Richard of Shrewsbury and the Three Annes

So in my merging of York and Lancaster TL, I have a problem with what to do with Richard of Shrewsbury.

OTL he got married to Anne de Mowbray and ended up as duke of Norfolk. While that could still happen, it was seen as an unpopular move due to the legal shenanigans involved - which is why I'm toying with marrying her to another heir (a Howard sounds good) to the dukedom.

Likewise OTL, his brother was engaged to Anne of Brittany. Now, Anne will still be born and **spoiler alert** succeed as duchess, however, how would France react (better or worse) to Anne marrying Richard? Would it be a good idea to give him practically his own country? And if he doesn't marry Anne, who might make a good match for him?
 
Richard of Shrewsbury's marriage did make sound political and financial sense at the time she brought great wealth and came from an old and distinguished family with royal descent.
Effectively Edward IV was providing an appropriate income and estate for his youngest son at no or little expense to himself and the crown.
Something that he had done for both his brother's for example
Anne de Mowbray was her father's lawful heir (whilst she lived the Howard's and the Berkeley's could not expect to inherit)
Accordingly her young husband was created Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Nottingham shortly after the wedding (*new creations of the titles borne by her father but became extinct at his death without a male heir)
The legal shenanigans only came into play when she died without issue and Edward bought off the Berkeley claim but did nothing for the Howard's and passed an Act of Parliament granting Anne's estates to Richard and his heirs.
The question is why would Edward give a wealthy heiress to a minor supporter like Howard even though his father was her co-heir. There was little advantage in it.
Thomas Howard (later 2nd Duke of Norfolk) had married in around 1472 and his son Thomas had been born in around 73 so they were of age but it is a stretch. (Thomas himself was knighted at the wedding of Anne and Richard of Shrewsbury).

I don't doubt the marriage will still prove a draw to Edward - however if she dies on schedule then Richard becomes a free man again.

As to Anne of Brittany assuming things pan out as they did in OTL then England is going to still appeal as an ally to her father - however Richard of Shrewsbury may be a better sell than a Prince of Wales to both the Breton's and the French - he will be expected to live in Brittany with his wife and the French might tolerate it more if he is thought unlikely to succeed to the English throne. However the French are very unlikely to tolerate any candidate but their own and i doubt the marriage would happen without war particularly if the French situation mirrors otl (Louis' death, Charles succeeding with his sister as Regent and Louis of Orleans fighting his cousin over the regency etc which drew Francis of Brittany in).
 
Yup in fact Anne's father Francis formally surrendered his claim to Richmond to Henry Tudor.
The English Crown hadn't recognised the Breton Duke's Earldom of Richmond for decades though the Breton's continued to use it.

I can imagine a scenario where a future Edward V looking for support at home might persuade his brother to surrender Norfolk to enable him to regrant it given that he willl still be Duke of York - whether he retains the post of Earl Marshall is another matter all together.

But there is no real immediate reason for him to do so - Assuming Anne and Richard have a son and heir then in future the Dukes of Brittany will also be styled in England as Dukes of York and Norfolk, Earl Warrenne, Earl of Norfolk, Richmond and Nottingham etc and Earl Marshall of England.

If they have daughter's only then the lot reverts back to the English Crown.
 
I beg pardon for stupidity, but does anyone know why EIV bought off the Berkeley's claims to the dukedom, but not Howard's? Especially when Howard's claim was genealogically senior (being descended from the 1st duke's eldest daughter, while Berkeley was from her younger sister)?
 
I beg pardon for stupidity, but does anyone know why EIV bought off the Berkeley's claims to the dukedom, but not Howard's? Especially when Howard's claim was genealogically senior (being descended from the 1st duke's eldest daughter, while Berkeley was from her younger sister)?
As I understand it, the latter detail was actually irrelevant under English law at the time: For titles of nobility (as distinct from the royal title), sisters were legally equal co-heiresses and so which of them was the elder didn't really matter.
 
Yup that is it

Women as heirs were treated equally - so Earl A dies and is survived by daughter 1 and daughter 2 - under usual practice both would succeed to their father's estates equally (or their husbands would lol).

In many cases however it would depend on the influence of each daughter or their husbands.

For example when the Duke of Warwick's only daughter died in infancy - it was his full-blooded sister who succeeded to his estates and rights (she was of course married to Richard Neville) - Neville argued as a siser of the full blood (and therefore a full blooded aunt to the infant Anne Beauchamp) she took the lot. Her older half sisters were not best pleased to say the least.

With regard the Berkeley's they had serious financial problems and they got an English Viscountcy out of Edward in return.

The Howard's were already well esconced into Edward's household and unlikely to moan even if they might resent it.

At the end of the day the laws of inheritance could be subverted at the King's will technically everything was his after all!
And Edward was already notorious for doing so - the Neville/Beauchamp Inheritance, the Exeter/Holland inheritance and so on.
 
Top