What if Richard of Gloucester was appointed guardian of Prince Edward

We are in 1472, Edward regained his throne, Warwick died at Barnet and yet the legacy Neville is under the control of Yorks brothers. Richard has proven his loyalty and Edward knows he can count on him in any circumstance. He decides to entrust his son.

Do you think the new link between Richard and his nephew could prevent it from usurping the throne in June 1483 because of illegitimacy? Richard knew that Woodville is dangerous for him, he executed Rivers and Vaughan to protect himself.

In this scenario, Richard - by affection for his nephew - refuses to hear the allegations of Stillington. The future Edward V is the ward of Gloucester, the Woodville will not seize him to crown before Richard is knowledge of his office as Lord Protector. Edward V was crowned in july but but died one to two years later because of sepsis because he is suffering from dental osteomyelitis.

What do you think ?
 
He decides to entrust his son.


Edward V was crowned in july but but died one to two years later because of sepsis because he is suffering from dental osteomyelitis.

What do you think ?

I would imagine that just after Barnet Richard is too young to be entrusted the care of his nephew (Richard is just 20 at this point) which could be the main stumbling block.

also if you have Edward V die in 1485 then you get a presumably Woodville influenced Richard of Shrewsbury on the throne and potentially recreate the scenario from OTL 1483. Granted having Richard rule as regent for 2 years may lessen the suspicion between the two sides but I still think that both sides would want influence and control over the king so you may still have problems and maybe a usurpation.
 
It is true that Richard is young. However, he has demonstrated the maturity of his judgment. In Wiltshire, the recent discovery of a book of his library shows that he was particularly cultivated.

When the widow of Edward IV fled to sanctuary, Richard got her entrusted to him Richard of Shrewsbury, by June 1483. In this way, he has control of his second nephew.

In concerning possible usurpation, I am studying because I will wish to see Richard Bosworth fighter as king of England or prepared to be crowned. His victory will be the judgment of God, winning the battle, it will impose the will of God to see the undisputed master of England.:D
 
It is true that Richard is young. However, he has demonstrated the maturity of his judgment. In Wiltshire, the recent discovery of a book of his library shows that he was particularly cultivated.

When the widow of Edward IV fled to sanctuary, Richard got her entrusted to him Richard of Shrewsbury, by June 1483. In this way, he has control of his second nephew.

Military ability and loyalty are valued traits in late medieval England but Richard, has a lot on his plate straight after Barnet. Plus by the time Edward's son is ready to be entrusted to someone (I think IOTL he was 3 when he was established at Ludlow) Richard will be beginning his struggle against Clarence for the Warwick land and this blatant show of favouritism is against what Edward was trying to achieve in the settlement. Finally, in order for Edward V to be entrusted to Richard, Edward IV would need to change his whole policy towards Wales as Richard has too many responsibilities to be responsible for Wales and the Princes upbringing.
 
This would be only possible if Richard establishes his power base elsewhere the midlands or Wales for example (not marrying Anne Neville for example) and even then it is not necessarily going to follow because as has pointed out entrusting his son to his youngest brother would cause even more rivalry between Gloucester and Clarence.

Edward governed largely by establishing loyal well connected nobles in the areas of England too far removed from the centre - Richard of Gloucester (with control of the Northern Neville holdings) in the north (replacing the Lancastrian Northumberland's as chief big wig), the Prince of Wales in Wales (nominally but in effect Anthony Woodville and the Herberts) and so on. You remove Richard from the North in that scenario you have to find someone else to do it and to defend the Scots border in time of war.

There is no evidence of any emnity between the Queen, her brothers or her Grey sons and Richard that pre date his accession to the throne (unlike between the Woodville's and Lord Hastings and the Woodville's and Warwick and then Clarence)

Anthony Woodville was chosen in part because he was available, not particularly wealthy and had a pretty good reputation both at home and abroad. Unlike a very wealthy or landed peer his position was entirely reliant on the crown which meant he was a far more appropriate guardian and far freer to run the Prince's household.

A real important point in mid to late 15th Century politics is the eternal debate about whether the Woodville's did gain as much as some people like to accuse them of. Elizabeth's sister's married very well and above their station - but in most cases the marriages were to prominent new Yorkist nobles (Essex for example) or into families they already had a connection to (the Grey's). The boy's were far less well provided for and Elizabeth's father was a relatively poor peer much of whose wealth was his wife's jointure by her first marriage which they had failed to secure for their children.
In most cases it is clear to see Edward IV's hand in many of the dealings of the Woodville family (who did not act as a single unit) and in terms of providing for his wife's sons he did pretty much what Henry VI did for his Tudor half brothers.
Another point is that after year's of dynastic in fighting and people switching sides Edward made it part of his court to promote people who were extremely reliant on his patronage rather than on their own wealth - and you could argue he treated his wife's family in the same way.
 
Top