughter Anne on his imminent death. Another alternate French royal would be Charles of Anjouleme of course.
If not then her chances of succeeding vanish - given the existing view of female succession - all will unite behind her male cousin with the probable support of the leading characters.
In those circumstances there is no convenient priest claiming the Woodville marriage as invalid - the Queen Dowager retires with her daughters and her dower to Sheen - perhaps hoping that a match between her daughter's and Edward V (Warwick) can be arranged,
Edward's alternative is to accept his brother George and his son as heir's being his nearest male relation - this makes George as troublesome as in OTL and very likely to end up in the same way - however Edward without an heir is more likely to stick with George's orphaned son - now effectively Edward's adopted son - with a deal that the boy marries one of his cousins' as soon as he is of age.
Warwick succeeds his uncle and Richard rules as regent - it is much harder for him in these circumstances to usurp his nephew's rights - Warwick was undoutebdly legitimate and was regarded as the heir by the late King (who will probably have ensured Clarence's fall did not hamper Warwick's rights)
In 1489 Warwick is married as planned to his cousin Elizabeth of York in accordance with the wishes of the late King.
Richard is forced to retire from court in the 1490s as his nephew resents Richard's hold on estates that belonged to his father and that were his mother's inheritance particularly after the childless death of his aunt Anne Neville.
There is a chance that loathing his brother George Edward opts to leave the throne to Richard of Gloucester as the nearest adult male - but Richard now faces long term problems - with numerous alternatives - and that would give Henry Tudor some options for invasion as in otl - not a murder but to many a def usurpation of the rights of Edward's daughter's and his nephew even if the view is that was Edward's wish.
 
If the priest didn't want Edward IV's bastard sons to rule, in what universe would he want the bastard daughters to rule when they marry and are under the rule of a possibly foreign husband?

Richard will trump Warwick. Clarence skewered his son's chances for ruling by playing fast and loose. Nobody's going to want the son of a traitor for King.
 
Firstly the allegation emerged after Richard was already in charge (up to his taking control - no one had objected to Edward's son succeeding him) - it was extremely dubious and very well timed (even Clarence who had more to gain by it than most seems to have avoided making it years earlier) - and in part it was to ensure a veneer of respectability to Richard's actions. It wasn't someone making some moral claim to protect the crown it was a convenient excuse for a blatant usurpation.

If adult Elizabeth is married to Orleans or someone similar then forget that kind of accusation carrying much weight with James III or Louis XI when they offer arms to restore her to her rightful place

As i said if Warwick is the option then I stick with the above King Edward V and his wife and cousin - in the French manner you marry your older daughter off to the next male heir and at least your descendants still sit on the throne even if your daughter can't reign in her own right.

Well they had the son of a traitor as King for over two decades and Richard was married to the daughter of one - that doesn't really hold much weight to the late medieval aristocrat

If the priest didn't want Edward IV's bastard sons to rule, in what universe would he want the bastard daughters to rule when they marry and are under the rule of a possibly foreign husband?

Richard will trump Warwick. Clarence skewered his son's chances for ruling by playing fast and loose. Nobody's going to want the son of a traitor for King.
 
And if the priest had come forward under the Woodville rule, he'd have lived to say it a second time...yeah, right. Richard was the protector of the king until the priest came forward.

And the people are tired of fighting. An incompetent or minor king in the past has led to years of bloodshed. Edward got, lost, regained the throne because of it. Richard is a better choice than a lad.
 
And the people are tired of fighting. An incompetent or minor king in the past has led to years of bloodshed. Edward got, lost, regained the throne because of it. Richard is a better choice than a lad.

Richard lasted all of two years - one of the shortest reigns in English history - and was then felled by an obscure pretender whom the average Englishman had probably barely heard of. Could the lad have done any worse?
 
No, child kings weren't a good thing. The early reign of Henry III, Richard II and Henry VI were a shining testament. Nobility clashes, uncertainty, lawlessness, lack of a central figure in english goverment. All that happened during minority reigns.

The fact that they made it to adulthood is irrelevant, what mattered was that their rule during their childhoods were always unsteady.

England had just gotten stable from the epic mess that Henry VI had left, a large civil war that had savaged the country. A child Warwick on the throne, not to mention the son of a executed or/and well known traitor, is basically inviting back the unsteadiness that came with child kings.

No one in England want that. Not the nobility, not the commoners, not the mercants and certainly not Parliament. Richard wins.
 
No, child kings weren't a good thing. The early reign of Henry III, Richard II and Henry VI were a shining testament. Nobility clashes, uncertainty, lawlessness, lack of a central figure in english goverment. All that happened during minority reigns.

The fact that they made it to adulthood is irrelevant, what mattered was that their rule during their childhoods were always unsteady.

England had just gotten stable from the epic mess that Henry VI had left, a large civil war that had savaged the country. A child Warwick on the throne, not to mention the son of a executed or/and well known traitor, is basically inviting back the unsteadiness that came with child kings.

No one in England want that. Not the nobility, not the commoners, not the mercants and certainly not Parliament. Richard wins.


All the above was just as true OTL- but he still lost.

Why would the balance of forces be any different just because Edward's sons died naturally - as for all we know they may have done, unlikely though that is?
 
Edward IV's children will probably be bastardized because once he died, the priest talked. Richard is grown, competent and trusted. If there are no sons and Clarence is a traitor.....Richard III! He won't have to marry his niece because she's no longer in line (which makes you wonder why Henry VII was so insistent on getting rid of the Parliamentary decision.....because he knew there weren't any pesky brothers to claim the throne?) Richard will marry whom he chooses, although I suspect Elizabeth Woodville will campaign for her daughter to wed Richard since without the boys, Henry Tudor isn't "saving" the country from the evil ambitious Richard (who isn't impressed with Liz W's charms).
More because he was brought to the throne on the back of loyal Edwardian yorkists, as much as he was Lancastrians. Without his pledge to marry Elizabeth, he may well bumble around the courts of north western Europe for much longer than OTL.
 
More because he was brought to the throne on the back of loyal Edwardian yorkists, as much as he was Lancastrians. Without his pledge to marry Elizabeth, he may well bumble around the courts of north western Europe for much longer than OTL.

Why would he not pledge to marry Elizabeth - unless she was already married? And if she is married to a tolerable husband there is no reason to pass her over for the succession.

The allegation that Richard had murdered the Princes was icing on the cake for Richard's opponents, but even without it he would still have essentially the same set of opponents and they'd have had much the same chance of winning. Is here any evidence that anyone fighting against Richard at Bosworth did so out of moral outrage about the PitT?
 
Just to clarify a few things -
1) Edward IV's will does not survive - so we don't know his wishes - the idea Richard was named protector post dates Richard's coup - the council initially looked like they intended to govern for the young king until his coronation. Hastings resentful of Dorset urged Richard to action but seems to have suspected Richard was moving to take the throne hence his own untimely death. There is zero evidence apart from Richard's own propaganda that the Queen, her son and brother were moving to take control - the Queen was moderate in the council meeting, Dorset did act with some authority and Lord Rivers took his time bringing the new King south - hardly the actions of a man determined to rule through his nephew. Richard's relationship with the Queen and her family was pretty good prior to the King's death.
2) Fear of a minority government - firstly the three examples - Henry III succeeded in the midst of civil war at the age of 9 - the conflict in his early reign was a direct result of his father's reign and not due to the fact the King was a minor - in fact his father's death probably helped kick the French out. Richard II - again his early reign as a minor wasn't that bad it was his own leadership later and his relations that lead to chaos. Henry VI - his minority was exceptionally long due to his youth at his accession - however there was no suggestion of deposition until he actual began to govern himself when he made a catalogue of errors that lead to his deposition and even then those opposed to him took a long long time before taking the ultimate step. Their minorities were actually not too bad certainly not enough to suggest the normal rules of succession should be subverted to avoid a minority....in this case it would probably be even less of a problem due to the small size of the royal family and the lack of arguing royal duke's there is after all only one.
3) The Woodville faction - doesn't really exist nor does it operate as a court clique - the Queen largely kept out of politics there is little record of her doing anything other than the traditional duties of a consort. Dorset the King's stepson was independently wealthy and married to an heiress (who was Hastings stepdaughter) he also operated independently of his mother and siblings and uncle. Rivers - guardian of the Prince of Wales - pretty admired as a "virtuous man" across Europe hence his role in Wales. That is actually it - many of the Queen's other siblings were minor characters and many of her sisters were already dead by the 80s and their children such as the young Earl of Essex were minors.
4) Much of the opposition to Richard in the first rebellion was from members of Edward IV's household - these individuals had served Edward daily - they resented Richard's accession etc because they lost influence, patronage and prestige - it is likely many of them would have moved to serve the new King at least in his youth had Richard not removed them and replaced many of them with his own men.
5) Pre Contract - there is zero evidence of who told Richard such a thing - the usual suspect Stillington was a high ranking courtier and bishop who seems to have kept getting into trouble but managing to escape it - to be honest if he knew such a thing and Edward IV knew about it then the question is why did he survive Edward's reign - the simple truth is that it was a believable accusation due to Edward's private life and an easy way to justify Richard taking the throne - the idea originated with him or his supporters and he latched on to it - suddenly he acts to defend himself against the Queen and her kin who were also such a threat they ran to sanctuary at the first opportunity. Quite frankly it stunk and established Richard's reign on very shaky ground - far shakier than the accession of a minor.
6) In the event of Edward having only daughter's by Elizabeth - then he has option a) to keep trying assuming a boy will come - her final pregnancy was in 1480 when she would have been in her early 40s b) Try and end his marriage in the late 70s in order to remarry - there's little evidence he regretted his hasty marriage but it would have probably been easy to get it annulled perhaps whilst retaining the legitimacy of the girls alternatively unlike her future granddaughter in law Elizabeth might have been willing to retain her rank and title and embrace a religious life enabling Edward to remarry
7) In my view the likeliest is Edward vacilates between naming his daughter Elizabeth and his nephew Warwick until near death he names one or the other - if he names Warwick - who was in the custody of Dorset at this period - then a betrothal to Elizabeth of York is made and Warwick is proclaimed - Richard in the north has the choice of trying to name himself, accept the situation or challenging the council to take control of the new King himself. There is no way he can bastardize Warwick (the grounds for disputing George and Isabel's marriage would be the same grounds for disputing Richard and Anne's marriage) and he really has no reason to move against the Queen Dowager - he may well try and get council support to remove the King from Dorset's care and might actually end up with the support of other key figures for that - Richard ends up regent/protector for Edward V - the King will probably favour his aunt and uncle over the relatives of his future wife.
8) If the King names Elizabeth then its much more uncertain - her family move to support her but they really don't have the strength or wealth to ensure she stays on the throne - she may attract some support from her father's household but a lot will depend on how Richard reacts to her accession - or whether he moves to remove her in favour of Warwick or himself. Dorset, Rivers and others are going to have to look for support and her marriage is the obvious solution - so its hands across the ocean to France or across the Tweed to Scotland - marriage in return for political and military support. I think initially Elizabeth loses but even in OTL did anyone in 1483 really seen Henry Tudor being King within four years?
If Elizabeth has married before 1483 then the situation is slightly better for her - option 1) She is betrothed to the Duke of Orleans/ Count of Anjouleme in 1476 - concerned the French might not honour the deal the marriage finally takes place in 1481 - the french marriage is not popular but it strengthen's Elizabeth's hand on her father's death - she now has at least the promise of French support to enforce her rights to succeed her father - again that will also include support from her father's household and her own as well as her immediate relations and she can buy support with the marriages of her sisters in the short term. 2) The King decides the easiest way to ensure her succession is to betroth her to Warwick - then as above it is likely few will dispute the accession of the two - though the council might insist on a joint sovereign type deal - weakening the influence of Elizabeth's family.
9) How Richard reacts in any of the above scenarios is hard to gauge but it is worth remembering that circumstances played into his hands in otl - largely because of the weakness of the opposition and the speed with which he acted - and because until April 1483 the succession was not up for discussion the King had two male heirs of his body - in this scenario the succession will have been discussed for years as the Queen continued to fail to produce a male heir - all will have had loads of time to plan their view of what should happen following the King's death which means everyone is prepared for strife come the King's death.
 
Given what you've outlined above, does he even make a play for the throne OTL? Better to build up influence and curry favor with whoever's regent.
 
Top