Wars of the Roses, Edward V and Prince Richard survive?
- Thread starter noturaveragejoe0316
- Start date
I always thought Navarre was a Spanish provenance, and that Ferdinand was in a dispute to claim it from a half brother or something. If Mary has kids that will be another border country free from France. At least for a while, especially if she has a boy.
Francis Phoebus‘ mother (who married in) was Louis XI’s youngest sister while his paternal grandmother was the half-sister of Ferdinand II of Aragon (the youngest child ofg John II and his first wife Blanche of Navarre). Still Navarre was a border country who had been tied more to France than to the other iberian kingdoms
A son between Mary of York and Francis Phoebus can marry Catherine of Aragon which settles the issues between the Navarrese and the Catholic Monarchs.
Oooh good idea! Didn’t think of that! But would there be any children? From what I understand Catherine’s gynecological record wasn’t very good. It won’t help that Francis was sickly I believe. Would there be a war between Navarre with poor Catherine in the middle?
I'm not sure Ferdinand and Isabella would have allowed that match if Catherine was to wed Juan? Ferdinand was rather intent on getting Navarre.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Just to run something by everyone here, regarding the scenario discussed before where Edward IV lives a few more years (as the PoD), resulting in a number of alternate Royal marriages -- AIUI, we have Charles VIII marrying Margaret of Austria here; does anyone see any reason that the Count of Angouleme wouldn’t still marry Louise of Savoy circa 1488 as OTL?
With Francis Phoebus married with the possibility of having kids I can see Ferdinand trying to marry Catherine his sister, to his son to get a foot hole in Navarre.
No, since she is a good match for him and it isn't as if he has better options floating around. Unless maybe a Bourbon match
He could marry the other girl proposed for him aka the heiress Charlotte of Nevers, but is likely who Louise‘s higher rank as male line granddaughter of a ruling Duke and her connections (she was niece of the Duke of Bourbon on her mother side and she and her full brother Philibert had been raised in the household of Anne of Beaujeu) would still make her the chosen bride
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
OK, so we can get someone who (genetically, at least) is more or less interchangeable with the man who OTL became Francis I; and depending on the marriage between Charles VIII and Margaret of Austria proves, as well as the fate of the Duke of Orleans as of the PoD (the man who became Louis XII OTL), this person could become king roughly as OTL, though obviously inheriting a very different France from what OTL'S Francis I started with.
None of Charles VIII's children lived for more than three years and Margaret only had one failed pregnancy, safe to say the Duke of Orleans and Francis will likely be kings
I think a double match between Edward V-Catherine of Navarre and Mary/Elizabeth of York with Francis Phoebus might work but Catherine should marry Edward V after Francis and Mary has children.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Small detail, but for the children of Edward V of England and Joanna of Castille, specifically their names -- is everyone pretty much agreeing that they'll continue Edward's family's tradition of naming the first two sons "Edward" and "Richard", or is it possible for the mother to have influence here, giving us an English "Prince Ferdinand" (or maybe "Prince Charles")?
Last edited:
The boys would get Plantagenet names (and by the way Charles is NOT a Spanish name, as it came from Burgundy), so Edward or Richard for the elder is pretty likely but a second/third boy can easily be named John (Ferdinand is unlikely to enter in the English names when John is already a name who could be used)
Henry's probably out due to it's association with the Lancastrians, as is George due to his treason. Arthurian names like Lionel and Arthur can always make appearances, depending on how closely the monarch followed the stories. I'd say Ferdinand is certainly possible; Joanna named children after both her parents OTL, so she's certainly capable of honoring them despite their rocky relationship. Edward I had a son named Alfonso, so it's not as if Spanish names were anything new to the English royal family, either.
I don't know about John either way. It was certainly used in both families, but in England it would have brought memories of John of Gaunt and the also Beauforts, neither of whom seem like figures Edward V would like to honor. And if it's Joanna naming them after her family, you'd think she'd go with her father first rather than her grandfathers and brother. It's not impossible by any means, but I doubt it would be a first choice.
I'd say there's room to be both very traditional and very out there, depending on what is desired.
Ferdinand of Austria was born in Spain and named by his maternal grandparents when Joanna was already the heiress. Plus he shared Ferdinand of Aragon‘s birthdate so would have been unthinkable who he received another name in that circumstances. If he had been born in Burgundy he would almost surely receive a different name. And John would be likely used, being tied not only to Joanna’s brother (and husband of Catherine of York) and her grandfather, but also to John of Gaunt, ancestor of Joanna (and that would remind to everyone who Edward and Joanna’s children had legitimate Lancastrian blood) and most important to John, Duke of Bedford, a most beloved and valorous prince who had been the first husband of Edward’s maternal grandmother…
In OTL Joanna wanted to name Charles as John (after her already deceased brother) but Philip refuted to use that name and she had never enjoyed a particularly close relationship with either of her parents while John was the sibling closest in age to her so I doubt who she would choose Ferdinand over John, if she had the opportunity to do it
Last edited:
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Agree with @30PrincesAndAKing that John is unlikely, seeing as it has precedent either Lancastrian (John of Gaunt) or just less than promising (King John); that aside, if @isabella is right about it coming down to the two most common York names, then it's really a choice between having three kings in a row named Edward (following three in a row named Henry, and shortly before that, three more in a row named Edward), or getting following up a longer reigning Edward V with an alternate "Richard III". (I imagine most of us would prefer that latter in that instance, for irony points if nothing else.)
Alternatively, I am intrigued by the name "Lionel", since that goes back to the second son of Edward III, who the Yorks trace their lineage back to (following rules of male preference primogeniture).
Alternatively, I am intrigued by the name "Lionel", since that goes back to the second son of Edward III, who the Yorks trace their lineage back to (following rules of male preference primogeniture).