Very, very true, and definitely something I think would happen, if Richard DUke of York is as rash as George of Clarence was, he could well condemn his family to some form of obscurity for a time, until March or Rutland bring back the glory of the family, if indeed they do.

Depends on how long between Richard's execution and March?Rutland's restoration of fortunes. If by the time that they manage to restore the fortunes, Edward of Westminster has succeeded a la Edward III, and married some foreign princess, having a fair amount of kids (boys to secure the home front, girls to strengthen alliances abroad), then I fear the Yorks' time for a place in the sun has passed them by. The further they move from the throne, the further they decline in importance. The main reason that they climbed as high as they did OTL was because of there being a lack of royal cousins/children. So, if TTL Edward IV has an amount of children roughly equivalent to OTL Edward IV then the Yorks are screwed. Plus, they don't have a macchivellian uncle waiting in the wings to seize the crown, so their chances of doing better are pretty good.

Sure, Edward of March can play Richard of Gloucester here with the royal sons - it's not impossible - but I think it would be seen as far too convenient that the young prince of Wales and his two brothers drop dead around the same time, leaving March to play for the throne. Of course, if he's influenced strongly enough by Marge, TTL Edward IV might decide "screw it, a girl can inherit as long as there are no other boys in the succession", and maybe marry her to some other Plantagenet scion...
 
Depends on how long between Richard's execution and March?Rutland's restoration of fortunes. If by the time that they manage to restore the fortunes, Edward of Westminster has succeeded a la Edward III, and married some foreign princess, having a fair amount of kids (boys to secure the home front, girls to strengthen alliances abroad), then I fear the Yorks' time for a place in the sun has passed them by. The further they move from the throne, the further they decline in importance. The main reason that they climbed as high as they did OTL was because of there being a lack of royal cousins/children. So, if TTL Edward IV has an amount of children roughly equivalent to OTL Edward IV then the Yorks are screwed. Plus, they don't have a macchivellian uncle waiting in the wings to seize the crown, so their chances of doing better are pretty good.

Sure, Edward of March can play Richard of Gloucester here with the royal sons - it's not impossible - but I think it would be seen as far too convenient that the young prince of Wales and his two brothers drop dead around the same time, leaving March to play for the throne. Of course, if he's influenced strongly enough by Marge, TTL Edward IV might decide "screw it, a girl can inherit as long as there are no other boys in the succession", and maybe marry her to some other Plantagenet scion...

Now that would make things very interesting. Given how charming and charismatic Edward of March was, I do reckon the Lancastrians would do well to keep him as well as the Nevilles onside.
 
This is very true, I do imagine someone somewhere is going to want to change something in royal administration. They were leaking money, and no one was doing anything about it.
And that leaking money was exactly where York came in. IIRC, by the time the wars started, the crown was so far in debt to him that they could've basically just pawned the crown jewels to the duke of York. So I could see him attempting to use that as leverage (esp. since he doesn't have the "king's insanity" defense that he had OTL) to get a bigger piece of the pie. Marguerite and the Beauforts are going to want to stop that, so they're going to try and use their position (as wife and technical heirs to the throne) to influence Henry against that. Which means that the king is - like OTL - going to be a witless pious fool who can't even control his own nobles.

Yeah, trying to keep English France was sort of like drilling a hole in a boat. It was made worse by the fact that captain (Henry VI) was out to lunch and the crew (Marguerite d'Anjou, York, the Beauforts etc) had taken over the ship. So, either England needs to be smart and say "sell" their possessions back to the French - kinda like what Edward IV did OTL, and what Charles II did with Dunkirk - or find some other way to stop leaking money. The selling option will be seen as dishonourable, and IDK if York's debts are settled that he'll back off, but it might keep England in better shape financially.

If we take out the vengeance aspect - Edward IV wasn't campaigning out of the milk of human kindness (the Lancastrians had beheaded (judicial murder) his father and murdered his brother (something he and the Yorkists have no recourse to if Henry has York convicted of treason and executed. Henry gets his hands on some (if not all) of the York estates, which "theoretically" cancels the debts the crown owes (death pays all debts). Cecily Neville and her kids are thrown on the crown's mercy. OTL, the situation was sort of predictable. York rises up against the crown > Crown kills York and Rutland > Edward of York takes vengeance for his brother/father > Civil War.

Here, the king is maybe dim, but not insane. If York is legally executed, there's no vendetta between the Lancastrians and Yorks (bad blood, certainly, but IDK if it will be more than that), which means you're left with an incompetent king, and an underage heir. Marguerite can - a la Isabelle de France - seize power in a regency (not that that will go over well), but OTL she only became a player because she was fighting for her son and her husband couldn't. Here, he can, he just might not, so Marguerite might hone a different set of traits. If York's out of the picture, then the Beauforts/Suffolk are the leading power players at court (since the WotR were between the country (York) and court (Lancaster) parties). I'm not writing Edward of March off, I'm just figuring that if he and his Neville family are pissed that's fine, but they lack the OTL figleaf (insanity) to rise against the king (Henry might try to arrange a marriage for Edward to someone of his circle (a Beaufort girl? perhaps)), and there's a good chance that if they do rise, their heads will be decorating the highways from London to York.

Another question is how might the personality of Edward of Westminster develop without the WotR? He's not chased out of his home; sure, he's called a bastard, but several kings have had that sword hanging over their head and they turned out alright. And might anyone be willing to wait until he's a bit older so they can drive Henry out in favor of his son (a la Edward II)?

Part of me is on the fence regarding Richard of Conisburgh. Executing him TTL gets the Yorks pissed (enough to start a war?), but keeping him in prison makes him a rallying point (and possibly pisses off someone else). So I'm not sure about what would be the best way to deal with him. Henry V had taken a shine to the Mortimers during his father's reign, in spite of them later being eyeballs-deep in the Southampton Plot. Henry VI might be warned not to take so lenient an attitude towards the house of York. So, if Richard gets executed, that leaves March/Rutland as a figurehead. I think it might be better to keep them unmarried, and then if somebody moves by contracting a marriage without royal consent then Henry can scream treason and go for the jugular. Although, if Richard is already executed for treason, the Yorks are going to have a slight smell about them anyway, until there's a restoration of their fortunes.

I wonder if Edward of March here might step into a role with the Prince of Wales of a sort of older friend and advisor. Obviously he'd need to suck up good (and I'm talking kissing ass so hard he can taste what Edward of Westminster had for dinner the night before) in order to get into the good books, but it wasn't unheard of for a son to redeem his father's folly.

Very, very true, and definitely something I think would happen, if Richard DUke of York is as rash as George of Clarence was, he could well condemn his family to some form of obscurity for a time, until March or Rutland bring back the glory of the family, if indeed they do.

That's precisely the case. It's not the Richard was as rash as Clarence was, it was sort of the same event playing out. And we all know what Victor Hugo said about events repeating in history "the first time it is as a lesson, second as a farce". And as farcical as being executed and being crowned with a paper crown was, it should've served as a warning to Clarence. But no, George the Fool died a fool's death by being drowned in Malmsey (which, even if it's not true and he was only beheaded, still speaks volumes of what his contemporaries thought).

Depends on how long between Richard's execution and March?Rutland's restoration of fortunes. If by the time that they manage to restore the fortunes, Edward of Westminster has succeeded a la Edward III, and married some foreign princess, having a fair amount of kids (boys to secure the home front, girls to strengthen alliances abroad), then I fear the Yorks' time for a place in the sun has passed them by. The further they move from the throne, the further they decline in importance. The main reason that they climbed as high as they did OTL was because of there being a lack of royal cousins/children. So, if TTL Edward IV has an amount of children roughly equivalent to OTL Edward IV then the Yorks are screwed. Plus, they don't have a macchivellian uncle waiting in the wings to seize the crown, so their chances of doing better are pretty good.

Sure, Edward of March can play Richard of Gloucester here with the royal sons - it's not impossible - but I think it would be seen as far too convenient that the young prince of Wales and his two brothers drop dead around the same time, leaving March to play for the throne. Of course, if he's influenced strongly enough by Marge, TTL Edward IV might decide "screw it, a girl can inherit as long as there are no other boys in the succession", and maybe marry her to some other Plantagenet scion...

Very true. I wonder how the Lancastrian web of alliances would work in Edward of Westminster's kids? Edward IV's kids were mostly betrothed with an eye to first making peace with France (Elizabeth and Cecily to the dauphin and duke of Rothesay), and then to containing France (betrothals to Austria-Burgundy, Spain, etc) so I think Edward of Westminster would probably go straight to the second part, rather than wanting to make peace with France (unless he's acknowledged that France is gone, never to return, and since he's getting a pension from the French king, might as well make nice).

Maybe a marriage to Mary of Burgundy for him (not likely, but you never know), most likely candidate would be the Bona of Savoy (or one of her sisters) originally slated to marry Edward IV. Isabel of Castile is likewise a difficult candidate, so any suggestions would be welcome.

I wonder if @Kynan would mind drawing up a possible family tree for this?

Now that would make things very interesting. Given how charming and charismatic Edward of March was, I do reckon the Lancastrians would do well to keep him as well as the Nevilles onside.

Would do well not to slight them - as Edward IV learned OTL, but it doesn't mean you would have to give them the keys to kingdom. The Nevilles (particularly the Kingmaker) was the product of several successful marriages to heiresses. However, in at least one case, the Nevilles weren't the senior heirs, simply the closest heirs (the other was through half-siblings, but from the father's previous marriages), though the crown decided in the Nevilles' favor. So, if the crown can simply "break" the Nevilles' stranglehold that stretched from Salisbury to Berwick by not favoring them as highly, and promoting other families (the Percies, maybe (IDK who else was a regular rival with the Nevilles) as a way of checking the Nevilles, the Nevilles won't be the premier family of the aristocracy(since Isabelle and Anne Neville were most likely raised to think of themselves as little less than princesses of the blood), simply a family of the aristocracy.
 
Some things before I post:

  • Assuming that sanity doesn't turn Henry VI of England into a horndog, I'm capping the amount of children at 3, with a minimum of 4 years between each.
  • Mary of Burgundy would be a great match, politically, for our ITL Prince of Wales, but I cannot see England, even England with a sane Henry VI of England, gaining that marriage. I can see a second son marrying her as a happy medium, particularly if the heir to the Holy Roman Emperor is looking at her and France is worried.
  • While I will keep Margaret of Anjou as his bride for the sake of the simple family tree, she probably wouldn't end up with him ITL, if just because it took bad mismanagement from a neglectful King who wanted peace over the continued success to make that marriage possible. If we were being realistic, Radegonde, Catherine or Yolande of France would have probably been better matches, with Yolande probably being the most likely, as Radegonde died young, Catherine married the Duke of Burgundy around that time, while Yolande was a few years away from her marriage to the Duke of Savoy. If a sane Henry VI of England was to make peace with France, he'd do it with their King, particularly since he is officially the King of France anyway. If he's accepting the loss, he should have at least linked their families.

Henry VI of England (b.1421: d.1479) m. Margaret of Anjou (b.1430: d.1482) (a)

1a) Edward IV of England (b.1450: d.1502) m. Bona of Savoy (b.1449: d.1503) (a)

1a) Margaret of England (b.1471)

2a) Edward, Prince of Wales (b.1473: d.1478)

3a) Thomas I of England (b.1476)

4a) Anne of England (b.1477)

5a) Mary of England (b.1480: d.1480)

6a) Henry, Duke of Bedford (b.1482)

7a) Elizabeth of England (b.1485)
2a) Henry, Duke of Clarence (b.1454: d.1489) m. Mary I, Duchess of Burgundy (b.1457: d.1495) (a)

1a) Philip I, Duke of Burgundy (b.1477)

2a) Francis of Burgundy (b.1481)
3a) Anne of England (b.1458: d.1524) m. Charles I, Duke of Burgundy (b.1433: d.1477) (a), Diogo, Duke of Viseu (b. 1450: d.1484) (b), Francis II, Duke of Brittany (b.1433: d.1488) (c), p. Charles VIII of France (b.1470: d.1498) (d), m. Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor (b.1459: d.1519) (e)

1b) John III of Portugal (b.1481)

2c) Francis III, Duke of Brittany (b.1488)

3d) Margaret la bastarde Capet (b.1490)

4e) Margaret von Hapsburg (b.1493)

5a) Sophia von Hapsburg (b.1496)

6a) Marie von Hapsburg (b.1498)

7a) Frederick von Hapsburg (b.1501)​
 
Some things before I post:

  • Assuming that sanity doesn't turn Henry VI of England into a horndog, I'm capping the amount of children at 3, with a minimum of 4 years between each.
  • Mary of Burgundy would be a great match, politically, for our ITL Prince of Wales, but I cannot see England, even England with a sane Henry VI of England, gaining that marriage. I can see a second son marrying her as a happy medium, particularly if the heir to the Holy Roman Emperor is looking at her and France is worried.
  • While I will keep Margaret of Anjou as his bride for the sake of the simple family tree, she probably wouldn't end up with him ITL, if just because it took bad mismanagement from a neglectful King who wanted peace over the continued success to make that marriage possible. If we were being realistic, Radegonde, Catherine or Yolande of France would have probably been better matches, with Yolande probably being the most likely, as Radegonde died young, Catherine married the Duke of Burgundy around that time, while Yolande was a few years away from her marriage to the Duke of Savoy. If a sane Henry VI of England was to make peace with France, he'd do it with their King, particularly since he is officially the King of France anyway. If he's accepting the loss, he should have at least linked their families.

Henry VI of England (b.1421: d.1479) m. Margaret of Anjou (b.1430: d.1482) (a)

1a) Edward IV of England (b.1450: d.1502) m. Bona of Savoy (b.1449: d.1503) (a)

1a) Margaret of England (b.1471)

2a) Edward, Prince of Wales (b.1473: d.1478)

3a) Thomas I of England (b.1476)

4a) Anne of England (b.1477)

5a) Mary of England (b.1480: d.1480)

6a) Henry, Duke of Bedford (b.1482)

7a) Elizabeth of England (b.1485)
2a) Henry, Duke of Clarence (b.1454: d.1489) m. Mary I, Duchess of Burgundy (b.1457: d.1495) (a)

1a) Philip I, Duke of Burgundy (b.1477)

2a) Francis of Burgundy (b.1481)
3a) Anne of England (b.1458: d.1524) m. Charles I, Duke of Burgundy (b.1433: d.1477) (a), Diogo, Duke of Viseu (b. 1450: d.1484) (b), Francis II, Duke of Brittany (b.1433: d.1488) (c), p. Charles VIII of France (b.1470: d.1498) (d), m. Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor (b.1459: d.1519) (e)

1b) John III of Portugal (b.1481)

2c) Francis III, Duke of Brittany (b.1488)

3d) Margaret la bastarde Capet (b.1490)

4e) Margaret von Hapsburg (b.1493)

5a) Sophia von Hapsburg (b.1496)

6a) Marie von Hapsburg (b.1498)

7a) Frederick von Hapsburg (b.1501)​

Um...Henry's not going to marry any of the daughters of Charles VII. He's already king of France by right of conquest (in theory, if not in practice) and he's acknowledged as the rightful king of France according to the scrap of paper that is the Treaty of Troyes. Marrying one of Charles' daughters is a recipe for disaster and unlikely to happen. Charles won't give his daughter to the man who's claiming his throne, that's like Edward IV marrying Elizabeth of York to Henry Tudor during his [Edward] lifetime. It's not going to make Henry [VI] an obedient vassal and it certainly won't ensure peace - the minute Henry's son decides to take it into his head to be more like grandpa Hal than grandpa Charlie the French are up for 100YW Pt 2
 
Um...Henry's not going to marry any of the daughters of Charles VII. He's already king of France by right of conquest (in theory, if not in practice) and he's acknowledged as the rightful king of France according to the scrap of paper that is the Treaty of Troyes. Marrying one of Charles' daughters is a recipe for disaster and unlikely to happen. Charles won't give his daughter to the man who's claiming his throne, that's like Edward IV marrying Elizabeth of York to Henry Tudor during his [Edward] lifetime. It's not going to make Henry [VI] an obedient vassal and it certainly won't ensure peace - the minute Henry's son decides to take it into his head to be more like grandpa Hal than grandpa Charlie the French are up for 100YW Pt 2

Yes, but from the English side of things, a daughter of Charles VII of France is at least the daughter of a King, even if it's one that they're disputing. Honestly, the best option for Henry VI of England is someone totally unattached to the war. Perhaps a Savoy Princess, or a German girl. A Scottish Princess, if one was available, would actually help neutralize the French King from utilizing the Auld Alliance, at least in theory. Or, if he wanted a match from that area, a Breton Princess would be helpful. Basically, Margaret of Anjou would be pretty low on my "best wives" list for Henry VI of England.
 
Yes, but from the English side of things, a daughter of Charles VII of France is at least the daughter of a King, even if it's one that they're disputing. Honestly, the best option for Henry VI of England is someone totally unattached to the war. Perhaps a Savoy Princess, or a German girl. A Scottish Princess, if one was available, would actually help neutralize the French King from utilizing the Auld Alliance, at least in theory. Or, if he wanted a match from that area, a Breton Princess would be helpful. Basically, Margaret of Anjou would be pretty low on my "best wives" list for Henry VI of England.

As I understand it there was also "mention" of a match with one of the king of Aragon & Navarre's daughters (I would imagine Leonor), who would be a king's daughter. And Marguerite d'Anjou was a king's daughter by the standards of the time. If you accepted it, her father was the true king of Naples. And AFAIK, she came with a royal, not a ducal dowry.
 
As I understand it there was also "mention" of a match with one of the king of Aragon & Navarre's daughters (I would imagine Leonor), who would be a king's daughter. And Marguerite d'Anjou was a king's daughter by the standards of the time. If you accepted it, her father was the true king of Naples. And AFAIK, she came with a royal, not a ducal dowry.

Now that would be cool. Blanca II married to a different (and possibly equally impotent) Henry. Wonder how things would've played out if, in Henry VI's reign they lose most of the land they hold in France, only for Henry's son, *Edward IV to inherit Navarre (can't see Juan II wanting to get into a sceptre-measuring contest if his daughter's got English backing) and possibly, all the French territory that that entails. just when the French king thinks he's seen the back of the English, they come roaring back...:p
 
Top