Richard III of England married Elizabeth of York: An Idea and Maybe Later a Timeline

I’ve always thought Richard III of England marrying his niece Elizabeth of York was icky, but it’s also something I think has potential and since Richard is getting a bit of attention at the moment he’s my take on it all.

Now you could quite easily have Richard III marry his niece, but to have it stick is harder, and no matter the context it is always going to be controversial. But if, say Joanna of Portugal fails to live up to her bargain (possible) or dies on the journey there. That, plus added pressure, and maybe rumours that his de la Pole cousins can't be trusted, might force Richard into a marriage with Elizabeth. Say he wins against Henry Tudor in 1485, Joanna dies en route in 1486, and in 1487, with no clear option for a bride, he marries his niece, maybe having applied for a dispension to marry her as a last resort sort of thing after Joanna is made unavailable. They have the first of a few children in 1488, but it's probably no more than 3-4, as Richard didn't sire that many children OTL, and it's a fairly close marriage genetically. So, say, 2 sons and a daughter, with a stillborn child of either sex to end it off. Here's an example of how this family tree much start looking like:

*

Richard III, King of England (b.1452) m. Elizabeth of York (b.1466) (a)

1a) Edward, Prince of Wales (b.1488)

2a) Cecily, Princess of England (b.1491)

3a) Richard, Duke of York (b.1493)

4a) Stillborn Son (c.1496)​

*

Now I'm not saying they might not potentially have more, but let's say that, for this example, they only have this. Marrying Elizabeth doesn't really dilute the "royal blood" of the children so to speak, but the uncle/niece marriage is going endear Richard to his fellow Kings, and while they're not going to be immediately ignored for the marriage pool, it'll be harder to find them partners easily, particularly as European monarchs had better options to choose from.

In another world, the easiest choice for Richard would be France, to prevent a repeat of the Anglo/French Wars. He's not so strong a King as to be able to leave his country to wage war for a little bit, so it makes sense to push for his strongest opponent. However, France really doesn't have many options from the main royal line. Maybe Suzanne de Bourbon would work, but until she has a brother, Anne of France, Duchess of Bourbon isn't going to let her daughter marry anyone but her rival for the Duchy of Bourbon. Margaret of Angouleme would make a great match for Richard, Duke of York but that relies on her being available at the right time, and OTL that was not the case. We'll put a pin in her and come back further into the timeline I'm going over here, but let's say France, as of the late 1490's, has no French Princesses or Princes available for the English Royals.

So who do they go for? Edward, Prince of Wales would make a good husband for Catherine of Aragon, who is a favourite to marry Richard III's alternate timeline eldest son, and for a reason. She's beautiful, intelligent and probably the most eligible match that would even be considered for the young Edward, so she's probably going to immediately be put on if Richard can get it. She does not, however, have a younger sister or niece that is easily available for the brother, and no brother or nephew available for the Princess Cecily, so that's unlikely.

So who's likely for Princess Cecily? Well, if her aunt and namesake doesn't marry him, I'd say James IV, King of Scots. Old for her, he's not the perfect husband, but if there's no other option, he's an ally England wants to ensure peace and an easy turnover of power between Richard III and his son. However, let's say he's married elsewhere in this timeline, and his son is a bit young for Cecily. My idea is that James marries an escaped Margaret of Clarence and tries to use her claim, with theoretical support from France, to take the English Throne, which actually makes an Anglo/Scottish union less likely that OTL for a bit so that's nice, and also may lead to another match for Cecily. That is, one of James IV's brothers, probably James of Ross, the favourite brother. Yes, if we have James of Ross leave to England and have Richard invade Scotland and place Ross as his puppet King and son-in-law, you'd have an interesting situation, particularly if James IV has a son with Margaret of Clarence, but let’s say there’s no son by the time Richard invades of Ross’ behalf. The former King and Queen are going to be separated, partially as punishment for Margaret defecting, and if, say, they have already had a daughter and no son as of yet, there's going to be increased pressure for Cecily to have a son and that son is going to marry his cousin to prevent issues in future for Scotland.

Richard, Duke of York is still unattached at this point, but by, say, 1505, we have England having successfully involved themselves in Scotland, having removed one King (either in exile or in captivity, let's say exile for the fun of it), and bringing a new one, with the heir (the Earl of Mar) in safe keeping if he doesn’t behave. If Cecily has a son around this time, it’s a little young for Margaret of Clarence’s potential daughter, but not so much that it won’t at least be informally thought of, at least until later. That means the Duke of York needs a wife, and Margaret of Angouleme isn’t it. Here, we have James IV off in exile, most likely in France, and thus that makes France unavailable for marriages. Navarre would work, but it’s so out of the way it’s better to leave it, and instead, let’s say he has no firm betrothal, but there’s discussions being had, as there always is.

*

Richard III, King of England (b.1452) m. Elizabeth of York (b.1466) (a)

1a) Edward, Prince of Wales (b.1488) m. Catherine of Aragon (b.1485) (a)

2a) Cecily, Princess of England (b.1491) m. James V, King of Scotland (b.1476) (a)

1a) James Stewart, Duke of Rothesay (b.1505) b. Margaret Stewart, Princess of Scotland (b.1497)​
3a) Richard, Duke of York (b.1493)

4a) Stillborn Son (c.1496)​
---

James IV, King of Scotland (b.1473) m. Margaret of Clarence (b.1473) (a)

1a) Margaret Stewart, Princess of Scotland (b.1497) b. James Stewart, Duke of Rothesay (b.1505)​

*

Now that means that, as of 1505, we have Richard III, King of England in a pretty good place. He’s done what no English King has, by taking and holding Scotland, and his eldest two children are starting families. If no one has forgotten, if his rule is going strong and no one has any reason to complain, it’s likely he and Elizabeth of York are fairly popular, particularly in the North, who will be thinking of him very well indeed. Yes, the drama with the death of Anne Neville won’t be forgotten, but he’s the hero who squashed the Scots, and that will give him an aura of awe.

By 1505, if Catherine of Aragon and her new husband aren’t expecting, they probably will be soon, and without her OTL trauma, it’s likely her anorexia never develops or develops in a less severe way, and thus we can expect the first of a few healthy children by 1510, say a daughter in 1507 (I’m guessing she doesn’t get sent to England until 1505/1506, after Scotland is settled), followed by a son in 1508 and another in 1510. I’m not saying she’ll have 10 sons and live to her late 60’s, but with a healthier lifestyle and a kinder father-in-law, she’s going to be able to have more and healthier children.

Now to discuss what Elizabeth of York is doing, we’ll have to quickly establish what made her act the way she did OTL: Margaret Beaufort. Without a rival mother-in-law, Elizabeth of York is likely to be a more visible part of the monarchy, although her scandalous marriage in itself is likely to force the already naturally shy woman to stay away from doing anything that might smack of a “loose woman” or anything of the like. She’ll probably maintain the same style of reputation she did OTL, for a kind disposition and a beautiful personage, although perhaps with more mention than she did as Henry VII’s wife. Possibly ending her string of pregnancies in the 1490’s rather than 1500’s will allow her to be more active, and while we have no evidence she’s likely to be involved in the actual invasion of Scotland, she will likely be involved in her cousin’s captivity, maybe even having her as a “guest”.

This leaves, by 1510, how the issue of two Scottish Kings would be dealt with. Now, you could claim the “throne by force, but that means James IV is able to come back and force his way back, so let’s say the other, more legally interesting way happens. They declare him legally dead. Say, around 1507, they declare that he legally died shortly after he married Margaret of Clarence, making James of Ross the rightful King, but also in some ways securing James IV’s daughter’s rights, so that they can pass on to her future husband, the Duke of Rothesay. It’s a windy legal road but one I can see being made to shut James up. Hell, they might even marry Margaret of Clarence off to truly seal the deal, if Richard III is feeling ballsy enough. But let’s say the newly minted Queen Dowager of Scotland is left alone, in Elizabeth of York’s care. Up until Elizabeth of York dies, around 1512.

*

Richard III, King of England (b.1452) m. Elizabeth of York (b.1466: d.1512) (a)

1a) Edward, Prince of Wales (b.1488) m. Catherine of Aragon (b.1485) (a)

1a) Mary, Princess of England (b.1507)

2a) Richard, Prince of England (b.1508)

3a) George, Duke of Gloucester (b.1510)​
2a) Cecily, Princess of England (b.1491) m. James V, King of Scotland (b.1476) (a)

1a) James Stewart, Duke of Rothesay (b.1505) b. Margaret Stewart, Princess of Scotland (b.1497)​
3a) Richard, Duke of York (b.1493)

4a) Stillborn Son (c.1496)​
---

James IV, King of Scotland (b.1473) m. Margaret of Clarence (b.1473) (a)

1a) Margaret Stewart, Princess of Scotland (b.1497) b. James Stewart, Duke of Rothesay (b.1505)​

*

With Elizabeth of York dead, Richard, now about 60, is going to feel the weight of the world on his shoulders. He’s got so much responsibility resting on his shoulders, from making sure Scotland stays stable to preparing his eldest son is ready for the throne and his younger son is safely, at least betrothed. And so, around this time he’s probably going to look for either a Burgundese bride or someone connected to the Hapsburgs. Let’s say that he’s fine with waiting, and in 1512 the Duke of York is finally betrothed with full intention to Dorothea of Denmark, niece to the King of Denmark and cousin to the future King of Denmark, Christina of Denmark, betrothed to Isabella of Burgundy. It isn’t a grand match with much potential for greatness, but lord knows Richard knows it’s better for a second son not to get too far ahead of themselves, and it’s easier if she’s royal but not a Princess. The dowry isn’t amazing but the Duke of York inherited most of Elizabeth of York’s private wealth, so money isn’t a problem. The Duke of York mostly just agrees. He’s been theoretically unattached since birth, and going for a little longer won’t hurt anything.

In France, a theoretically dead James IV writes to the Pope asking if his theoretical deadness means he’s free to marry and sire an heir, and if not, can the Pope please annul his marriage so he can take a new wife and that way sire and heir. However, he doesn’t receive anything promising either way, and in a fit of annoyance, remarries anyway to Catherine of Navarre, teenaged daughter of the Queen of Navarre, who agrees to the marriage believing the Pope has okayed it and James has France waiting to invade England. Instead, she finds the King of Scots is penniless, the King of France is too busy negotiating with Burgundy for the hand of Eleanor of Burgundy as his bride to even consider invading Burgundy’s ally England to give Scotland back to James, and that her precious, always pious daughter is trapped in a bigamous marriage. The Pope excommunicates the King, who leaves with a pregnant Catherine of Navarre to Paris before the news can reach the Queen of Navarre, who is trapped herself, pregnant for the thirteenth time, and the last dregs of her country be swallowed up by the King of Aragon. James will never be a popular man in Navarre or any of the d’Albert lands again.

That being said, he’s a fair bit more popular in Paris, as many lawyers and men of religion agree he should be able to take a wife, although they all agree he should have just reapplied to the Pope and not entered a bigamous marriage, particularly to Catherine of Navarre, a plain, pious young woman racked with guilt over what she believes to be an unholy union. They two are, however, allowed to remain in the city until Eleanor of Burgundy arrives in Paris, and then they are to leave to an establishment in the country, where Catherine gives birth to a son, named James for his father. It’s great for James IV and only James IV, who believes that Scotland will flock to him and his son as rightful rulers. Unfortunately, Scotland is actually quite fond of their new monarchs.

Yes, James V and Cecily of England are enormously popular. Despite only two children surviving so far, but 1515 they’re the image of prosperity and wealth. The Queen is a woman of traditional beauty and elegant style, while her husband’s natural affability pleases everyone he comes in contact with. Those who don’t like how they came to the throne are fine with the two themselves, and in 1520, the country celebrates the marriage of James and Margaret Stewart, now Duke and Duchess of Rothesay, future King and Queen. Both are tall and handsome, and that height makes many forget that the new Duchess of Rothesay is 8 years her husband’s senior, although none forget that she was his rival for the throne. They two are, however, a united front, particularly against James IV in France.

France would undergo a regency from 1515 onwards, with the death of Louis XII, King of France and the succession of the elder of his two sons from a brief marriage to Eleanor of Burgundy. His Queen Dowager would shortly be shipped back to Burgundy, upon orders of her brother and grandfather, after rumours circulated the Count of Angouleme meant to divorce his pregnant wife and marry the Dowager, which was not to be by her family’s standards. Instead, she married the King of Portugal in 1518, and was left a widow again in 1522. Her eldest son was betrothed, in 1516, to Louise of Angouleme, the daughter of the Regent and his niece. The Pope did not support the betrothal.

It’s around 1521 that the rot of time truly begins to take Richard III, King of England, and he worries for his country, even as his younger son marries the woman of his wishes, although half-heartedly and without true excitement. He sees it through until Catherine of Aragon’s latest and final pregnancy, a daughter named Mary for the first daughter of the Prince and Princess of Wales, who unfortunately did not make it to adulthood. Despite this and other losses, the King knows he leaves a strong Kingdom, with a good King and an obvious line of succession. Scotland will need support, but he’s sure his son is up to the task.

*

Richard III, King of England (b.1452) m. Elizabeth of York (b.1466: d.1512) (a)

1a) Edward, Prince of Wales (b.1488) m. Catherine of Aragon (b.1485) (a)

1a) Mary, Princess of England (b.1507: d.1512)

2a) Richard, Prince of England (b.1508)

3a) George, Duke of Gloucester (b.1510)

4a) Stillborn Daughter (c.1511)

5a) Edward, Duke of Clarence (b.1513)

6a) Margaret, Princess of England (b.1515)

7a) Stillborn Son (c.1517)

8a) Thomas, Earl of March (b.1518: d.1520)

9a) Mary, Princess of England (b.1521)​
2a) Cecily, Princess of England (b.1491) m. James V, King of Scotland (b.1476) (a)

1a) James Stewart, Duke of Rothesay (b.1505) b. Margaret Stewart, Princess of Scotland (b.1497)

2a) Stillborn Son (c.1508)

3a) Alexander Stewart, Duke of Ross (b.1513)

4c) Isabel Stewart, Princess of Scotland (b.1517)​
3a) Richard, Duke of York (b.1493) m. Dorothea of Denmark (b.1504) (a)

4a) Stillborn Son (c.1496)​
---

James IV, King of Scotland (b.1473) m. Margaret of Clarence (b.1473) (a), Catherine of Navarre (b.1495) (b) -bigamous-

1a) Margaret Stewart, Princess of Scotland (b.1497) b. James Stewart, Duke of Rothesay (b.1505)

2b) James Stewart, *titular* Duke of Rothesay (b.1513)

3b) John Stewart, *titular* Duke of Ross (b.1515)​

---

Louis XII, King of France (b.1462: d.1515) m. Joan of France, Duchess of Berry (b.1464: d.1505) (a), Anne I, Duchess of Brittany (b.1477: d.1512) (b), Eleanor of Brittany (b.1498) (c)

1b) Claude I, Duchess of Brittany (b.1499) m. Francis I, Count of Angouleme (b.1496) (a)

1a) Louise of Angouleme (b.1516) b. Louis XIII, King of France (b.1514)

2a) Stillborn Son (c.1517)

3a) Charlotte of Angouleme (b.1518)

4a) Charles of Angouleme (b.1520)​
2b) Miscarriage (c.1500)

3b) Stillborn Son (c.1503)

4b) Stillborn Son (c.1503)

5b) Miscarriage (c.1505)

6b) Miscarriage (c.1508)

7b) Miscarriage (c.1509)

8b) Renee, Princess of France (b.1510)

9b) Stillborn Son (c.1512)

10c) Louis XIII, King of France (b.1514) b. Louise of Angouleme (b.1516)

11c) Charles, Duke of Orleans (b.1515)​
 
Last edited:
Why's Richard going with OTL James IV's brother? He/Edward IV and Albany were in cahoots with plans to switch the Anglo-Scots marriage beteen the duke of Rothesay (James IV) to Albany, and then after the publication of the Titulus Regius, switch Cecily out for Anne de la Pole.

Also, the Habsburgs don't really have a reason to yank Eleonore from Paris. Angoulême can sniff at her skirts all he wants, but as long as she's mom to the future king, she's likely to lead France in a less anti-Habsburg stance than OTL. A mere rumour of Angoulême wanting to marry her wouldn't be reason enough. Yes, Claude's sickly blah-blah, but the woman MANAGED to have 7kids before the 8e pregnancy killed her, as long as she's alive, the rumours stay just that, rumours.

Actually surprised that Claude wasn't on @BlueFlowwer's list of women deserving better.
 
Last edited:
It's not only icky, it's an idea that needs to just die, exposed on a hill like a defective Spartan child.

Come now, had it not been for a defective Spartan child, Leonidas would still be trying to hold Thermopylae :p

I get why people have their hate on for Richard, but what I don't get is why everyone thinks that him marrying his niece is outside the realms of possibility (him needing a foreign alliance blah-blah and a dowry etc aside). It wasn't as though uncle-niece marriages was entirely an unknown concept. Uncommon certainly (at least on the scale of later Habsburg inbreeding).

Juana la Beltraneja married her uncle
Germaine de Foix wed her great-uncle
Ferrante II of Naples and Philippe the Good of Burgundy both wed their aunts (in Philippe's case it was aunt by marriage rather than blood but the church makes no difference between the two when issuing a dispensation).
The mothers of both Isabel I of Castile and Manoel of Portugal were born of an uncle-niece marriage.
George, duke of Clarence made a suit for Marie of Burgundy (which her stepmother, George's sister, encouraged)

So, as I say not uncommon, but certainly far more common in the 15th century
until we get to the Bourbon uncle-niece marriages of the 19th century (the 16th/17th century Habsburgs have got nothing on those)
 
I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying it's a bad idea. With his wife dead, R3 needs a foreign bride who will bring an alliance and a dowry to England. And there's a whole 'nother thread on this.
 
Ok so, to discuss some of the criticism and ideas put forth so far.

In many ways, marrying Elizabeth does solve some problems, although yes the best case scenario for Richard is a foreign bride. In this timeline, he did go out of his way to engage himself to a foreign bride, but unfortunately she did not make the trip to England. Left without a clear and obvious second choice, in desperate need of an heir, he chooses to marry his niece. The reasons might vary, and in the case of my timeline (if I choose to expand it) the reasoning would be more along the lines of him wanting her specifically as a wife than not, but while there would be problems, they're not so big as to make the match unworkable for a timeline.

Elizabeth as a bride is attractive, and not just because she's was a beautiful woman. She brings with her an almost guaranteed fertility, and ties the royal and Gloucester York claims together nicely. To add to this, despite the Woodvilles being somewhat brought low, they're still married into many of the great families of England, and thus that blood does have at least some merit. Given that Henry Tudor promised to marry her, there was obviously some support surrounding hers and her sister's claims and if Richard needs a bride fast, which he would want given his position, is it not better to take a bride who will give him children, enforce the blood rights of his children and might even bring him more support throughout England. This doesn't put aside the faults in the marriage, but in this scenario he has chosen to marry her regardless.

Richard is not marrying Elizabeth of York. And the chances of him living to 1521 are rather nil.

It's not only icky, it's an idea that needs to just die, exposed on a hill like a defective Spartan child.

This type of comment in particular is actually something I wanted to quickly hit on, because I've seen this a lot recently and it's actually quite rude. Unless someone has put forth an idea that cannot possibly be done, such as Henry VIII building a rocket to the moon, then don't say it is not happening. Obviously, Richard III DID marry Elizabeth of York in this timeline, and saying he couldn't or wouldn't without providing evidence is actually insulting. You can refute the idea and say why you don't think it's likely, but these sorts of comments really add nothing but negativity and make it less appealing to put in work to timelines. These things take time and energy and I'd rather help people create things rather than telling them that they're impossible. This website is about using creativity and collaboration in the examination and reinvention of history.

Think about it like improve. Never say no to an idea, but try and build upon it and make it make sense. If you cannot add value, don't comment.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying it's a bad idea. With his wife dead, R3 needs a foreign bride who will bring an alliance and a dowry to England. And there's a whole 'nother thread on this.

I know there's another thread currently discussing this topic, but I specifically wanting to put forth my idea and see how things might be improved and changed. Richard III surviving threads tend to diefy the man and make him get everything (which is fun and I enjoy those timelines greatly) but I wanted a Richard able to make mistakes, and in this case he marries a woman not perfect for his position. It's a match made at least partially in passion, and I wanted to ensure there's a different kind of realism. Not everyone in medieval/renaissance Europe made marriages purely based on logic, it often had to do with passion as well. People are still people, and as has been pointed out previously, uncle/niece marriages are not unheard of in this period of history and thus it's not an impossible match.

Why's Richard going with OTL James IV's brother? He/Edward IV and Albany were in cahoots with plans to switch the Anglo-Scots marriage beteen the duke of Rothesay (James IV) to Albany, and then after the publication of the Titulus Regius, switch Cecily out for Anne de la Pole.

Also, the Habsburgs don't really have a reason to yank Eleonore from Paris. Angoulême can sniff at her skirts all he wants, but as long as she's mom to the future king, she's likely to lead France in a less anti-Habsburg stance than OTL. A mere rumour of Angoulême wanting to marry her wouldn't be reason enough. Yes, Claude's sickly blah-blah, but the woman MANAGED to have 7kids before the 8e pregnancy killed her, as long as she's alive, the rumours stay just that, rumours.

I honestly forgot about Albany when putting this together, which was a mistake. He honestly makes a more likely candidate, but is in France when most of this is happening. Yes it's likely he comes up, but Ross also makes sense due to the fact he is not only a son of the main royal line, but that he was more popular than his brother at the time. If he can convince Richard he's more likely to take the throne than Albany, I can see that happening. However, I do ultimately agree that Albany, with his previous connection to England, is more likely, particularly since he's closer in age to the Princess Cecily, although still potentially a decade older.

As for Eleanor's removal from France, I wasn't clear. Her family wanted her to make a second marriage, and with the Angouleme rumours, they knew it was safer to remove the young woman from France and have her in their possession. Yes, it's good to have someone in France protecting their interests and making sure the little King and his brother know how much they should value their Hapsburg connection, but it's not worth letting Eleanor's reputation being ruined, as that reflects badly on the Hapsburgs as a whole. That, plus a likely desire by the 17 year old girl to return home (she was quick to leave her daughter for her brother's court OTL) means it's likely she leaves, at least in my opinion. And as to Claude, the rumours had him set her aside, which was unlikely (she was Duchess of Brittany by rights and thus unlikely to be set aside to make another match and take Brittany away from Francis, but that's that).

I get why people have their hate on for Richard, but what I don't get is why everyone thinks that him marrying his niece is outside the realms of possibility (him needing a foreign alliance blah-blah and a dowry etc aside). It wasn't as though uncle-niece marriages was entirely an unknown concept. Uncommon certainly (at least on the scale of later Habsburg inbreeding).

Juana la Beltraneja married her uncle
Germaine de Foix wed her great-uncle
Ferrante II of Naples and Philippe the Good of Burgundy both wed their aunts (in Philippe's case it was aunt by marriage rather than blood but the church makes no difference between the two when issuing a dispensation).
The mothers of both Isabel I of Castile and Manoel of Portugal were born of an uncle-niece marriage.
George, duke of Clarence made a suit for Marie of Burgundy (which her stepmother, George's sister, encouraged)

So, as I say not uncommon, but certainly far more common in the 15th century
until we get to the Bourbon uncle-niece marriages of the 19th century (the 16th/17th century Habsburgs have got nothing on those)

Thank you for pointing this out. And the idea that every King needed a foreign bride and an alliance is kind of ridiculous. Yes, it was the norm, but let's not pretend marriages of love and passion didn't happen for the nobility and even the royalty. Usually they put the country and diplomacy first, but it's not unthinkable for this to happen.
 
Richard did not need a heir as much as he needed a alliance, a dowry to the treasury and a capable queen to manage the kingdom with. Why else would he have choosen Joanna of Portugal who was 33 years old, a lady of formidable character, with a proven record for regency and the sister of the mightiest king in Europe? Who also hade a bloodline that would bring Lancaster blood to Richard's York line.

He could have made John De La Poole his heir, it was perhaps even in making. Barring Richard and Joanna having issue, John would have perhaps been made Prince of Wales.

And pardon me while I laught my ass off at the notion that Richard did not need a foreign bride and a alliance. He lived to see the shitstorm that Edward's "marriage of love and passionate" caused and no way in hell would he ever do that himself. Given the circumstances, it is unthinkable for this to happen again.
 
The problem with marrying Elisabeth is that it undermines his position, Richard had her and her siblings declared illegitimate to have his claim on the throne accepted so by marrying her it adds weight to his claim being iffy and provides the possibility of being bumped off in favour of her marrying someone else. Richard needs support more than he needs her blood - an heiress or dowered bride, preferably with a military alliance attached.
 
Yes, that is more important than Elizabeth's childbearing potential. And if Eleanor of Aquantine could provide Henry II with half a dozin children after 30, then Joanna can manage a child or three.
 
Ok so, to discuss some of the criticism and ideas put forth so far.

<snip>
This type of comment in particular is actually something I wanted to quickly hit on, because I've seen this a lot recently and it's actually quite rude. Unless someone has put forth an idea that cannot possibly be done, such as Henry VIII building a rocket to the moon, then don't say it is not happening. Obviously, Richard III DID marry Elizabeth of York in this timeline, and saying he couldn't or wouldn't without providing evidence is actually insulting. You can refute the idea and say why you don't think it's likely, but these sorts of comments really add nothing but negativity and make it less appealing to put in work to timelines. These things take time and energy and I'd rather help people create things rather than telling them that they're impossible. This website is about using creativity and collaboration in the examination and reinvention of history.

Think about it like improve. Never say no to an idea, but try and build upon it and make it make sense. If you cannot add value, don't comment.
<snip>
.

Seriously? You don't like the comment or agree with it so it's RUDE? And it should not be posted on a thread just because you started it? You haven't seen me rude. I voiced an opinion, it's my opinion and I'm not asking you to agree with it. That doesn't make my opinion RUDE just because you don't like it.
 
Seriously? You don't like the comment or agree with it so it's RUDE? And it should not be posted on a thread just because you started it? You haven't seen me rude. I voiced an opinion, it's my opinion and I'm not asking you to agree with it. That doesn't make my opinion RUDE just because you don't like it.

Ok so, I see I’ve not been clear and I would like to apologise for that. Rude was the wrong word, but comments along the lines of “it isn’t happening” without justification why are just plain unproductive. I don’t think anyone comes onto this forum for that, and that’s what I was trying to get at. I was a little mad when I first wrote that, and my tone was overly aggressive, but the point still stands. No one posts something with the want it’ll be completely rejected, and you can’t say an idea deserves to die. Every concept on this forum deserves the dignity of a respectful response, and I did not feel you or @BlueFlowwer were respectful in how you presented your criticism. I try very hard to add value to threads when I get involved and I don’t think it’s unfair to expect the same, and my response was an attempt of critique towards that attitude on this forum. Again, I’m sorry if it was overly aggressive and nasty, but my point still stands.
 
Let's start from the beginning, with the TITLE you put on the thread: "Richard III of England Married Elizabeth of York: An Idea and Maybe Later a Timeline" {Italics mine} The title implies you're exploring the idea and we (the other readers) can infer that you want input. You've not established that you are writing this 'story', you've openly said this is your idea and basically put it out for us to comment on.

You called out a reasonable observation on the life expectancy of the times in which Richard III lived and my opinion on the idea of Richard marrying his niece. You claim that's not respectful. How is not respectful?

I've always thought you were reasonable, been watching your comments and such for a while, why all of the sudden the uber-sensitivity?

If you ARE starting this as a TL, don't put "maybe later" in the title. Or, come post #9870654321(you know what I mean), put:

And the TL now starts:
"Tudor Falls: The Yorkist Wedding That Transformed England" (or whatever the heck you're calling it)


And then you start posting your TL. Then you don't get what you are now perceiving to be 'rude' comments, but you will still get comments. So far as I know, if you post it publicly, it's fair game for fan and foe and everyone in between.



 
I'm also iffy on the idea of Richard marrying Elizabeth of York (for essentially the same reasons outlined above: it undermining his regime and damaging his legitimacy, fuelling rumours he offed his wife) but, putting that aside...
  • What do Catesby and Ratcliffe think about this marriage, given their opposition to it IOTL? Has Richard alienated two of his diehard supporters, and can he afford to do that? I suppose you can avoid this issue by having them die at Bosworth (or alt-Bosworth).
  • What role, if any, does Dorset have in Richard's regime, now that he's a brother to the Queen? IOTL there were attempts to get him to defect back to Richard prior to Bosworth IIRC, and he was left behind in France by Henry because his loyalty was suspect.

I get why people have their hate on for Richard, but what I don't get is why everyone thinks that him marrying his niece is outside the realms of possibility (him needing a foreign alliance blah-blah and a dowry etc aside). It wasn't as though uncle-niece marriages was entirely an unknown concept. Uncommon certainly (at least on the scale of later Habsburg inbreeding).

Juana la Beltraneja married her uncle
Germaine de Foix wed her great-uncle
Ferrante II of Naples and Philippe the Good of Burgundy both wed their aunts (in Philippe's case it was aunt by marriage rather than blood but the church makes no difference between the two when issuing a dispensation).
The mothers of both Isabel I of Castile and Manoel of Portugal were born of an uncle-niece marriage.
George, duke of Clarence made a suit for Marie of Burgundy (which her stepmother, George's sister, encouraged)

So, as I say not uncommon, but certainly far more common in the 15th century
until we get to the Bourbon uncle-niece marriages of the 19th century (the 16th/17th century Habsburgs have got nothing on those)

I've sometimes seen it suggested (by people refuting the idea that Richard wanted to marry his niece) that the 15th-century English were less agreeable to/more icked out by uncle-niece marriages than their continental counterparts, any truth in that?
 
I've sometimes seen it suggested (by people refuting the idea that Richard wanted to marry his niece) that the 15th-century English were less agreeable to/more icked out by uncle-niece marriages than their continental counterparts, any truth in that?

I think that most of that theory is based on trying to explain why it DIDN'T happen OTL (I'm yet to see them say the French/anyone else were icked out by it and that's why it didn't happen there). But that's just my opinion
 
I've sometimes seen it suggested (by people refuting the idea that Richard wanted to marry his niece) that the 15th-century English were less agreeable to/more icked out by uncle-niece marriages than their continental counterparts, any truth in that?

I think that most of that theory is based on trying to explain why it DIDN'T happen OTL (I'm yet to see them say the French/anyone else were icked out by it and that's why it didn't happen there). But that's just my opinion

I've suggested in the past it's about ickiness but tbh it's more that
A) dispensation was harder to get [1]
B) early consolidation of royal territory and stricter male primogeniture reduced large family appanages [2]
Essentially outbreeding gained the king more than inbreeding did.

[1] The Popes had less to gain so the Archbishops were freer to adhere to canon law
[2] basically the lack of a direct male heir meant English noble property would mostly be divided among the direct female heirs and the title went into abeyance. This could largely be at the king's discretion.

(Edit: I'm aware I'm oversimplifying here but hope the general idea can be accepted as exceptions are few)
 
Last edited:
Top