When Would Edward V Have Reached Full Legal Majority

Well, would Henry VII still invade if Ed V is stable on his throne?

Almost certainly not. And if he does, he's virtually certain to die on Tower Hill.

Apart from anything else, the Stanleys would have no reason to turn against Edward V, and that alone would ensure Henry's defeat. But I doubt Henry would have risked an invasion had he not been confident of widespread support for it.
 
Last edited:
Very probably. They had been effectively over since 1471, and only revived briefly due to Uncle Richard.

I have to dispute a couple points.

1) Richard did not revive the Regency. Edward IV did, explicitly naming Lord Protector of the realm and entrusting England to him without Richard's knowledge. There are differing degrees of L.P., but this one was overtly meant as a complete regency, as evident by his words, the reactions of Hastings and the Woodevilles, and the absence of an accompanying council established by Edward. The model was their father, who was king 'in all but name' for the Mad King.

2) Regency/Lord Protectorship never 'ended', and certainly not by 1471. First, it didn't work that way, like a fixed rule/age. It was always a case by case basis. The fact that one King had ruled at a young age did not set that age as the standard, else we'd not have seen any Regencies or Protectorships after Henry III. And in fact if anything they were in vogue; the only 2 official Protectorships up to that time had all occurred in the current era, with Bedford/Gloucester's joint one for Henry VI and Richard of York (Edward VI/Richard III's father) interrupted tenure for the same Mad King which lasted until his death at Wakefield, at which point Edward IV claimed the throne for York. Richard III's Protectorship was only the third (second as sole LP) and then Henry VIII designated one for his son, who died at 15 without any discussion we know of about his minority ending or being about to end, though by then his LP had fallen to Northumberland's coup.

3) There was no set age at all for a king's minority to end. Henry III was 8, though we can assume his 'council' effectively ruled (though the child King could, when angered, be pretty absolute at times). Edward III didn't take the reins until he was 18. Richard II only took complete control at 22, though there were brief earlier trials. None of these were even overseen by an official L.P., but rather more ad hoc/de facto regents or councils, as few men were ever entrusted with the full authority of Protectorship, however ephemeral.

Minority length depended on a great many things, including the abilities/temperament of the monarch, that of his overseer(s), the relative state of peace/war, the internal security, etc. Regents of any kind almost invariably ended up unpopular and often dead, as their effective singular power bred a king's enemies without the permanent protection of a crown, and the populace always had sentimental preference for an anointed King, and therefore regents of any description were almost always lightning rods for blame.

4) I do not agree that the Tudor suspends his ambitions if a child King rules. We know from his own accounts that Richard's martial prowess was one of his gravest concerns re:invasion, and we know that Richard's assumption of power was supported explicitly because a child King almost always breeds more vulnerability and external ambitions, not less. Margaret Beaufort fervently nursed her ambitions for Henry's reign throughout Edward IV's reign, so I can't see how a child would extinguish them. Certainly the form it took would have shifted, the allies would have probably been different people, but I am very unconvinced that there would have been fewer.
 
I have to dispute a couple points.

Regency/Lord Protectorship never 'ended', and certainly not by 1471.

No but he Wars of the Roses did, which was what I referred to.


I do not agree that the Tudor suspends his ambitions if a child King rules. We know from his own accounts that Richard's martial prowess was one of his gravest concerns re:invasion, and we know that Richard's assumption of power was supported explicitly because a child King almost always breeds more vulnerability and external ambitions, not less. Margaret Beaufort fervently nursed her ambitions for Henry's reign throughout Edward IV's reign, so I can't see how a child would extinguish them. Certainly the form it took would have shifted, the allies would have probably been different people, but I am very unconvinced that there would have been fewer.

Henry would still have the support of the remaining Lancastrians, but by 1485 these were few. And with no usurpation there'd have been no reason for any Yorkist to defect. After all, Henry did nothing in particular while Edward IV was alive, and without a split in the Yorkist camp things would be no more promising under Edward V.
 
No but he Wars of the Roses did, which was what I referred to.




Henry would still have the support of the remaining Lancastrians, but by 1485 these were few. And with no usurpation there'd have been no reason for any Yorkist to defect. After all, Henry did nothing in particular while Edward IV was alive, and without a split in the Yorkist camp things would be no more promising under Edward V.

1) Ah, sorry, that was not how I read your post.

2) Well, firstly this IMO inappropriately assumes that the usurpation was the sole cause for defection. It would be hard to accord that assumption with, say, Buckingham...who was a prime mover in Richard's taking control in the first place, and yet the single greatest defection. I think there were various motivations for various people at various times, and that's the template of the Cousin's War; near constant reversals, betrayals, etc. Edward himself saw a steady stream of betrayals even within his immediate family...especially when his reign was younger; do we attribute these to his seizing control, or to individual motivations and interactions? The other famous defection were the Stanleys, who in spite of being Henry Tudor's step-father/uncle were reluctant to defect until it was decisive, and few dispute the idea that they would have gone Richard's way if the battle did likewise. But, more, I just see a continuation of the normal game except fewer players are left who started out on the other team, so more 'defections'. And this pattern very much continues into the Tudor reign in spite of few remaining Yorkists; contemporaries describe Henry VI as pretty much paranoid, constantly certain that assassination or rebellions were imminent. Several elements of Royal guard and protection from domestic dangers (including placing several cannon around the Tower facing the city, not the Thames!) were his introduction.

Henry was also absolutely an enemy of Edward, and Edward tried to have him killed or captured many times. He was, however, very young for much of this period and only gradually did he ascend the ladder of Lancastrian priorities. But the greatest disagreement I have with the idea that the defections reflect directly on Richard's actions differently than the other defections reflected on other leaders' actions is the biggest dog which did not bark in the night: the North.

Before Richard, the North was the principal well the Lancastrians could go to for support, troops, funds, and political support. But during Richard's reign, we don't see this. In fact, we see the reverse. Even after Bosworth, when it served them nothing and potentially cost much, the North remained openly Ricardian, and to this day the perception of him in the North differs drastically with the one built on More/Shakespeare's version in the South. If Richard is out of the picture, I find it extremely likely that the Lancastrians would find it fertile ground, especially if the Woodville administration is known to have shafted him.

Edit: accidentally hit button.

My last point; It is often forgotten that Richard did not actually face significant domestic opposition, far less than the Kings that came before or after him. Remember that fewer than 1,000 of Tudor's men at Bosworth were English, and estimates of those representing 'defections' range from 300-500, total.

The foreign troops present are easily explained without any reference to the 'usurpation'...France obviously saw Richard as a hostile new force, as his views on Edward's treaty with them were expressed openly and repeatedly. Scotland, too, is obvious; Edward sent Richard to lead the invasion if Scotland only a few years prior, and many still remembered the loss of Berwick and the siege of Edinburg. Wales, again; Tudor heartland.

So I think it's dangerous to look at an almost entirely foreign invasion and read it as demonstrating an obvious domestic motivation.
 
Last edited:
What happens when the cleric comes forward with the betrothal to Eleanor Butler? That's what led to what everyone calls the 'usurpation' - the apparent fact that Edward IV had bigamously wed Elizabeth Woodville. Let's just say it still happens; does Parliament still request Richard to step up? Do we have the rule of "Edward the Bastard"? That may play a role in Henry Tudor's decision about whether or not to stay in France. Henry's quick overturning of that ruling it what makes me think he had something to do with the disappearance of his bride's brothers......because with the bigamy ruling, Richard had no need to do anything to the boys.
 
Well, if Edward V is legal by the time Stillington comes forward (and bear in mind, when Stillington originally approached Clarence with the info, the cleric had had a falling out with Edward IV) then he himself can decide what to do with the bishop. But, the question is, what good did Stillington hope to accomplish by declaring to all and sundry that Edward's marriage was invalid, when he owed everything his appointment to the see of Bath included, to Edward and the house of York (mind, they're not necessarily the same thing).

See, if Edward V is king when this rumor becomes public (let's assume he's successfully crowned etc without too much fuss), then Stillington's words become treason by declaring the king a bastard. Punishment for treason is an all expenses paid holiday in the Tower of London , followed by a shortening of his Lord's Grace by a head or so
 
What happens when the cleric comes forward with the betrothal to Eleanor Butler? That's what led to what everyone calls the 'usurpation' - the apparent fact that Edward IV had bigamously wed Elizabeth Woodville. Let's just say it still happens; does Parliament still request Richard to step up? Do we have the rule of "Edward the Bastard"? That may play a role in Henry Tudor's decision about whether or not to stay in France. Henry's quick overturning of that ruling it what makes me think he had something to do with the disappearance of his bride's brothers......because with the bigamy ruling, Richard had no need to do anything to the boys.


Iirc, when Richard seized power Edward V was only weeks away from being anointed and crowned. And once that's done he is King of England, regardless of who ought to be. Stillington opens his mouth at his peril.
 
Edward IV was called a bastard and just ignored it. Why wouldn't Edward V, especially after his crowning? This is well before Henry VIII's paranoia, it wasn't treason to call the King a bastard, but it would be treason to try to deprive him of his lawful throne. (Which means, in that time and place, very few would attempt to do so.) My point is, what if the information comes out and becomes public BEFORE a crowning - or even E5 reaching his majority? Think Parliament would let the hated Woodvilles reign? And would this sort of unsettled business encourage Henry Tudor?

[So, I guess from what I'm reading here, E5 goes down in history as "Edward the Bastard" and the kids get a cheap chuckle in history class.]
 
Stillington maintained the
What happens when the cleric comes forward with the betrothal to Eleanor Butler? That's what led to what everyone calls the 'usurpation' - the apparent fact that Edward IV had bigamously wed Elizabeth Woodville. Let's just say it still happens; does Parliament still request Richard to step up? Do we have the rule of "Edward the Bastard"? That may play a role in Henry Tudor's decision about whether or not to stay in France. Henry's quick overturning of that ruling it what makes me think he had something to do with the disappearance of his bride's brothers......because with the bigamy ruling, Richard had no need to do anything to the boys.

The fact that Stillington maintained his testimony until his death, long after Richard III was dead, persuades me that he at least believed it was true. There was literally no motivation to keep saying it, and the very real possibility that it would be dangerous, but he stated that his previous silence had been a sin, and would not do it again. That and the fact that it fits soooo perfectly into Edward's m.o.

IMO, Richard would have been suicidal and endangering his own family to let the Woodvilles take over without a fight once Elizabeth declared war, so he doesn't need Stillington to be truthful to act as he did, but in spite of that I'm persuaded to lean towards it being sincere.
 
Edward IV was called a bastard and just ignored it. Why wouldn't Edward V, especially after his crowning? This is well before Henry VIII's paranoia, it wasn't treason to call the King a bastard, but it would be treason to try to deprive him of his lawful throne. (Which means, in that time and place, very few would attempt to do so.) My point is, what if the information comes out and becomes public BEFORE a crowning - or even E5 reaching his majority? Think Parliament would let the hated Woodvilles reign? And would this sort of unsettled business encourage Henry Tudor?

[So, I guess from what I'm reading here, E5 goes down in history as "Edward the Bastard" and the kids get a cheap chuckle in history class.]

Well, there's always been a shroud of silence on what Clarence is supposed to have said/done that lead to his execution. Stillington had gone to him first, as said, so possibly he had found something definitive. He clearly had the motivation. The effort to wipe T.R. off the books also seems suspicious to many.
 
The foreign troops present are easily explained without any reference to the 'usurpation'...France obviously saw Richard as a hostile new force, as his views on Edward's treaty with them were expressed openly and repeatedly. Scotland, too, is obvious; Edward sent Richard to lead the invasion if Scotland only a few years prior, and many still remembered the loss of Berwick and the siege of Edinburg. Wales, again; Tudor heartland.

But would France support HT against Edward V the way it did against Richard? Surely the French would prefer England to be under a child king rather than an effective adult ruler. Matters might change once EV grew up, but by then he would have had several years to get established on the throne.

Incidentally, even if Henry did manage to get in, he would be in a very different situation from OTL. If EdV is in London , he has loyal forces within call ("Buckingham's rebellion" [1] started among former members of Ed IV's household in Kent and Essex) so a victory in the Midlands (if indeed the battle is still fought there) won't necessarily end the war. And if EV's position should become untenable, he can easily escape as his father did in 1470, presumably taking his siblings with him. So Henry can't win support by marrying Elizabeth of York (who in any case would be less of an asset with her brothers still alive) and over in Burgundy or wherever he faces, not a dubious pretender like Simnel or Warbeck, but an honest to gosh crowned and anointed King, who moreover has a brother to succeed should anything happen to him. In such circumstances, would Henry VII's reign have lasted any longer than the readeption of Henry VI?

[1] a misnomer. Buckingham only joined it after it was under way.
 
1) As has already been stated there was no fixed point for ending a minority - much depended on the character of the King and events.
2) A King's will after his death in relation to the government of the realm etc had no bearing in law. Usually a consensus emerged (which might reflect the dead King's wishes or not) in terms of how the realm was to be governed during any minority. In Edward IV's case there is no evidence that he appointed a Lord Protector or Regent that pre dates Richard's assumption of power, the will does not survive, his earlier will made during war with France seems to suggest no such arrangements. It was in Richard, Hastings and Buckingham's political interest to suggest that had been Edward IV's intention - to give their actions a legal and moral justification.
3) Richard II's minority allowed the king to exercise kingship with the help of a series of the council - effectively limiting the ability of his uncle's to govern in his name. Henry VI's minority saw a regency council created with his uncle as senior regent with the other uncle as Lord Protector. The consensus in 1483 seems to have been the council intended to govern in the King's name until the coronation at least, the Queen was praised for her moderation at the time between the two biggest rivals at court Hastings and her son Dorset. Hastings probably wanted to ensure that the new King was not dominated by his half brother (and Hastings step son in law) hence his initial support for Richard of Gloucester (aping the minority of Henry VI)
Richard's actions in taking custody of the King were effectively a coup making any arrangments invalid - he was in charge and moved relatively quickly to remove all the obstacles in his way to taking the throne. Ambition and opportunity rather than any great ill will to his late brother or his nephew I suspect.
4) Bishop Stillington is only named in Commines as the source of the pre-contract - he himself would later fall foul of Henry Tudor by joining the Simnel revolt and dying in prison. However he was certainly still in Edward IV's favour at his death and was on the council which would have been odd if he had such knowledge. Either way the allegation was hardly going to trouble Edward V once he was on the throne - allegations are just that - and in OTL Titulus Regius was a series of increasingly worse allegations against Edward IV and his reign culminating in the allegation of his pre-contract it was passed with little debate or course because it merely rubber stamped what was already a done deal with Richard already in power and King.
5) Propaganda was a useful art throughout this period - there is very little real evidence that the Queen or her family by 1483 were a) deeply unpopular or b) any kind of power group at Edward IV's court in terms of competing with the enormous influence of Gloucester. Richard III like the Earl of Warwick a decade or so earlier used them and attacked them in order to justify his own actions - his previous relationship with the Queen, her surviving brothers and Dorset was pretty cordial.
6) Assuming a surviving Edward V then of course an attack from Henry Tudor is less likely - Henry Tudor will continue to remain a threat though a minor one but he is still an asset to foreign powers whenever the English King does something they don't like - however his domestic support would be weak depending on how well or how badly the Yorkist regime does under the new King.
 
Top