War of the Roses Plausability Check
- Thread starter Albeques
- Start date
I suppose the issue is that the war of the roses pretty much destroyed both York and Lancaster, and while a sort of branch of Lancaster, Tudor was a third house, so OTL both kinda fulfills your request and makes it hard to do so - a third competitor would need the backing of or be one of the other major players, and they'd need to work out a way of linking their claim to the throne to get legitimacy and support...
He's probably the best bet. The Buckingham mob were pretty wealthy, even before Richard took over in 1483. If he had the right backing, he might manage something. That's a big "if" though.
There's something to be said for the Wars of the Roses being almost another front in the Valois - Burgundian struggle for primacy in France. Definitely so after Towton.* The readeption happened because of French support, and Warwick betraying Edward. Edward came back thanks to having a safe haven in Burgundy. Tudor wins in the end because he could set up a rival centre of power safe from the Yorkists on the continent - first in Brittany, then France. If Buckingham can find a friendly foreign prince who'll give him house room, and possibly even troops, then he might make a name for himself. The other option for 'foreign' help, is of course the Scots. If James II doesn't get himself blown up, then he might stick his oar into proceedings South of the Tweed. After all, he already was, seeing as that's how he got blown up.
*Even before then, the ability of the Yorkists to flee to Calais and Ireland (not proper foreign, but safe from Lancastrian vengeance) allowed them the chance to make Towton happen.
RousseauX
Donor
That's basically what happened with Henry Tudor though, the guy has very very little actual claim on the throne but since the Lancasters all got killed the renaming Lancastrian supporters and defecting Yorkists flocked to him and he won.
Can I just point out that the aims of Buckingham's Rebellion were to A) put Edward V back on the throne, and when they heard that he might be dead, became B) to put Henry Tudor on the throne? Buckingham had no intention of leading a new faction, he just opposed Richard III and intended to replace him with a better candidate.
The real issue here is that three-way wars simply don't happen. You'll always find it hard to add a third faction to anything, because there's usually no convincing reason why the third faction wouldn't in fact be part of one of the existing two sides.
The real issue here is that three-way wars simply don't happen. You'll always find it hard to add a third faction to anything, because there's usually no convincing reason why the third faction wouldn't in fact be part of one of the existing two sides.
True. I think people are remembering the treason charges against the 2nd Duke of Buckingham's son, the 3rd Duke of Buckingham, who was executed by Henry VIII for plotting to press a claim to the throne in his own right. Either mistakenly conflating the two, or imagining that the 2nd Duke could have rebelled in his own right as the 3rd allegedly planned to. The problem with the second scenario is that Buckingham's Rebellion was defeated even with support from Lancastrians and from anti-Richardian Yorkists.
This I have to disagree with. I can think of a few counterexamples off the top of my head: the War of Three Henrys in France (the last phase of the French Wars of Religion, where the Catholic faction split between a Valois faction and a Hapsburg faction while both were still fighting the Protestant faction), a couple different civil wars that broke out during the Byzantine-Sassanid war of 602-628 (Heraclius's rebellion against Phocas and Kavadh's rebellion against Khosrow II), the three-way split of the Roman Empire during the Crisis of the Third Century, and perhaps also Russia's Time of Troubles (there were at least three factions, but I'm not sure more than two were active at the same time without being allied into two coalitions).
You are correct. However, it took a very specific set of circumstances for him tolaunch the rebellion of OTL. Without the two Ricardian coups of 1483, Tudor is still a nonentity, and Buckingham a loyal Yorkist. My reasoning is that he's one of the few people remaining by the time Edward IV kicks the bucket. Hastings is unlikely to betray Edward and his sons, whereas Buckingham obviously did so in OTL. However, for Stafford to set himself up as a third party in the struggle, we probably require a much more turbulent period between 1475 and 1483. Of course, if that's the case, there's no guarantee Buckingham survives this period.
It's not very likely that anybody can do it, but of those very long shots, Buckingham is probably a nose in front of the others. The only other candidate that springs to mind is John de Vere, Earl of Oxford, or his father or brother if they survive. Yet again though, the writing would need a reason for him to go it alone, instead of supporting Tudor as in OTL.
Best PoD for such a thing? I would have Edward of Westminster survive Tewkesbury and escape back to the continent. This sets up a more turbulent 1470s. Added bonus if there's serious domestic turmoil after the Treaty of Picquigny.
Of course, the result of this extra bloodshed might just be that an obscure outsider comes to the head of one of the current factions (see Tudor, Henry for details), rather than a third side appearing.
Wouldn't that be Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, son of Clarence, who was killed by Henry VII in 1499? Yes, he has a superior claim to the Lancastrians, but it wouldn't really make a difference.
I assume he means Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, rather than George. But yes, as stated, it probably butterflies the Wars of the Roses entirely.
Well, if Lional has a son, the question is, is he alive in 1399? If not, does he have a son that is old enough in 1399?
Or will those events not even happen at all? Maybe the usurpation in 1399 will not happen at all.
Of course, Henry IV based his claim on that Edmund Crouchback, Duke of Lancaster, son of Henry III, was actually older than Edward I and was just switched because of his supposed deformity. Guess how many actually believed that.
But based on this spurious claim, Henry IV as the heir of Edmund actually is senior to the heirs of Edward I, including all the sons of Edward III!!! So he might actually still usurp the crown of Richard II and ignore the claims of the heirs of Lionel, especially if they are minors during that time.
That claim was, as you say, spurious in the extreme. It was also just one of the claims used to justify the usurpation. Going from memory here, but I think there were three. The main reason it was allowed to slide was the fact that firstly, the thing was something of a fait accompli already. Secondly, he was the male line heir presumptive, and the rival claimant, Edmund Mortimer, Lionel's grandson through the female line, was about seven years old.
More importantly for many, Richard II had done the unthinkable and messed with property rights in attempting to seize John of Gaunt's lands after he dies. Henry came back claiming only to want his dues as the heir to the duchy of Lancaster.* I'm pretty sure all and sundry knew the Edmund Crouchback thing was bullshit of the highest order, but nobody looked to closely. I mean, he's already seized the reins of power, and the only alternative is a prepubescent boy. Look how well that turned out last time...
*Providing a rather interesting parallel, seeing as Edward IV did the same thing - claiming he only wanted the duchy of York - when he landed on the Yorkshire coast in 1471, prior to chasing Henry's grandson of the throne for the second time.