WI: Edward of Lancaster (son of Henry IV and Mary de Bohun) lives?

[RedKing]

Edward of Lancaster (b. 1382), was a son of Henry IV (then the Earl of Derby IIRC), and Mary de Bohun, who died as a child. But what if he had lived? How would things change? Would Edward of Lancaster be exiled alongside his Father? If not, would Richard II still confiscate the Lancastrian lands in 1399 if there is an adult Lancastrian in England?

 

[material_boy]

This child never existed. He is an invention of historian James Hamilton Wylie based on a misreading of Bolingbroke's account books from 1382, in which Bolingbroke is recorded as gifting a messenger with a few pounds for reporting good news on the birth of a boy. Wylie read this to mean that Mary had born a boy. Nearly a century later, K.B. McFarlane repeated Wylie's findings in his own history of the Lancastrian kings, apparently without investigating the matter further. More recently, Alison Weir included the boy in her royal genealogy book -- she even gives him the name Edward and claims he lived for just four days, pieces of information that appear nowhere else and for which she provides no source.

Historians like Ian Mortimer, Kathryn Warner and others have thoroughly debunked the existence of this boy, based on two pieces of information that Wylie missed: Firstly, the messenger to whom Bolingbroke gifted money for having delivered good news was in the employ of the duke of Gloucester, suggesting that the messenger was announcing the birth of Gloucester's son, Humphrey, who was born in 1381 or 1382. Secondly, Bolingbroke's account books don't put him at the same place as Mary after their marriage -- Mary instead appears in the books of her mother's household. That is to say, the two lived apart ... so how could the child be conceived?

 

[Deleted member 147978]

Edward of Lancaster (b. 1382), was a son of Henry IV (then the Earl of Derby IIRC), and Mary de Bohun, who died as a child. But what if he had lived? How would things change? Would Edward of Lancaster be exiled alongside his Father? If not, would Richard II still confiscate the Lancastrian lands in 1399 if there is an adult Lancastrian in England?

Sources?

Okay then, I'll throw my hat with this.
[As if he ever existed to begin with.]

Assuming that Bolingbroke still has Henry, Thomas, John, and Humphrey IOTL; not only that he has five living sons this time but his legitimacy to be become king would be tenfold.

 

[RedKing]

This child never existed. He is an invention of historian James Hamilton Wylie based on a misreading of Bolingbroke's account books from 1382, in which Bolingbroke is recorded as gifting a messenger with a few pounds for reporting good news on the birth of a boy. Wylie read this to mean that Mary had born a boy. Nearly a century later, K.B. McFarlane repeated Wylie's findings in his own history of the Lancastrian kings, apparently without investigating the matter further. More recently, Alison Weir included the boy in her royal genealogy book -- she even gives him the name Edward and claims he lived for just four days, pieces of information that appear nowhere else and for which she provides no source.

Interesting, I did think Edward's birthdate being in 1382 was odd, since Mary would only have been 12/13 at the time. Alison Weir must have a thing for claiming that a person exists despite the lack of evidence, since she claimed Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset had a fourth son called Thomas. I guess the POD is the child existing then.

Sources?

Teresa Cole's biography on Henry V, though it is a myth, and hence an inaccuracy.

Assuming that Bolingbroke still has Henry, Thomas, John, and Humphrey IOTL; not only that he has five living sons this time but his legitimacy to be become king would be tenfold.

Yeah, having 5 sons is really going to help Henry IV stay secure on his throne.