Three Sided War of the Roses?

In a previous discussion of the war I suggested what if a third side arose from a cadet branch descended from Humphrey, 2nd Earl of Buckingham, who died of the plague, unmarried. What if he did marry, and married a Mortimer, thus giving him issue? Could Buckingham have been a rival to York and Lancaster?

I'd ask if there could be even more sides, but methinks that's not how lineage works.
 
In a previous discussion of the war I suggested what if a third side arose from a cadet branch descended from Humphrey, 2nd Earl of Buckingham, who died of the plague, unmarried. What if he did marry, and married a Mortimer, thus giving him issue? Could Buckingham have been a rival to York and Lancaster?

I'd ask if there could be even more sides, but methinks that's not how lineage works.

Didn't the York claim derive primarily from Anne Mortimer? Thus putting their descent from an older son of Edward III than John of Gaunt.
Since Humphrey is from a younger line than even the Yorks if he marries Anne this might work but it would eliminate most of the York support and "rationale" for their ascension...
 
Didn't the York claim derive primarily from Anne Mortimer? Thus putting their descent from an older son of Edward III than John of Gaunt.
Since Humphrey is from a younger line than even the Yorks if he marries Anne this might work but it would eliminate most of the York support and "rationale" for their ascension...

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/yorkclaim.htm

Yeah, Richard's claim is via the Mortimer lineage - which is senior by a given reckoning to the Lancaster claim (Lionel being Gaunt's older brother). The Buckingham claim is at best no closer than Richard's and at worst far distant.

And if you have someone else marry Anne, would whoever http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/richardcambridge.htm sires on someone else present a York claim? You might wind up with switching the non-Lancasterian side entirely, although there wouldn't be a War of the Roses unless the rose somehow becomes a symbol of Buckingham.
 
Could this come alot later? At the Battle of Bosworth Field William Stanley, as far as I can tell was the deciding factor. What if after siding with Henry he then turn's on him? From what have read both Richard and Henry bashed the living sh1t out of each and only then Stanley made his move. If this did happen could it then be Henry and Stanley go at it. A War of the Roses part 2?
 
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/yorkclaim.htm

Yeah, Richard's claim is via the Mortimer lineage - which is senior by a given reckoning to the Lancaster claim (Lionel being Gaunt's older brother). The Buckingham claim is at best no closer than Richard's and at worst far distant.

And if you have someone else marry Anne, would whoever http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/richardcambridge.htm sires on someone else present a York claim? You might wind up with switching the non-Lancasterian side entirely, although there wouldn't be a War of the Roses unless the rose somehow becomes a symbol of Buckingham.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

So how do we get a properly 3 sided WoR?
 
Could this come alot later? At the Battle of Bosworth Field William Stanley, as far as I can tell was the deciding factor. What if after siding with Henry he then turn's on him? From what have read both Richard and Henry bashed the living sh1t out of each and only then Stanley made his move. If this did happen could it then be Henry and Stanley go at it. A War of the Roses part 2?
No. Stanley didn't have any claim on the throne by blood, not even one as tenuous as Henry's, and nobody else would have accepted him as king.
 
That's exactly what I was thinking.

So how do we get a properly 3 sided WoR?

I think anything in which there are three plausible contenders butterflies away the nature of the War of the Roses as it was OTL, but if that's not an issue . . .

Buckingham does have a claim via his own descent - it's just very weak compared to York and Lancaster.
 
What if the York/Lancaster rivalry is as bitter and as destructive as in OTL, so the ahistorical Buckingham line declares that it will make things right in England by doing away with the others?
 
What if the York/Lancaster rivalry is as bitter and as destructive as in OTL, so the ahistorical Buckingham line declares that it will make things right in England by doing away with the others?

Bitter and destructive? With the exception of the very few pitched battles, the War of the Roses was anything but bitter and destructive as civil wars go for the vast majority of England - including the peerage.
 
Maybe Arthur/Antigone Plantagenet could come in to play as rivals for Lancastrian dominance during Henry's time away on the continent? Or the male-line Beauforts survive, Or the Somerset bastards claim they were born legitimate?
 
Some more musings:

Edmund Earl of March has a surviving daughter with Anne Stafford
She then marries the son of John Holland Duke fo Exeter and his ATL wife (since he now won't marry Anne instead).

This gives someone with a line from Mortimers and Lancasters and a heady rival to the Lancasters if they play their cards right.
 
That's exactly what I was thinking.

So how do we get a properly 3 sided WoR?

Edward V escapes from the Tower in 1483, reaches Burgundy and raises an army. That gives you two rival Yorkist claimants and a Lancastrian.

If you want a third dynastic line, let Richard II have a son. Richard is deposed as in OTL and his line disinherited, but the son, an infant, is rescued by Richard's sympathizers and raised abroad (France, Scotland and Ireland are all possible locations). At some time during the reign of Henry VI, he can reassert his claim. Meanwhile the Yorkist claimant recognizes the legitimacy of Richard's deposition, but takes the position that the throne should have gone to the nearest heir.
 
In all honesty, if your Buckingham were to marry the Mortimer heir then basically the Yorkist claim to the throne becomes non-existant compared to Lancastrian and Buckinghamite(?) claims. Also the wealth and power the Mortimer inheritance gave the Yorkists would also be gone resulting in a further diminished cadet branch, if it still existed by the 1450s.

Also in real-life its pretty hard to have a constant three-sided war, eventually (in most cases) two of the sides will join together against the other.

Two of the best examples of three-way wars that lasted for multiple years would be:

1) the Wars of the Three Kingdoms from 1639-51 in England, Scotland, and Ireland with the English Civil War is the best known of them though throughout there were multiple shifting alliances between Royalist, Scottish, Parliament, and several Irish sides. Parliament came out on top after making the right alliances to eliminate other factions then later defeating their former allies differences arouse between them.

2) the Bosnian War from 1992- February 1994 when ethnic Bosniaks fought against Bosnian Croats & Croatia against Bosnian Serbs & FR Yugoslavia. Though sometimes the Croats & Serbs would work together for a few months until one side turned on the other if it was to their advantage, usually the Serbs would turn on the Croats. Then in 1994 the Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats unified their cause then along with Croatia & NATO faced the Bosnian Serbs & Yugoslavia. The war ended in 1995 with the Dayton Accords.
 
Top