At what age would Edward V have reached full legal majority, and be able to rule without a regency council or guardian?
At what age would Edward V have reached full legal majority, and be able to rule without a regency council or guardian?
So if Edward IV had died in 1487, there would have been no legal justification for a regency?16 at the very latest, possibly 15. Kinda depends upon the regent and the King personalities
So if Edward IV had died in 1487, there would have been no legal justification for a regency?
Thank you. I was wondering wether a legally adult Edward V would be secure enough on the throne to effectively end the Wars of the Roses.Indeed not
Thank you. I was wondering wether a legally adult Edward V would be secure enough on the throne to effectively end the Wars of the Roses.
Well, would Henry VII still invade if Ed V is stable on his throne?Very probably. They had been effectively over since 1471, and only revived briefly due to Uncle Richard.
Well, would Henry VII still invade if Ed V is stable on his throne?
Very probably. They had been effectively over since 1471, and only revived briefly due to Uncle Richard.
I have to dispute a couple points.
Regency/Lord Protectorship never 'ended', and certainly not by 1471.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.]
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.