Agree, Johanna was by the standard of that age definitely already seen as over her good times, but as a second marriage it would have been seen as not too late.Prestigious-yes, but by 15th century standards she's quite old.
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.
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 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 was killed in combat. That vs the unsteady hands of a pre-pubescent are very different things
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.
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.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.