Richard of Gloucester has and older legitimate son

Just as the title says. Say for whatever reason Edward iv allowed his brother Richard to marry Anne Neville in 1469, with their son Edward being born in 1470, and for whatever reason Warwick still rebels, other events go as otl and come 1485 and bosworth field what consequences might there be of Richarda son Edward was alive and older
 
Presumably Edward flees the country- assuming he was left in London for the Bosworth campaign (14-15 is maybe a little too young to be fighting) then Flanders is the obvious choice (his aunt Margaret Duchess of Burgundy provided support for Yorkist pretenders IOTL).

Richard's most loyal supporters- Lovell, the Stafford Brothers, Lincoln- will likely back him. Then, given he is an obviously legitimate royal heir (and not a Lambert Simnel), people will regard him less sceptically (also, Richard will likely have associated Edward with the court and kingship and such- so he's likely recognisable to many nobleman) and he may pick up more support.

The Howards were also among Richard's staunchest supporters- the 1st Duke of Norfolk died at Bosworth and his son the Earl of Surrey was captured, attainted and sent to the Tower. IOTL, Surrey refused to take part in a plot to free him from jail and fight for Simnel- maybe he'd be more willing to fight for a son of Richard III?

Would Richard have set up a betrothal for his son by the time of Bosworth? Who's available? Richard obviously looked to Iberia to find spouses for himself and Elizabeth of York IOTL. Would he be better off looking for a domestic match to shore up English support?
 
Last edited:
Presumably Edward flees the country- assuming he was left in London for the Bosworth campaign (14-15 is maybe a little too young to be fighting) then Flanders is the obvious choice (his aunt Margaret Duchess of Burgundy provided support for Yorkist pretenders IOTL).

Richard's most loyal supporters- Lovell, the Stafford Brothers, Lincoln- will likely back him. Then, given he is an obviously legitimate royal heir (and not a Lambert Simnel), people will regard him less sceptically (also, Richard will likely have associated Edward with the court and kingship and such- so he's likely recognisable to many nobleman) and he may pick up more support.

The Howards were also among Richard's staunchest supporters- the 1st Duke of Norfolk died at Bosworth and his son the Earl of Surrey was captured, attainted and sent to the Tower. IOTL, Surrey refused to take part in a plot to free him from jail and fight for Simnel- maybe he'd be more willing to fight for a son of Richard III?

Would Richard have set up a betrothal for his son by the time of Bosworth? Who's available? Richard obviously looked to Iberia to find spouses for himself and Elizabeth of York IOTL. Would he be better off looking for a domestic match to shore up English support?

Hmm intriguing, I suppose there wouldn't be enough men left for Edward to draw up support and advance on Henry Tudor post Bosworth?

Hmm, I suppose local options would be key, perhaps: Elizabeth Howard, otl mother of Anne Boelyn (though she is a bit young), perhaps ELizabeth of York, though she has by his father's actions been declared illegitimate, Elizabeth Stafford daughter of the 2nd Duke of Buckingham is an option as well. Alianore Percy daughter of the Earl of Northumberland?
 
Hmm intriguing, I suppose there wouldn't be enough men left for Edward to draw up support and advance on Henry Tudor post Bosworth?

Hmm, I suppose local options would be key, perhaps: Elizabeth Howard, otl mother of Anne Boelyn (though she is a bit young), perhaps ELizabeth of York, though she has by his father's actions been declared illegitimate, Elizabeth Stafford daughter of the 2nd Duke of Buckingham is an option as well. Alianore Percy daughter of the Earl of Northumberland?
Yeah,that's what I think is going to be the interesting part.With there being an obvious commonly accepted adult male to Richard,Richard's remaining army might rally and fight round 2 against Henry Tudor.
 
Yeah,that's what I think is going to be the interesting part.With there being an obvious commonly accepted adult male to Richard,Richard's remaining army might rally and fight round 2 against Henry Tudor.

Interesting, would they do that straight after Bosworth or would they need to regroup and retreat?
 
Is it possible that after Bosworth, should Richard III still die that his son would seek to marry Elizabeth of York-who would be his cousin-, to unite the two claims of the House of Yorl?
 
I know this isn't what you asked, but if he has an older son there likely wouldn't have been a Bosworth. Richard lost a lot of support when his heir died; one of the reasons his rule was acclaimed was that he represented stability and avoided the plague of a minority rule/further succession crisis. When his son died, suddenly a future succession crisis seemed all too real and even if he remarried and produced more heirs, they might very well be children at Richard's death. Others, too, saw his childlessness as god's judgment for his nephews, which seemed proof of his guilt in a very superstitious age. Richard himself seems to have become more bitter and less concerned with his popularity after losing his son (and wife).

An older male heir precludes all of that, so many who turned or wavered might very well not have.

That said, if his son is around 15 for a Bosworth, he's there. Richard, like his brother before him, put a lot of stock in martial valour...both had lead men into battle in their mid-teens, as had their brothers. Even the famously protective Margaret had allowed Prince Edward to take the field in his teens, much to her regret, because it was expected of royal teens.

Now that being true, the battle might have gone differently even if the dispositions had been the same as in real life. For one thing, though Northumberland would likely still retained much practical authority, it's probable that the Prince of Wales would at least have official/moral command of that battle (or much less likely the van) and in that case it seems impossible that Richard's left would just sit out the contest. Therefore it seems much more likely the Stanleys choose a different prevailing wind, and very unlikely Richard needs to lead that doomed last charge.

Those aside, if we assume all happens as in real life and the Prince survives, it's a very different scenario. People forget that even with the obvious heirs to the York line dead or doubtful, Bosworth was not the final act; Stoke Heath was one of the larger battles of the Cousins War, and that's with a dormant period and probable pretender. If the legit Prince of Wales is still out there, many forces will flock to him, particularly from the North and Ireland. Henry Tudor's support was buoyed by the very sense that he was an end to it all, however dubious; that's not true if Richard's son lives and leads an army. Additionally Burgundy probably lends a significant hand; his aunt would support him without a doubt, and there's the Burgundian need to balance French investment.

As mentioned, I think it improbable that a Bosworth does happen or follows the real life model in this scenario, but if it does I think the Wars of the Roses might well go on for much longer.
 
I know this isn't what you asked, but if he has an older son there likely wouldn't have been a Bosworth. Richard lost a lot of support when his heir died; one of the reasons his rule was acclaimed was that he represented stability and avoided the plague of a minority rule/further succession crisis. When his son died, suddenly a future succession crisis seemed all too real and even if he remarried and produced more heirs, they might very well be children at Richard's death. Others, too, saw his childlessness as god's judgment for his nephews, which seemed proof of his guilt in a very superstitious age. Richard himself seems to have become more bitter and less concerned with his popularity after losing his son (and wife).

An older male heir precludes all of that, so many who turned or wavered might very well not have.

That said, if his son is around 15 for a Bosworth, he's there. Richard, like his brother before him, put a lot of stock in martial valour...both had lead men into battle in their mid-teens, as had their brothers. Even the famously protective Margaret had allowed Prince Edward to take the field in his teens, much to her regret, because it was expected of royal teens.

Now that being true, the battle might have gone differently even if the dispositions had been the same as in real life. For one thing, though Northumberland would likely still retained much practical authority, it's probable that the Prince of Wales would at least have official/moral command of that battle (or much less likely the van) and in that case it seems impossible that Richard's left would just sit out the contest. Therefore it seems much more likely the Stanleys choose a different prevailing wind, and very unlikely Richard needs to lead that doomed last charge.

Those aside, if we assume all happens as in real life and the Prince survives, it's a very different scenario. People forget that even with the obvious heirs to the York line dead or doubtful, Bosworth was not the final act; Stoke Heath was one of the larger battles of the Cousins War, and that's with a dormant period and probable pretender. If the legit Prince of Wales is still out there, many forces will flock to him, particularly from the North and Ireland. Henry Tudor's support was buoyed by the very sense that he was an end to it all, however dubious; that's not true if Richard's son lives and leads an army. Additionally Burgundy probably lends a significant hand; his aunt would support him without a doubt, and there's the Burgundian need to balance French investment.

As mentioned, I think it improbable that a Bosworth does happen or follows the real life model in this scenario, but if it does I think the Wars of the Roses might well go on for much longer.

Hmm intriguing, and very true, I've always thought Bosworth came about about because of the Princes in the tower, Richard's growing seclusion in a selection of trusted friends, and Henry's pure opportunism. So if we say his son Edward is born in 1470, he'd be thirteen when his father becomes King (this might fit in with the scenario where Richard and Anne Neville marry long before they did otl, in this case late 1469.) Therefore, that raises the question, with regards to Anne's father, with both daughters married to Edward IV's brothers, does he remain loyal, or does he flee, and if so, I suppose he might push for Clarence, or perhaps go for Lancaster still?

On the note of things going as otl, might Edward, rally men from the field, if his father still dies at Bosworth?
 
Hmm intriguing, and very true, I've always thought Bosworth came about about because of the Princes in the tower, Richard's growing seclusion in a selection of trusted friends, and Henry's pure opportunism. So if we say his son Edward is born in 1470, he'd be thirteen when his father becomes King (this might fit in with the scenario where Richard and Anne Neville marry long before they did otl, in this case late 1469.) Therefore, that raises the question, with regards to Anne's father, with both daughters married to Edward IV's brothers, does he remain loyal, or does he flee, and if so, I suppose he might push for Clarence, or perhaps go for Lancaster still?

On the note of things going as otl, might Edward, rally men from the field, if his father still dies at Bosworth?

You're right, if it's Anne and earlier, it does make The Kingmaker's defection much, much less likely. For one thing Edward's choice to preclude their marriage...or indeed any significant match for Neville's daughters...was one of the greatest reasons for the break in the first place, and in the second it prevents Anne's marriage to Prince Edward, which was just about the only tangible reinforcement for that very strained Neville/Margaret alliance. So, great points, if it is Anne Richard marries earlier.
 
You're right, if it's Anne and earlier, it does make The Kingmaker's defection much, much less likely. For one thing Edward's choice to preclude their marriage...or indeed any significant match for Neville's daughters...was one of the greatest reasons for the break in the first place, and in the second it prevents Anne's marriage to Prince Edward, which was just about the only tangible reinforcement for that very strained Neville/Margaret alliance. So, great points, if it is Anne Richard marries earlier.

Hmm aye, I've always been intrigued by that, from what has been said before, George and Isabel were married in France, when they fled there, whether Anne was with them and her father is not something I'm clear on. Do you think it is reasonable that if Anne was indeed left behind in Warwick Castle or Middleham, that Edward IV might finally grant Richard permission to marry Anne, simply to either spite George, or goad Warwick back in. Which leads to another question, would Warwick still flee to France once again, after Edward has been restored to the throne in late 1469?
 
Hmm aye, I've always been intrigued by that, from what has been said before, George and Isabel were married in France, when they fled there, whether Anne was with them and her father is not something I'm clear on. Do you think it is reasonable that if Anne was indeed left behind in Warwick Castle or Middleham, that Edward IV might finally grant Richard permission to marry Anne, simply to either spite George, or goad Warwick back in. Which leads to another question, would Warwick still flee to France once again, after Edward has been restored to the throne in late 1469?

I think Edward held Warwick significantly responsible for the defiant Clarence marriage, so I don't think he'd use that particular goad, but he may very well use it as a lure as you say. Because of the Woodeville calamity and being seriously outplayed by Neville at times, I think Edward's political skill is often under appreciated. When not indolent...and even at times because of indolence, arguably...he could be very realpolitik. One interesting way this might play out is, if he has indeed allowed Anne and Richard to marry at thus time, he might be more loathe to offend Montegu. If he doesn't restore Percy, and his brothers stand to inherit the Neville estates, Edward might well be more cautious about clipping Warwick's wings, and he may not even feel it as necessary. And being once again materially invested in Edward's reign, Warwick's affection for a Lancaster restoration would seem destined to lose w/e appeal it held for him.

Of course this won't sit well with Elizabeth, and she often seemed to win their wars of attrition/will with her husband, so it's hard to say how/where she'll exact her revenge.
 
I think Edward held Warwick significantly responsible for the defiant Clarence marriage, so I don't think he'd use that particular goad, but he may very well use it as a lure as you say. Because of the Woodeville calamity and being seriously outplayed by Neville at times, I think Edward's political skill is often under appreciated. When not indolent...and even at times because of indolence, arguably...he could be very realpolitik. One interesting way this might play out is, if he has indeed allowed Anne and Richard to marry at thus time, he might be more loathe to offend Montegu. If he doesn't restore Percy, and his brothers stand to inherit the Neville estates, Edward might well be more cautious about clipping Warwick's wings, and he may not even feel it as necessary. And being once again materially invested in Edward's reign, Warwick's affection for a Lancaster restoration would seem destined to lose w/e appeal it held for him.

Of course this won't sit well with Elizabeth, and she often seemed to win their wars of attrition/will with her husband, so it's hard to say how/where she'll exact her revenge.

Hmm interesting, so does this then consequently that the Lancastrian readeption might not be happening as soon as it did otl. Might we see, the boiling current of tension between Woodville and their allies as well as Neville and their allies erupt into a war in itself?
 
Hmm interesting, so does this then consequently that the Lancastrian readeption might not be happening as soon as it did otl. Might we see, the boiling current of tension between Woodville and their allies as well as Neville and their allies erupt into a war in itself?

I think the Lancaster revival must in this instance take on an entirely different shape, if it ever happens. One interesting scenario might be this: a reversal of the Kingmaker's gambit. Edward almost always sided with Elizabeth against Neville and Clarence, maybe even Hastings. With Richard it appears a closer run thing, and both sides seemed to recognize the uncertainty and shy from actually putting it to the test. But if it was Elizabeth vs. all of them, including Richard, that might be enough to force Edward to definitively side against her. In which case we might see a union of Queens rather than the Kingmaker/Queen version. We might even imagine a kind of replay of Isabella/Mortimer if Elizabeth can manage to bring her sons along to France.

Now, admittedly, this is much more attractive as an entertaining narrative than a realistic option, as there are many obstacles. First, Elizabeth seemed very shrewd in only fighting battles she could win, and this seems an extreme long shot. Second, the only real value she brings to the Lancaster side, apart from dissension in the Yorkist camp, is her sons, and they lose almost all value with a Lancaster restoration. Unless she is convinced that the Yorks can convince Edward to set her aside, and therefore securing her sons familial estates and ranks under Henry VI > losing everything, I can't see it..., nor do I think they stand a chance against a united House of York, but it would sure make for fun reading. How Edward might react to his sons in Lancaster/French hands seems the only possible crack in the wall of probability.
 
I think the Lancaster revival must in this instance take on an entirely different shape, if it ever happens. One interesting scenario might be this: a reversal of the Kingmaker's gambit. Edward almost always sided with Elizabeth against Neville and Clarence, maybe even Hastings. With Richard it appears a closer run thing, and both sides seemed to recognize the uncertainty and shy from actually putting it to the test. But if it was Elizabeth vs. all of them, including Richard, that might be enough to force Edward to definitively side against her. In which case we might see a union of Queens rather than the Kingmaker/Queen version. We might even imagine a kind of replay of Isabella/Mortimer if Elizabeth can manage to bring her sons along to France.

Now, admittedly, this is much more attractive as an entertaining narrative than a realistic option, as there are many obstacles. First, Elizabeth seemed very shrewd in only fighting battles she could win, and this seems an extreme long shot. Second, the only real value she brings to the Lancaster side, apart from dissension in the Yorkist camp, is her sons, and they lose almost all value with a Lancaster restoration. Unless she is convinced that the Yorks can convince Edward to set her aside, and therefore securing her sons familial estates and ranks under Henry VI > losing everything, I can't see it..., nor do I think they stand a chance against a united House of York, but it would sure make for fun reading. How Edward might react to his sons in Lancaster/French hands seems the only possible crack in the wall of probability.

Aha interesting, that would be something.

Do you think seeing something along the line of Warwick and Clarence, versus Gloucester and Elizabeth might be a thing? I've always wondered if Gloucester married Anne for love (as they did grow up together), or for her estates, or a combination of both. Truth be told, with Warwick still kicking around, Clarence might still make a play for the throne if not given enough attention. So the fighting in 1470/71 might not happen, or it might but in a different form?
 
Aha interesting, that would be something.

Do you think seeing something along the line of Warwick and Clarence, versus Gloucester and Elizabeth might be a thing? I've always wondered if Gloucester married Anne for love (as they did grow up together), or for her estates, or a combination of both. Truth be told, with Warwick still kicking around, Clarence might still make a play for the throne if not given enough attention. So the fighting in 1470/71 might not happen, or it might but in a different form?

I did toy with the idea of her getting Clarence to defect with her...high value for irony alone...but the only explanation I could think of was chalking it up to George being George. I do have some grudging affection for the Clarence's and Geoffrey's, ie the historians' ne'er do well brothers, if only as a stand against consequentialism. That said, I do admit Clarence's actions do seem to defy rational explanation at times, at least as they come down to us. So I guess anything's possible if he's involved. A more formidable unlikely alliance would be either Warwick/Woodevilles or Gloucester/Woodevilles, but my imagination cannot atm stretch to the task.
 
I did toy with the idea of her getting Clarence to defect with her...high value for irony alone...but the only explanation I could think of was chalking it up to George being George. I do have some grudging affection for the Clarence's and Geoffrey's, ie the historians' ne'er do well brothers, if only as a stand against consequentialism. That said, I do admit Clarence's actions do seem to defy rational explanation at times, at least as they come down to us. So I guess anything's possible if he's involved. A more formidable unlikely alliance would be either Warwick/Woodevilles or Gloucester/Woodevilles, but my imagination cannot atm stretch to the task.


AhAHAHA fair. Do you think it is realistic to think Elizabeth and her children would go to France? Doesn't seem as though she'd turn traitor.
 
AhAHAHA fair. Do you think it is realistic to think Elizabeth and her children would go to France? Doesn't seem as though she'd turn traitor.
No, I think it's almost impossible she would. Just entertaining. Another angle that might effectively divide York in interesting ways would be if either the pre-contract or more interestingly Edward's archer-daddy stories become widely circulated/credited while he still lives. I know I'm completely OT at this point, but how that might break down is always food for thought.
 
No, I think it's almost impossible she would. Just entertaining. Another angle that might effectively divide York in interesting ways would be if either the pre-contract or more interestingly Edward's archer-daddy stories become widely circulated/credited while he still lives. I know I'm completely OT at this point, but how that might break down is always food for thought.

Oh definitely, especially the archer story, as Warwick did use that to push Clarence forward as King during 69/70.

Speaking of which, how does this sound as a rough sort of plan: With his brother George Duke of Clarence off in France, with the Earl of Warwick and the man's daughter Isabel, Edward IV, decides to tempt Warwick back into the realm through agreeing to his youngest brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester's proposal that he marry Warwick's youngest daughter Anne. The marriage occurs at Westminster Abbey on the 14th November,1469, with Warwick arriving later in England alongside Clarence. An uneasy peace is agreed between the King and the two rebellious members of his family, though tensions still run high.
 
I do suppose, the best way to get Richard and Anne married would be after Edward IV is restored to governing the country, in around September, 1469, after which whether or not he holds contempt and anger for Warwick and Clarence, and listens to his wife's whisperings is another matter.
 
AhAHAHA fair. Do you think it is realistic to think Elizabeth and her children would go to France? Doesn't seem as though she'd turn traitor.

Through her mother she has family in the Counts of Saint Pol (her uncle Louis reigned til 1475), though they linked with the Burgundians (whom were allied to the Yorkists through the marriage of Margaret of York and Charles the Bold), so I'm not sure if fleeing in that direction is at all practicable.
 
Top