What if the House of Gloucester survived to the Wars of the Roses?

The House of Gloucester was initially founded by Thomas of Woodstock 1st Duke of Gloucester. he only had one son, Humphrey who was sickly and died two years after his father was murdered. But what if Humprhey survived and continued the third Plantaganet cadet branch either as the Dukes of Gloucester, or more probably Buckingham as Thomas had an attainder on his lands. How would this change the Wars of the Roses? I am assuming that the war with France still goes the same in this scenario.

I'd assume that which ever side the House of Buckingham or Gloucester takes in the Wars of the Roses whether it is York or Lancaster wins.

Also if they survive to 1483 it reduces the chances of the Tudors taking the throne and maybe of Richard III usurping the throne.

What are your guys opinions and thoughts on this?
 
The House of Gloucester was initially founded by Thomas of Woodstock 1st Duke of Gloucester. he only had one son, Humphrey who was sickly and died two years after his father was murdered. But what if Humprhey survived and continued the third Plantaganet cadet branch either as the Dukes of Gloucester, or more probably Buckingham as Thomas had an attainder on his lands. How would this change the Wars of the Roses? I am assuming that the war with France still goes the same in this scenario.

I'd assume that which ever side the House of Buckingham or Gloucester takes in the Wars of the Roses whether it is York or Lancaster wins.

Also if they survive to 1483 it reduces the chances of the Tudors taking the throne and maybe of Richard III usurping the throne.

What are your guys opinions and thoughts on this?

Not sure but it could be interesting. I'm guessing the Staffords don't get so uppity here, they might still meet headless ends though (personally I find it surprising that the Stafford's Buckingham title lasted as long as it did with the dukes almost all being (2e and 3e of 3) attainted for treason or fighting on the losing side).

What sort of person was Humphrey? Although he was only 17 when he died so that could be an open question - very few people arethe same at 17 as they are later in life. I also don't see that there were any marriages for him. Although he MAY dispute the Bohun Inheritance with Henry IV's kids since while their moms were CO-heiresses, his mom was the elder sister, which could prove interesting
 
Having another royal duke floating around in the 1440s/early 1450s could change the lead up to the Wars of the Roses- though much depends on the personalities of the Gloucesters and which side they choose.

They'd also presumably be in competition with York and the Beauforts for certain offices and commands in France, which could change York's career path somewhat (and consequently his opinions of the Henrician regime). If they're savvy they might also have buddied up to Henry in a manner that reduces the Beaufort influence somewhat.

A Buckingham/Gloucester might also have a shot at the regency if/when Henry goes catatonic, and if they have a better relationship with the Beauforts and Margaret than York did IOTL...

When would Humphrey die? Because if he's still going in the 1440s and 1450s (which would require him to be in his 70s) he could be some sort of moderating elder statesmen-type figure. Alternatively, if he's still alive by that point and has been involved in the government for the past several decades he might be tarred by the failures in France and Henry's controversial marriage.
 
I assume Humphrey would be dead by that point and lets say his eldest of three sons is now the Duke of Buckingham/Gloucester.

I am wondering would he have good chance of being named regent instead of York? Would that the reduce York's chances of going to war.

I also assume that the House of Gloucester/Buckingham would take sides if the war still goes the same. I assume if they take York's side nothing really changes other than the Lancaster demise is likely sped up, it might even save York from dying meaning Edward IV doesn't marry Elizabeth Woodville.

I guess what really changes if the House of Gloucester/Buckingham initially takes the side of the Lancaster's, I assume that the Yorkists would have a much harder time winning the war, especially if the House of Gloucester/Buckingham has compotent military leaders. Something the Lancaster's were sorely lacking.

Also do you think if they took the side of the Yorkists and everything went the same until 1483, do you think having another Plantaganet cadet other than the House of York existing would put off reduce the chances of Henry Tudor taking the throne, or Richard III usurping the throne, especially if he doesn't claim the regency.
 
They'd also presumably be in competition with York and the Beauforts for certain offices and commands in France, which could change York's career path somewhat (and consequently his opinions of the Henrician regime). If they're savvy they might also have buddied up to Henry in a manner that reduces the Beaufort influence somewhat.

A Buckingham/Gloucester might also have a shot at the regency if/when Henry goes catatonic, and if they have a better relationship with the Beauforts and Margaret than York did IOTL...

If you look at the Staffords of OTL, the 1st duke of Buckingham hitched his wagon pretty closely to the Lancastrian star - his son married Margaret Beaufort, while he himself was married to a Neville (sister of the duchess of York and the Kingmaker. However, Stafford would've been a subject of the king of England, not the king's cousin/competitor for part of the Bohun inheritance. To my mind, the king could've taken the lion's share of the Bohun inheritance and tossed a few scraps to Stafford and he would've said "thanks your Majesty, can I marry your cousin now?"

Humphrey (or his children) might not be so accomodating. They might not have a better claim to the throne (like the Yorks) than the Lancasters (actually, would a marriage between Humphrey and Anne Mortimer be completely ASB? He's born in 1382 to her 1390), but their mother was the elder of the Bohun sisters, so they might want more of the Bohun estate than what Henry IV/V got away with giving to the Staffords.
 
I guess what really changes if the House of Gloucester/Buckingham initially takes the side of the Lancaster's, I assume that the Yorkists would have a much harder time winning the war, especially if the House of Gloucester/Buckingham has compotent military leaders. Something the Lancaster's were sorely lacking.

Also do you think if they took the side of the Yorkists and everything went the same until 1483, do you think having another Plantaganet cadet other than the House of York existing would put off reduce the chances of Henry Tudor taking the throne, or Richard III usurping the throne, especially if he doesn't claim the regency.

Again, going off the Staffords, the 1e duke was a warrior and a peacemaker according to his wiki article, and tried to heal the breach between York and Lancaster, but was unsuccessful. Gloucester might try a similar mediating stunt, and when it sees that York doesn't want to play along (assuming of course, that the Lancastrian line is as limited as it was OTL or that Henry still marries Marguerite d'Anjou (which was regarded as a match that was about as poor as Richard II's to Anne of Bohemia)) or that Lancaster likewise won't budge, will pick a side.
 
Interesting, I assume if Gloucester takes the Yorkist side, it will seriously give York a much more legitamate claim as both the two major Plantaganet cadet branches other than the Lancaster's are fighting against Henry and the Lancasters.

I also assume Warwick has far less influence is this scenario meaning his defection, as long as Gloucester stays loyal less meaningful.
 
I expect the Gloucester/Buckingham's will also have issues with the Hollands, on account of Exeter's involvement with Thomas's death.
 
Interesting, I assume if Gloucester takes the Yorkist side, it will seriously give York a much more legitamate claim as both the two major Plantaganet cadet branches other than the Lancaster's are fighting against Henry and the Beauforts.

I also assume Warwick has far less influence is this scenario meaning his defection, as long as Gloucester stays loyal less meaningful.

Not sure, OTL Warwick was the brother-in-law of both the duke of York and the duke of Buckingham, so if Humphrey's son marries one of the Neville girls, it might mean that he's a sort of bridge between York and Gloucester. That's of course, assuming that the Countess of Warwick's brother doesn't leave legitimate issue etc.
 
Not sure, OTL Warwick was the brother-in-law of both the duke of York and the duke of Buckingham, so if Humphrey's son marries one of the Neville girls, it might mean that he's a sort of bridge between York and Gloucester. That's of course, assuming that the Countess of Warwick's brother doesn't leave legitimate issue etc.

I assume the neville's wouldn't be as important to the Yorkist Cause if they had the Gloucesters/Buckinghams on their side. The Nevilles would of course still be powerful and your probably right that Gloucester/Buckingham may act as a bridge between Edward IV and Warwick assusming the everything up to that point still happens the same.
 
I assume the neville's wouldn't be as important to the Yorkist Cause if they had the Gloucesters/Buckinghams on their side. The Nevilles would of course still be powerful and your probably right that Gloucester/Buckingham may act as a bridge between Edward IV and Warwick assusming the everything up to that point still happens the same.

Not so much between Ned and Warwick, more between them and the increasingly Beaufort-dominated Lancastrian court
 
Not so much between Ned and Warwick, more between them and the increasingly Beaufort-dominated Lancastrian court

Ah yes.

Also if the House of Gloucester/Buckingham sided with the Yorkist and everything went OTL until 1483, would the Tudors have a far lower chance of taking the throne?
 
It depends really. Buckingham supported Richard of Gloucester (who's going to need a different title here) and then turned on him. Not only that, but Tudor was king by right of conquest, despite his rather feeble claim through his mother.

Can the Gloucesters help? Maybe, I'm not sure if they'll tip the scales in Richard's favour or not (were there Stafford forces at Bosworth? Cause if there weren't them being on-side could make enough difference (one raindrop raises the sea and all that)). But the question comes up of which horse would they back, Edward V or Richard? But they might also serve as a brake on Dickon's usurpation - OTL he was the only adult male Plantagenet left. Edward V etc don't have support outside the kingdom. However, having a counterweight to the Nevilles (the Kingmaker's estates stretched down from as far north as Berwick to Salisbury; Dickon got most of that either through his marriage, or in trust for his nephew, the underage earl of Warwick) , on your side could mean that Dick's thinking twice about it. I mean, what's to stop Gloucester from up and deposing him (Henry ÌV deposed Richard II, Dickon's dad then his brother toppled Henry, Henry toppled Edward IV, then Ned dethroned Harry again, he himself couped his nephews, it isn't unthinkable he'd be paranoid about the Gloucesters usurping him)
 
Yes that's that I thought, I feel if the Gloucesters/Buckinghams sided with Richard, he would have higher chance of keeping his throne, and if they sided with Edward V, Richard would have a lower chance of upsurping the throne.

The Tudors could still take the throne, but I don't think they would be able to hold it due to their feeble claim and the amount of legitamate Plantaganet heirs lurking about through both the House of York and Gloucester/Buckingham.
 
Top