I expect this is likely even if Warwick isn't incapacitated. Elizabeth will be the senior member of their marriage for years by the time he's an adult; that won't be easy for him to shake as long as she plays it smart (and history indicates that, if nothing else, she could adapt to whichever circumstance she found herself in). One big difference between her and Margaret of Anjou, however, is that she's English. And the daughter of a beloved king. I expect that will get her a lot more leeway than Margaret of Anjou ever got, who was not just a woman, but a foreigner. If Elizabeth is a power behind the throne, people will probably accept it from Edward IV's daughter in a way they would never accept a foreigner "manipulating" their king. She'll get a lot more benefit of the doubt.
Two Deaths at Bosworth
- Thread starter VVD0D95
- Start date
I expect this is likely even if Warwick isn't incapacitated. Elizabeth will be the senior member of their marriage for years by the time he's an adult; that won't be easy for him to shake as long as she plays it smart (and history indicates that, if nothing else, she could adapt to whichever circumstance she found herself in). One big difference between her and Margaret of Anjou, however, is that she's English. And the daughter of a beloved king. I expect that will get her a lot more leeway than Margaret of Anjou ever got, who was not just a woman, but a foreigner. If Elizabeth is a power behind the throne, people will probably accept it from Edward IV's daughter in a way they would never accept a foreigner "manipulating" their king. She'll get a lot more benefit of the doubt.
Wasn't he only put in the Tower by Henry VII?
Though you can probably make the case that his childhood was lonely or unhappy, which would potentially affect his personality and kingship.
There is conflicts among the sources on that one but overall it seem he was, at the very least, in house arrest by the time of Bosworth.
Overall Warwick life is a rather sad story. I have yet to read anything giving evidence that he ever actually did anything to become king or that either Richard or Henry had anything against him on a personal level. He would probably have been rather happy spending his life in some country estate in some forgotten corner of England, away from everything political, and if such a thing had been possible both Richard and Henry would have probably been more then ok with it, but his genealogical tree ensured that he would stand as a possible tool for opponents of both, setting the stage for the tragedy that was his death.
Last edited:
I say, be nice to Warwick in this TL. Let him be king, marry Elizabeth, and father a couple sons but spend the rest of his time out in the country recuperating from what was probably a very difficult childhood, Tower or no.
Sir William was. Lord Stanley far less so.
In 1459 he stayed on the sidelines at Blore Heath (as he would again at Bosworth) while his brother joined the Yorkists. He didn't adhere to York until after Northampton, and even then was not present at St Albans, Wakefield or Towton. He hadn't been at the first St. Albans either.
In 1470 he joined Warwick in restoring Henry VI, When Edward IV returned in 1471 he remained on the sidelines, and was not present at either Barnet or Tewkesbury. Only Sir William was.
This pattern continued after Bosworth. It was his brother, not he, who got himself beheaded by flirting with Perkin Warbeck. Thomas died in bed in 1504, still Earl of Derby.
In general, he seems quite content to just have a brother as a "friend at court" to keep open his channels of communication with York, but afaics the only House he was really loyal to was the House of Stanley.[1]
Also, he would be very much aware that two of the last four kings had ascended the throne as children, and both reigns had ended in tragedy. He had lived through those reigns, and the resulting civil wars. Why would he gamble on how a third child king would make out? If there's one thing he wasn't, 'twas a gambling man.
And even from a Yorkist pov, how would it really matter? Once her husband to be is anointed and crowned, he *is* King of England, and so a good match, whatever he was before. As long as EoY is Queen, with a grandchild of Ed IV on the way, why should they greatly care whom the "stud-horse" is?
[1] His heirs would seem to have mostly followed his example. The present Earl of Derby is a multi-millionaire and one of the richest men in England.
From a Yorkist pov it matters if he's going to be a regnant king. Recall that Richard Gloucester took the throne due to it and Elizabeth still had issues over bastardry.
So the most likely scenario now is that Edward, Earl of Warwick is quickly crowned King and married off to Elizabeth of York, but due to his period of imprisonment has developed a mild mental instability/shyness that leaves him vulnerable to manipulation, first by his Regent/Regency Council, then later by Elizabeth of York who could easily become the real ruler of England.
Wrong order most likely. Warwick is married to Elizabeth of York, first (as the most likely scenario see him ruling in her right), and then jointly crowned with her...
And I exclude a formal regency, only a very powerful council (as the throne would be formally of Elizabeth not Warwick). Elizabeth becoming the real power using her cousin/husband as puppet, would be really interesting...
VVD0D95
Banned
but would they tho? Englsnd has never had a queen regnant before, and if I remember correctly a lot of people orl didn’t suddenly decide let’s make liz queen of her own accord.
Because Elizabeth is the one with the strongest claim (and look to the length to which Henry VII had gone for ruling in his own right and not hers and how that resulted in continued Yorkist rebellions against him) and in any case the plan would be for Warwick ruling (but jure uxoris and not in his own right)
Absolutely. Look at the same situation in Navarre: the Queen in the list of the sovereigns, her husband (unless elevated as co-ruler) outside it as King Consort but with the effective ruleship of the land
Indeed. I don't know of any contemporary figure even so much as *suggesting* the idea of a Queen Regnant. And if the new Sovereign were not to be proclaimed until after the marriage., that means an interregnum of weeks or even months while the necessary dispensation is obtained. No Way.
Richard had that opportunity only because Edward V was not yet anointed and crowned. Had he been, he would unquestionably have been king, regardless of who *ought* to have been. So the next order of business after Bosworth would be for the winners to march on London and get their man crowned asap. After that, all questions of legitimacy are moot, and the marriage arrangements can be made at leisure as they were OTL.
Also, of course, the Eleanor Butler business related to the *Yorkist* succession, ie to whom (in Yorkist eyes) was the rightful heir. But to Yorkists *no* Lancastrian was the rightful heir, so which Lancastrian became King was a moot point – just so long as he married Elizabeth of York. .
Last edited:
It's actually worse not better by ignoring the royal claim since now you're offering a bastard commoner to the Queen.
Quite. So there'd be no question of marriage until after the King was crowned. And of course until they did marry she wouldn't *be* a Queen.
But he's not going to be crowned before her because, even in the unlikely event that Jasper chooses him, you need the Yorkist Stanleys on board. This was a marriage of claims, despite Henry Tudor making out it isn't. And Henry had the alternate "by conquest" angle to sell, Charles doesn't. Your argument fails to take in the context of the win at Bosworth and the civil war over the competing claims.
For what reason? You are basing everything on Henry Tudor’s OTL actions (and he do not wanted rule on Elizabeth’s claim). England would still have a formal sovereign aka Elizabeth of York while waiting to have the dispensation needed for the wedding and would be ruled by a council, exactly how would happen if they had an underage King...
*Whoever* the victor settle on is going to be proclaimed right away and crowned asap. One thing they aren't going to do is leave a power vacuum. Nor is their any reason for the Stanleys to mind who the husband is, just so long as he has no connections with the late Richard III.
ROFL. It was only two years since the Yorkists tried that - and the results had been disastrous.
Who is going to risk more trouble of that kind? Certainly not the cautious Lord Stanley. However regretful he may be at not having a stepson on the throne, he has no reason to quarrel with his Lancastrian allies in order to mess about with notions of female or child rulers. He'll want an unmarries adult male unconnected with Richard III. Once the king is safely crowned arrangements for the marriage can be attended to at leisure.