Richard of Gloucester has and older legitimate son

Oh indeed.

So yeah, with regards to the initial outline I'd highlighted before, what do you make of that?
Richard's son wouldn't flee abroad.He'd just rally what remains of Richard's army and fight another battle.If he's smart,he'd grab his cousin,marry her and undercut Henry Tudor's support.
 
Richard's son wouldn't flee abroad.He'd just rally what remains of Richard's army and fight another battle.If he's smart,he'd grab cousin,marry her and undercut Henry Tudor's support.

Indeed, if indeed there was even a Battle of Bosworth, considering the potential changes that could come from Richard marrying Anne in 1469, and not 1472.
 
Indeed, yet, people could well rebel in the name of Edward V etc, that they didn't suggests wider discontent with Woodvilles than anything else I suppose.

And indeed, marrying Edward, Richard's son to Elizabeth would make sense, though then what would people use to justify removing Edward V and Richard to the tower, unless you make complete use of the precontract.

Minor quibble, more about setting tone rather than disputing argument; the Tower at the time of the Princes was not what it became under the Tudors, but rather a primary royal residence. The term 'moved to the Tower' did not in any way imply arrest or inprisonment unless you were specifically housed in the prison itself, which the Princes never were. Henry VI was probably murdered in the Royal chapel there, but he had been 'moved' there many times previously, often of his own accord, quite peacefully. All Kings of England resided there at times.

There were ominous castles like Warwick where bloody deeds had a history, but the Tower was the royal prize/protection rather more than prison when the a Princes moved there, and it was where Coronation processions began. If Richard III had occupied the Tower and housed the Princes elsewhere, THAT would have been seen as ominous.

Must dash, but loving these discussions and will respond to other posts later.
 
Minor quibble, more about setting tone rather than disputing argument; the Tower at the time of the Princes was not what it became under the Tudors, but rather a primary royal residence. The term 'moved to the Tower' did not in any way imply arrest or inprisonment unless you were specifically housed in the prison itself, which the Princes never were. Henry VI was probably murdered in the Royal chapel there, but he had been 'moved' there many times previously, often of his own accord, quite peacefully. All Kings of England resided there at times.

There were ominous castles like Warwick where bloody deeds had a history, but the Tower was the royal prize/protection rather more than prison when the a Princes moved there, and it was where Coronation processions began. If Richard III had occupied the Tower and housed the Princes elsewhere, THAT would have been seen as ominous.

Must dash, but loving these discussions and will respond to other posts later.

Very true, very true :)
 
So after a bit of a discussion, here's what I am thinking:

After hearing rumours of the Earl of Warwick looking to side with the Lancastrians, Edward IV decides to use the man's daughter Anne as a hostage against him and also play on his brother Richard's feelings for the girl. In doing so he agrees to his brother's marriage to the Neville girl, a marriage which takes place in October, 1469, with Warwick, Warwick's brother Earl of Northumberland and Clarence in attendance, though Clarence is there only reluctantly. The marriage takes place without a hitch, though afterwards, things begin to boil, as Warwick retires to his estates, and listening to his wife's advice, Edward begins considering giving over Northumberland to the Percy family once more.
 
Another question, when Richard III's son Edward assumes the throne, would he be Edward VI, or Edward V?
 
So if Edward married his cousin Elizabeth, would this take place just after his father's ascension to the throne or partway through should things look as if they're going roughshod?
 
Just a quibble, OTL, Richard III wanted his son, Edward of Middleham, to marry Isabel of Castile, (later Princess of Asturias, Princess of Portugal and then Queen of Portugal). However, the arrangement was scotched by Teddy's death, and Fernando and Isabel weren't too keen on their daughter marrying Richard (which was then offered), so Richard turned to Portugal and the spinster Infanta Joana instead
 
Just a quibble, OTL, Richard III wanted his son, Edward of Middleham, to marry Isabel of Castile, (later Princess of Asturias, Princess of Portugal and then Queen of Portugal). However, the arrangement was scotched by Teddy's death, and Fernando and Isabel weren't too keen on their daughter marrying Richard (which was then offered), so Richard turned to Portugal and the spinster Infanta Joana instead

Hmm true, though would such a marriage make sense in this scenario
 
Hmm true, though would such a marriage make sense in this scenario

Why not? Richard's sorta undermining any legitimacy there is to the Princes in the Tower being bastards if he feels that he has to marry his son to Elizabeth of York (and at that point, the house of York had unseated the house of Lancaster by claiming female line descent from Philippa of Clarence), but if Richard were to say push a bill through parliament changing the succession officially to male-line only (which the Lancasters did in theory, but never in fact AFAIK), then it renders any person desiring to claim the crown through any of Edward IV's daughters less dangerous. (IDK why this wasn't done back in John's reign to exclude Eleanor of Brittany instead of shoving her in a castle and locking her away, sure, John was unpopular, but I'm sure Henry III could've pulled it off). Plus it gives England a handy foreign alliance (two if Richard marries Joana of Portugal), and shores up the house of York's descent from John of Gaunt.
 
Why not? Richard's sorta undermining any legitimacy there is to the Princes in the Tower being bastards if he feels that he has to marry his son to Elizabeth of York (and at that point, the house of York had unseated the house of Lancaster by claiming female line descent from Philippa of Clarence), but if Richard were to say push a bill through parliament changing the succession officially to male-line only (which the Lancasters did in theory, but never in fact AFAIK), then it renders any person desiring to claim the crown through any of Edward IV's daughters less dangerous. (IDK why this wasn't done back in John's reign to exclude Eleanor of Brittany instead of shoving her in a castle and locking her away, sure, John was unpopular, but I'm sure Henry III could've pulled it off). Plus it gives England a handy foreign alliance (two if Richard marries Joana of Portugal), and shores up the house of York's descent from John of Gaunt.

Hmm true, though wouldn't that kinda undermine their claim to France? Furthermore, wouldn't they need to claim the throne through Edmund of Langley, given that their descent from John of Gaunt is through the female line?
 
Another question, when Richard III's son Edward assumes the throne, would he be Edward VI, or Edward V?

I think it would have to be Edward V, if he is called Edward VI that's an admission that Edward V was a legitimate king and Richard III was a usurper.

That said, I think Perkin Warbeck called himself "Richard IV" which would seem to recognise Richard III's kingship. Though you can probably put that down to the fact that he drew support from some of the people who recognised Richard III (like Margaret Duchess of Burgundy).

And Lambert Simnel, in his guise as the Earl of Warwick, was declared "Edward VI" and his supporters included Ricardian loyalists like Lovell and Lincoln (and Margaret). So, you could read that as a tacit admission that Edward V's reign "counted".

However, both Simnel and Warbeck were focused on deposing Henry Tudor and not on the legal minutiae regarding the events of 1483 and what their regnal number should be. Our Edward's claim to the throne is far more closely linked to Richard's than Warbeck or Simnel's, and he probably won't want to do anything that could be seen to jeopardise his father's royal title (especially given his uncertain position).

Also, whether or not Titulus Regius remains on the books might play a part in determining if Edward V's reign is counted.

Or I'm reading far too much into regnal numbering, and it doesn't matter.

So if Edward married his cousin Elizabeth, would this take place just after his father's ascension to the throne or partway through should things look as if they're going roughshod?

I think, given some of the issues with marrying Elizabeth, Richard wouldn't rush into organising a marriage.

He'd probably try and have his kingship stand on its own two feet, then when he feels that this isn't working or people aren't accepting him he'd resort to the Edward/Elizabeth marriage.

There's also the practical aspect- he'd have to coax Elizabeth Woodville and her daughters out of sanctuary, which took several months IOTL.

He'd also want to wait a while and see if there's any better marriage options on the continent, and in any case Edward is only ~13 when his father ascends the throne which is maybe a little young.
 
Last edited:
Why not? Richard's sorta undermining any legitimacy there is to the Princes in the Tower being bastards if he feels that he has to marry his son to Elizabeth of York (and at that point, the house of York had unseated the house of Lancaster by claiming female line descent from Philippa of Clarence), but if Richard were to say push a bill through parliament changing the succession officially to male-line only (which the Lancasters did in theory, but never in fact AFAIK), then it renders any person desiring to claim the crown through any of Edward IV's daughters less dangerous. (IDK why this wasn't done back in John's reign to exclude Eleanor of Brittany instead of shoving her in a castle and locking her away, sure, John was unpopular, but I'm sure Henry III could've pulled it off). Plus it gives England a handy foreign alliance (two if Richard marries Joana of Portugal), and shores up the house of York's descent from John of Gaunt.
Same argument could be made in regards to Henry Tudor marrying Elizabeth of York.As a matter of fact,with Richard having killed both princes,the two's claims hardly mattered.As far as legitimacy's concerned,everyone knows that the Lady Talbot business was complete bullshit,but they went along with it because most of the nobility don't like the two princes as King.By marrying Elizabeth of York,Richard's son would be king by right of marriage anyway.Marrying Elizabeth of York after the two princes have died increases your legitimacy,not decrease it.As for changing the law,one could argue that a law changed by a parliament under a usurper's null and void.Another thing is that as the York's rise to power indicates,a rebellious parliament can always force you to change the law,even to exclude your own son from the throne.Marrying Elizabeth of York removes all natural doubts to your claim to the throne.
 
Both valid points, so from what I'm getting here, upon assuming the throne, Edward would be titled Edward V- most likely due to the titulus regius still standing- and whether or not he's married to Elizabeth at this point depends on the situation of his father's reign, as well as his early reign. And whether or not his father was able to coax Woodville and her daughters out of sanctuary.

Also, in regards to the wider settlement, with the pod being back in 1469, how likely is it that Henry VI and Edward of Westminster would still be alive come 1483, and Edward IV potential death?
 
Both valid points, so from what I'm getting here, upon assuming the throne, Edward would be titled Edward V- most likely due to the titulus regius still standing- and whether or not he's married to Elizabeth at this point depends on the situation of his father's reign, as well as his early reign. And whether or not his father was able to coax Woodville and her daughters out of sanctuary.

Also, in regards to the wider settlement, with the pod being back in 1469, how likely is it that Henry VI and Edward of Westminster would still be alive come 1483, and Edward IV potential death?
Does Warwick still betray Edward IV with both of his daughters married to Yorkist Princes?I find it somewhat unlikely that he would throw his lot behind the Lancastrians without Edward of Westminster marrying his daughter.If he doesn't rebel,then there's no way Edward of Westminster's coming to England at the same period as OTL anyway.If Warwick doesn't betray Edward IV and both of them still somehow die by 1483,then there's a chance that Edward of Westminster replaces Henry Tudor as the protagonist of 1485.But in such a scenario,how do you deal with Clarence and his children?Without him betraying Edward like he did in OTL,would he even be executed and his name attainted?
 
Does Warwick still betray Edward IV with both of his daughters married to Yorkist Princes?I find it somewhat unlikely that he would throw his lot behind the Lancastrians without Edward of Westminster marrying his daughter.If he doesn't rebel,then there's no way Edward of Westminster's coming to England at the same period as OTL anyway.If Warwick doesn't betray Edward IV and both of them still somehow die by 1483,then there's a chance that Edward of Westminster replaces Henry Tudor as the protagonist of 1485.But in such a scenario,how do you deal with Clarence and his children?Without him betraying Edward like he did in OTL,would he even be executed and his name attainted?

Hmm, I do think Warwick would either be in France after 1470, or might remain in England and plot. Things between him and Edward seemed to have soured remarkably by that point. So whilst, I do not think he'd side with the Lancastrians, he might well egg on Clarence to try something himself, which could well lead to smaller rebellions than otl.
 
Hmm, I do think Warwick would either be in France after 1470, or might remain in England and plot. Things between him and Edward seemed to have soured remarkably by that point. So whilst, I do not think he'd side with the Lancastrians, he might well egg on Clarence to try something himself, which could well lead to smaller rebellions than otl.
In that case,Edward of Westminster likely replaces Henry Tudor as the protagonist of 1485.
 
In that case,Edward of Westminster likely replaces Henry Tudor as the protagonist of 1485.

Okay interesting. Would he already be married by 1485? Also, do you think Edward IV would get as out of shape as he did otl following Barnet, if there was still a clear threat to his reign?
 
Okay interesting. Would he already be married by 1485? Also, do you think Edward IV would get as out of shape as he did otl following Barnet, if there was still a clear threat to his reign?
I don't think he would be married.No royalty or important foreign noble would marry their daughter to an exile.
 
I don't think he would be married.No royalty or important foreign noble would marry their daughter to an exile.

Hmm very true, so then he'd be an attractive option for anyone pissed at Richard III. This does also mean that the Lancastrian nobility is likely to remain in tact for a time
 
Top