krieger
Banned
I think she could manipulate her husband and be one calling the shots under his rule.
Two Deaths at Bosworth
- Thread starter VVD0D95
- Start date
I think she could manipulate her husband and be one calling the shots under his rule.
Well, is not like she had much space for it in OTL with Henry VII and Margaret Beaufort. Here the situation would be very different...
krieger
Banned
She was smart, and without her husband being an skillful adult man and without despotic mother-in-law she has plenty of political space to express herself.
Was Parliament sitting at the time Bosworth was fought?
Even if it was, Richard's death would automatically dissolve it. And only the King could summon a new one, so somebody would have to have already been proclaimed KIng in order to do so.
And Elizabeth Woodville's daughter is likely to be quite a tough cookie.
I suspect EoY was a bit like Catherine of Braganza. As wife of Charles II she was utterly insignificant, but after his death she did a perfectly competent job as Regent of Portugal. Had EoY been widowed while her sons were still young, it might well have been the same for her.
VVD0D95
Banned
So, likely she will be running the ship for a few years during Edward of Warwick's regency and perhaps dictating terms behind the scenes once he's of age.
I am late to the party but, in a scenario where everything goes like in OTL except for Henry Tudor's death, what about a succession to Edward Stafford, OTL Duke of Buckingham? From the perspective of the Oxford, Northumberland, Jasper Tudor and the Stanleys he essentially provide all the advantages coming with the Earl of Warwick.
Moreover, he also happen to not be a Yorkist prince who might one day decide to turn toward the Ricardian Yorkists, he is half-Woodville and therefore probably a relatively reassuring figures to the supporters of Edward IV's children's and he has Lancastrian blood through his grandmother Margaret Beaufort.
Their age difference would make it a bit of a stretch but a marriage with Elizabeth of York wouldn't be completely impossible either.
Moreover, he also happen to not be a Yorkist prince who might one day decide to turn toward the Ricardian Yorkists, he is half-Woodville and therefore probably a relatively reassuring figures to the supporters of Edward IV's children's and he has Lancastrian blood through his grandmother Margaret Beaufort.
Their age difference would make it a bit of a stretch but a marriage with Elizabeth of York wouldn't be completely impossible either.
Last edited:
VVD0D95
Banned
Possible, though his father was recently attainted for treason, and as long as Warwick's around there are going to be people pushing for him, no?
For treason against Richard III, that would be more of a positive point for him in the eyes of the Lancastrian-Stanleys-Northumberland then anything else at this point.
As for Warwick, yes that's quite possible but it was also true in OTL for Henry VII.
Mind you, technically and upon further research Eleanor Beaufort would technically come before the Staffords but I simply don't see king Robert and the Royal House of Spencer being well accepted with the overall feudal snobbery of the time and with the Woodvilles as a precedent.
VVD0D95
Banned
Don't think Eleanor would count would she? She's from an illegitimate line after all, and if we're counting the Beauforts, Margaret would probably be before her, coming from the senior male line.
That's actually a rather common misconception: English common-law at the time held that childrens where to be deemed legitimate if their parents latter married. As such, Jpohn of Gaunt marriage with Katherine Swynford made the Beauforts legitimate in the legal sense of the term, tough still coming after John's other legitimate descendants who might have claims.
Henry IV did proclaim that they couldn't inherit the crown but that tend to strike me as a two weights two measures from a legal standpoint: the guy used an act of parliament to justify deposing Richard II and succeeding him over the heirs both Richard's and normal succession procedures designated. As such, the very idea of a king unilaterally changing the order of succession with parliamentary ascent essentially goes against the very precedent he used to justify his kingship.
VVD0D95
Banned
So, would they be considered valid in the line of succession? And if so, would they be behind the York dynasty?
By blood and common law yes, completely. As for being behind the Yorkists, if you by pure primogeniture they would be behind them but legally speaking the whole Lancastrian claim was based on the idea parliament could change that so they would be put above the Yorks, as per the decision of the Parliament of 1399. Moreover, you can always resort to the good old having attainders being passed against them.
The one claimant who might maybe go for the Lancastrian succession over them would be the Marquess of Dorset, as descendant of Elizabeth of Lancaster. That one would essentially depend which one would prevail between children who where born legitimate get priority over those legitimated by subsequent marriage vs sons come before daughters in the succession order. I admit I don't know that much on 15th century English Common law
VVD0D95
Banned
By blood and common law yes, completely. As for being behind the Yorkists, if you by pure primogeniture they would be behind them but legally speaking the whole Lancastrian claim was based on the idea parliament could change that so they would be put above the Yorks, as per the decision of the Parliament of 1399. Moreover, you can always resort to the good old having attainders being passed against them.
The one claimant who might maybe go for the Lancastrian succession over them would be the Marquess of Dorset, as descendant of Elizabeth of Lancaster. That one would essentially depend which one would prevail between children who where born legitimate get priority over those legitimated by subsequent marriage vs sons come before daughters in the succession order. I admit I don't know that much on 15th century English Common law
Lol fair. Tbf, I could see Elizabeth Woodville wanting her daughter to be Queen regardless of who is her husband.
Indeed. Though if Thomas Stanley has any power in the new court her OTL mother-in-law will be present!
Were the Lancastrians counting via daughters of daughters though? Sons of daughters seemed a big enough stretch considering their original son lines only idea.
This way they're moving towards son lines first then grandson lines.
Indeed. Lol.
On the whole I think Stanley would promote Elizabeth marrying the leading male claimant (whoever that is) and Jasper would promote his stepson Stafford as next of the Beaufort descendants. The Wodevilles would push for Elizabeth too.
So I'm coming round to Stafford having the attainder on Buckingham removed and married to Elizabeth. Stanley and Jasper as "regents" for Stafford, probably with Stanley as Lord Protector. Much talk will be had about Elizabeth's role and her mother, especially whether Elizabeth could hold any regnant powers.
krieger
Banned
It always could gather illegally, no problem.
She would be present, but nowhere near OTL level of influence.