Richard, Duke of Gloucester, dies in 1482

They will inherit York and Norfolk and Brittany. That’s a lot of power to give to, essentially, a cadet branch of the royal family of England. Is that something the council/Edward would worry over?

France will probably insist on something (and Edward might agree to it) like York/Norfolk are returned to the crown (more likely York since Norfolk's willed to Richard by the marriage contract to Anne de Mowbray) and the duke of Brittany can't also be king of England.

Researching the possibility of Isabella of Aragon/Edward V match, and I don’t see how it could happen. Isabella’s future was pretty set in regards to her marriage to Afonso of Portugal. I can’t imagine Isabella or Ferdinand changing this, considering it was a large part of the Treaty of Alcáçovas. What reason could they have to break the betrothal with Portugal and marrying her instead to Edward? Wasn’t peace between them and Portugal pretty delicate at that point? Could they risk war doing so?

From what I've read, Fernando and Isabel despised/mistrusted Joao II. And he was no great fan of theirs either. That said, Fernando and Isabel would jump at the chance to have an excuse NOT to give Joao their eldest daughter. They might do a deal with him that Isabel marries Edward V while Affonso gets the closer in age Juana or Maria. Not saying he'd go for it - but he's still getting a Castilian infanta (and his son might live - if you buy the story that he was murdered by Spanish agents) for Affonso.
 
I’m pretty sure at this point, the year being 1483, and onwards, Isabella is being raised in Portugal. I think it could be hard to remove Isabella from the betrothal when she lives with her betrothed. Meaning, they are going to have to remove her from Joao’s grasp somehow and get her back to Castile. It would be a lot easier if she never went to Portugal in the first place, but even if Richard, Duke of Gloucester, dying in 1482 could somehow change that, I think she started living there even before then. I like the idea of a match between Edward and Isabella, its just a very complicated match to make happen. I would like to see Catherine of York married to John, Prince of Asturias, mainly because she could probably give him an heir or even two before his death; he was infamously lusty with his wife, Margaret of Austria and Catherine carried three children to term, two of which, both sons, lived to adulthood.

Also, if Richard of Shrewsbury marries Anne of Brittany, then Charles VIII of France cannot marry her and abandon his betrothal to Margaret of Austria, which in OTL allowed her to marry John, Prince of Asturias. So, King Charles can marry Margaret, Duchess Anne can marry Richard and Catherine can marry John, and it wraps itself up in a neat little bow, which wasn’t my intention at all.

Edit: Isabella of Aragon returned to Castile from Portugal in 1483, so if the Catholic Monarchs really did want to break the betrothal then they could do so then.
 
Last edited:
I am contemplating create a Timeline out of this POD and the idea’s we have come up with, but I just have a few questions first that I can’t seem to resolve. If anyone could shed some light on any of these issues, I would be super grateful.
  1. In regards to the double marriage of Edward V/Isabella of Aragon and Catherine of York/John, Prince of Asturias, would there be a dowry paid by either party? Or would it be bound by something like a treaty or an official alliance and perhaps gifts, like jewels or something. I don’t think either party is going to loose/gain much money if they are both paying dowry’s. Though I would expect Edward would be paying much more to get his sister married to the heir of Castile and Aragon. In a double marriage is there any point in paying a dowry? Or would a treaty of some sort take place, perhaps against France?
  2. I read somewhere that Isabella of Castile refused to marry Catherine of Aragon to Arthur Tudor until the pretender (Perkin Warbeck) or any other threats to the Tudor throne were taken care of (killed). Would she see Henry Tudor as a threat to Edward’s throne and expect his demise, also? Or is she going to see his claim as no threat at all, and make no such demand? Or, demand that he continue to live in exile?
  3. If on the off-chance that Isabella of Aragon fails to give Edward a son, obviously the next in line would be Richard of Shrewsbury and his heirs. However, if a Treaty between France and England took place due to Anne’s marriage to Richard, and it specified that the Duke of Brittany could not also become King of England, would we see a potential younger son of Richard take the throne? Especially if Edward outlives his brother, if an elder son of Richard is already Duke of Brittany, would his younger brother take the throne? Or is this just opening up a whole can of worms for WotR 2.0 down the line. What would happen here?
  4. Was there a specific age when a King was deemed to have reached his majority? I have read conflicting articles, with ages ranging from 16, 18 to 21. And others which say that it wasn’t about the King’s age, but when Parliament/Council felt he was mature enough to rule alone. Can anyone shed any light on this?
  5. Finally, what do you think Anthony Rivers and the Woodville contingents best corse of action is with this POD? When Edward IV dies, what do you think they should do to ensure a peaceful ascension of Edward V to the throne, and also keep their heads and not cause mutiny amongst the other nobles?
 
In regards to the double marriage of Edward V/Isabella of Aragon and Catherine of York/John, Prince of Asturias, would there be a dowry paid by either party? Or would it be bound by something like a treaty or an official alliance and perhaps gifts, like jewels or something. I don’t think either party is going to loose/gain much money if they are both paying dowry’s. Though I would expect Edward would be paying much more to get his sister married to the heir of Castile and Aragon. In a double marriage is there any point in paying a dowry? Or would a treaty of some sort take place, perhaps against France?

There would be a dowry paid - part of Fernando's issue (and not just his, Maximilian I too) with the English betrothals OTL was that Edward IV wanted to marry his daughters so grandly, but was reluctant to give up the moneys for dowries as one writer said "he expected his daughters to bring their looks alone to their marriages". The marriage contract would usually include an official alliance/gifts/treaty etc as a matter of course. As to the cost-benefit analysis - one only has to look at the fact that Isabel is the oldest daughter of two reigning monarchs (which means she will be bringing a rather large dowry - or at least this will be expected). Katie of York OTOH is the second-youngest daughter of the king of England - and by the time of the marriage (unless Edward IV is living longer), the king's little sister (which means that her dowry is going to be far smaller) since by the time the marriage takes place, Edward V might have his own daughters to worry about dowering - and there'll be substantial amounts expected of them, given who their mother is (a Spanish infanta vs. some English gentlewoman widow). Which might mean that a second Anglo-Spanish match doesn't pan out, since Fernando and Isabel might demand a price too high for marriage to their only son and heir.

I read somewhere that Isabella of Castile refused to marry Catherine of Aragon to Arthur Tudor until the pretender (Perkin Warbeck) or any other threats to the Tudor throne were taken care of (killed). Would she see Henry Tudor as a threat to Edward’s throne and expect his demise, also? Or is she going to see his claim as no threat at all, and make no such demand? Or, demand that he continue to live in exile?

Considering that in 1482 the succession is Edward IV>Edward, Prince of Wales>Richard of Shrewsbury>their sisters>Richard, Duke of Gloucester (deceased)>Edward of Middleham>Edward, Earl of Warwick>Margaret of Clarence, I'm guessing Isabel can't fall back on that defense. Also, the succession's been secure since Tewkesbury (no Lancastrian uprisings - unlike Harry Tudor's rule where we saw Pole, Simnel, Warbeck, all stage uprisings against the crown because of nobody (except maybe Tudor himself) being certain of what became of the princes in the Tower (I'm including Warwick under that heading). It wasn't like after Bosworth where he had Richard III's body displayed for all to see that no one could claim to be Richard who'd escaped. And Tudor is regarded as a bit of a joke, his claim is through a line barred from inheriting and through a woman at that - even Edward IV regarded him as more of an irritation (and that because he couldn't get his hands on him in Brittany) than anything else.

If on the off-chance that Isabella of Aragon fails to give Edward a son, obviously the next in line would be Richard of Shrewsbury and his heirs. However, if a Treaty between France and England took place due to Anne’s marriage to Richard, and it specified that the Duke of Brittany could not also become King of England, would we see a potential younger son of Richard take the throne? Especially if Edward outlives his brother, if an elder son of Richard is already Duke of Brittany, would his younger brother take the throne? Or is this just opening up a whole can of worms for WotR 2.0 down the line. What would happen here?

More likely that Richard of Shrewsbury succeeds as Richard III (after all, he himself is not duke of Brittany, his wife is), and the treaty is upheld by him nominating a younger son (if he has more than one) or a daughter (if he has only one) to succeed Anne as duchess. She (Anne) was very concerned with Breton independence (even trying to name her younger daughter sa heiress when the elder married a French prince), so the PU between England and Brittany would only be temporary. If Edward V outlives Richard, then Ricky's eldest son succeeds as king of England, second son/daughter as duke/duchess of Brittany.

Was there a specific age when a King was deemed to have reached his majority? I have read conflicting articles, with ages ranging from 16, 18 to 21. And others which say that it wasn’t about the King’s age, but when Parliament/Council felt he was mature enough to rule alone. Can anyone shed any light on this?

AFAIK in England it was sort of flexible. Henry VIII named an age for Edward VI in his will IIRC, chances are good that Edward IV did as well. James II certainly named an age of majority for James Francis Edward in his will, wherein he appointed Mary of Modena regent until Jamie reaching said age.
 
There would be a dowry paid - part of Fernando's issue (and not just his, Maximilian I too) with the English betrothals OTL was that Edward IV wanted to marry his daughters so grandly, but was reluctant to give up the moneys for dowries as one writer said "he expected his daughters to bring their looks alone to their marriages". The marriage contract would usually include an official alliance/gifts/treaty etc as a matter of course. As to the cost-benefit analysis - one only has to look at the fact that Isabel is the oldest daughter of two reigning monarchs (which means she will be bringing a rather large dowry - or at least this will be expected). Katie of York OTOH is the second-youngest daughter of the king of England - and by the time of the marriage (unless Edward IV is living longer), the king's little sister (which means that her dowry is going to be far smaller) since by the time the marriage takes place, Edward V might have his own daughters to worry about dowering - and there'll be substantial amounts expected of them, given who their mother is (a Spanish infanta vs. some English gentlewoman widow). Which might mean that a second Anglo-Spanish match doesn't pan out, since Fernando and Isabel might demand a price too high for marriage to their only son and heir.

That's actually a really good point about CoY. I would have liked to match them because I think she could have given him a child, maybe even two before he died of ill health. But, realistically, you are right about her being maybe a bit too far down the pecking order to be a realistic choice. More so when you consider the fact that the marriage is not even given to take place for quite a while because she is 3/4 years old in 1483, and even if they did intially plan for it to go ahead, alot can change in (at least) 12 years. Do we know how much Isabella of Aragon would have brought, dowry wise? How much was Catherine of Aragon's?
 
Considering that in 1482 the succession is Edward IV>Edward, Prince of Wales>Richard of Shrewsbury>their sisters>Richard, Duke of Gloucester (deceased)>Edward of Middleham>Edward, Earl of Warwick>Margaret of Clarence, I'm guessing Isabel can't fall back on that defense. Also, the succession's been secure since Tewkesbury (no Lancastrian uprisings - unlike Harry Tudor's rule where we saw Pole, Simnel, Warbeck, all stage uprisings against the crown because of nobody (except maybe Tudor himself) being certain of what became of the princes in the Tower (I'm including Warwick under that heading). It wasn't like after Bosworth where he had Richard III's body displayed for all to see that no one could claim to be Richard who'd escaped. And Tudor is regarded as a bit of a joke, his claim is through a line barred from inheriting and through a woman at that - even Edward IV regarded him as more of an irritation (and that because he couldn't get his hands on him in Brittany) than anything else.

I believed that Warwick (and his sister, Maggie) were passed over in favour of Lincoln, due to his father's attainder? I could be wrong, and it was just a reason that Richard III gave to take the throne, but if not... Warwick and his sister are left out of the succession. And, I know that Salic Law didn't legally apply in England at the time, but at this point no female heir has actually been crowned Queen. Is it likely that his sisters would be Edward's heirs? I see it more likely being, if it was to pass through the female line, going to EoY's sons, then Cecily's and so on. I cannot see EoY actually taking the throne if both her brothers have died without issue.
 
That's actually a really good point about CoY. I would have liked to match them because I think she could have given him a child, maybe even two before he died of ill health. But, realistically, you are right about her being maybe a bit too far down the pecking order to be a realistic choice. More so when you consider the fact that the marriage is not even given to take place for quite a while because she is 3/4 years old in 1483, and even if they did intially plan for it to go ahead, alot can change in (at least) 12 years. Do we know how much Isabella of Aragon would have brought, dowry wise? How much was Catherine of Aragon's?

Don't forget, that according to some sources, Isabella had a stillborn/miscarried son in 1483 at Setenil near Cadix. If that son were to be born alive, it could radically alter things in Spain (albeit not at first).

As to Katherine of Aragon's dowry, I'm not sure, but it must've been reasonably impressive that Henry VII didn't wanna let go of it between 1501 and 1509.
 
Joanna of Portugal is also proposed to marry Charles VIII, so who is to say that Charles VIII will honor the treaty to marry Margaret, the marriage with Joanna can only happen if Louis XI lives longer than OTL.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget, that according to some sources, Isabella had a stillborn/miscarried son in 1483 at Setenil near Cadix. If that son were to be born alive, it could radically alter things in Spain (albeit not at first).

As to Katherine of Aragon's dowry, I'm not sure, but it must've been reasonably impressive that Henry VII didn't wanna let go of it between 1501 and 1509.

I am presuming you mean Isabella of Castile, and I actually can’t find anything referencing a stillborn or miscarried son in 1483. Do you have a link to an article on it or anything?

And, apparently the dowry of Catherine of Aragon was 200,000. No bloody wonder Henry VII refused to be parted with it. Is it safe to assume that Isabella of Aragon’s dowry would be of a similar amount?

Joanna of Portugal is also proposed to marry Charles VIII, so who is to say that Charles VIII will honor the treaty to marry Margaret, the marriage with Joanna can only happen if Louis XI lives longer than OTL.

I read that Joanna of Portugal refused the proposal from Charles VIII, that she never even considered it? I could be wrong, but it seems that any betrothal between Joanna and Charles never really left the beginning stages of negotiations and would not likely succeed, considering her aversion to marriage and wish to remain in a convent. Of corse, she could be forced into it, but I don’t think I will be allowing Louis XI to live too much longer than he did originally, anyway.

Although, any potential marriage between Margaret of Austria and Charles VIII depends on the Treaty of Arras(1482) still taking place, which could have been avoided with the survival of Mary the Rich when she went hunting in March 1482. If I wanted to avoid this I could find a way for her to survive. Margaret of York, close with her stepdaughter, Mary, could be in mourning for her brother, Dickon (Richard, Duke of Gloucester), and instead of hunting with her husband, like Mary originally planned, she remains behind with her stepmother to comfort her as she grieves the loss. Thus, she survives.
 
Last edited:
I am presuming you mean Isabella of Castile, and I actually can’t find anything referencing a stillborn or miscarried son in 1483. Do you have a link to an article on it or anything?

And, apparently the dowry of Catherine of Aragon was 200,000. No bloody wonder Henry VII refused to be parted with it. Is it safe to assume that Isabella of Aragon’s dowry would be of a similar amount?

Here you go. It's not proof exactly. I misremembered the date, it was 1484 not 1483, but I figure one can always allow for a second son to be born to her, either there, or Katherine of Aragon is born male. There was apparently another miscarriage/stillbirth in 1490.

As to the dowry amount, Isabel is likely to have a larger sum than Katherine, since if Juan dies with no issue, she's the heiress presumptive to Spain.
 
Here you go. It's not proof exactly. I misremembered the date, it was 1484 not 1483, but I figure one can always allow for a second son to be born to her, either there, or Katherine of Aragon is born male. There was apparently another miscarriage/stillbirth in 1490.

As to the dowry amount, Isabel is likely to have a larger sum than Katherine, since if Juan dies with no issue, she's the heiress presumptive to Spain.

1. Isabel, 1470.
2. Miscarried son, 1475.
3. Juan, 1478.
4. Juana, 1479.
5+6. María and a stillborn twin sister, 1482.
7. miscarriage 1484
8. Catalina, 1485.
9. Another miscarriage (what sex?), 1490

In bold are the dates she could have a son. I think a second son for Isabella could be really interesting, especially if Juan has no surviving issue like in OTL. However, which year I would choose would entirely depend on what I intend for the second son in my TL. Perhaps as a husband for CoY or even Bridget of York, less likely considering her parents planned for her to enter the church from birth, but with Edward IV gone and Edward V in charge, he might concede to marrying Bridget to this second son if IoC wishes for her sons bride to be closer in age. Would Isabella and Ferdinand be more open to marrying one of the York girls to their second son?
 
In bold are the dates she could have a son. I think a second son for Isabella could be really interesting, especially if Juan has no surviving issue like in OTL. However, which year I would choose would entirely depend on what I intend for the second son in my TL. Perhaps as a husband for CoY or even Bridget of York, less likely considering her parents planned for her to enter the church from birth, but with Edward IV gone and Edward V in charge, he might concede to marrying Bridget to this second son if IoC wishes for her sons bride to be closer in age. Would Isabella and Ferdinand be more open to marrying one of the York girls to their second son?

Bridget was pledged to the church from birth, which was a pretty serious business at the time. So, I'm not sure if Edward V would disobey his parents' wishes in this regard. The common reason cited for why Edward IV/Elizabeth Wydeville pledged her was because she was reportedly sickly. This comes from a misreading of a text from the time which cites the reason for Bridget's absence from an official occasion, as her "being sick in the great wardrobe" or some such. Her mother taking sanctuary at Westminster didn't do her health any favours. The only reference to Bridget getting married is when she is included in a letter to James III, king of Scots, offering her, or the Lady Anne as a bride for the future James IV. But considering Isabel's own piety, she wouldn't "force"/"expect" Edward to break his parents' promise to the church.
 
Top