WI Edward The Black Prince Lived

This was Edward III's eldest son, heir apparent to England and hero of Crecy and Poitiers. However, he predeceased his father, leaving his 10-year old son Richard to become Richard II. What if the Black Prince lived and became Edward IV? How would this effect the HYW? What would Edward IV be like? What effects would this have on England? What if?
 
This was Edward III's eldest son, heir apparent to England and hero of Crecy and Poitiers. However, he predeceased his father, leaving his 10-year old son Richard to become Richard II. What if the Black Prince lived and became Edward IV? How would this effect the HYW? What would Edward IV be like? What effects would this have on England? What if?

Ed Jr. (The Black Prince) wasn't that young when he died - mid-forties I think - so how much longer does he live? In what kind of health is he?
 
Well the main thing would be no minority of Richard II and probably very young king coming of age amongst disputed factions, having to make his way and his choice without impartial advisers. Would probably be better for the monarchy, and give Richard a sounder footing, allowing him to survive as king. Whether he prospers or not would be up to myriad factors, but probably not in this scenario dependant upon Henry.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

RousseauX

Donor
This was Edward III's eldest son, heir apparent to England and hero of Crecy and Poitiers. However, he predeceased his father, leaving his 10-year old son Richard to become Richard II. What if the Black Prince lived and became Edward IV? How would this effect the HYW? What would Edward IV be like? What effects would this have on England? What if?
Richard's minority didn't do him any favours: so probably a more effective king later on.

No Bolingbroke coup for sure: Henry would be the younger brother of a strong king instead of the royal uncle of a weak one.

OTOH, depending on your view, Richard might be sterile: and thus will die childless: which means the line of succession gets kicked to either the Lancaster or the Yorkists: depending on if you think you can inherit through the female line or not.

Which means the heir might very well be an ATL version of Richard, the duke of York: and you get the a war of roses analogue anyway: OTOH the players will be completely different since you don't get the round of attainder passed in the power struggle of Henry IV.
 
Focusing on Edward himself, from what's mentioned in Ormrod's biography of Edward III, the Black Prince sounds pretty incompetent. He was a sub-par ruler of Aquitaine when he governed that, inciting conflict with his tenants and courting a confrontation with the French that was simply unwinnable. Even his battleground success was limited; the only reason Poitier was so decisive was because Edward copied his father's (and indeed his great-grandfather's) defensive tactics, and secondly because he just happened to capture the right people. His behaviour in parliament suggests a haughty prince over-confident in his family's strength and his own right to rule, who would antagonise the gentry and the non-royal aristocracy and whose reign was kitted out to be a disaster.

Then we need remember that his brother, John of Gaunt, was groomed by their father to be the effective warden of the North; making Lancashire a County Palatinate and marrying him into their family gave him enormous power; there was good grounds for the widespread fear during Edward's senility and Richard's minority that he might launch a coup, which his son eventually did. If Edward IV was as incompetent as I think he was, then a fratricidal civil war could be on the cards.
 
I think you're being overly harsh. He certainly wasn't shaping up to be a great King but I can't believe he'd be worse than Richard II who spent the first chunk of his reign a child puppet for his feuding Regents and the second chunk pissing everyone off.
 
Presumably, rather than just briefly postponing his death in order to allow him to become king, we are going to remove the amoebic dysentery from which he suffered for pretty much the last ten years of his life.

If so, then we can expect the Black Prince to live for around another 20 years, taking him into his sixties. This allows him to be crowned as King Edward IV and be more involved in the tutelage of son Richard, which might make Richard a stronger king, if not necessarily a better one.

It is also possible (though not highly likely) that his disease was a contributory factor to his failure to have further children after the birth of Richard II. Nonetheless, with Edward alive there remains the possibility for him to remarry after Joan's death and produce further spares.
 
Presumably, rather than just briefly postponing his death in order to allow him to become king, we are going to remove the amoebic dysentery from which he suffered for pretty much the last ten years of his life.

If so, then we can expect the Black Prince to live for around another 20 years, taking him into his sixties.

How can we "expect" that?

Of those of Edward III's sons who reached adulthood - not counting Thomas (Duke of Gloucster) as he was murdered, the average age is 49. Not counting the Black Prince brings it to 50.

I'm not unwilling to believe Junior could beat that - but "expecting" him to live as long as his father, when of the Plantagent kings Henry II, Edward I, and Edward III stand out as unusually long lived - is a bit more than I'm really willing to take seriously.
 
How can we "expect" that?

Of those of Edward III's sons who reached adulthood - not counting Thomas (Duke of Gloucster) as he was murdered, the average age is 49. Not counting the Black Prince brings it to 50.

I'm not unwilling to believe Junior could beat that - but "expecting" him to live as long as his father, when of the Plantagent kings Henry II, Edward I, and Edward III stand out as unusually long lived - is a bit more than I'm really willing to take seriously.

I should have said 'up to' his sixties, which wouldn't be unreasonable for a well-off male of good physique in the 14th century, assuming he dies of natural causes. You name Henry II, Edward I, and Edward III as being exceptional, but fail to take into account the fact that Richard I died of a gangrenous wound, John died of an illness he most likely wouldn't have contracted had it not been for his war against the barons, Henry III lived to 65, and Edward II was murdered. It being likely that Edward will act as a warrior king, of course, it is more likely that Edward will die in battle or contract illness while campaigning, but I really do not see it as being as far-fetched as you do that Edward could live to 60, especially given that two of his brothers lived to 58 and 61 (also Lionel of Antwerp who brings the average down for Edward III's adult sons may have been poisoned - I do not buy into this theory myself, but it is worth paying lip service to).
 
I should have said 'up to' his sixties, which wouldn't be unreasonable for a well-off male of good physique in the 14th century, assuming he dies of natural causes. You name Henry II, Edward I, and Edward III as being exceptional, but fail to take into account the fact that Richard I died of a gangrenous wound, John died of an illness he most likely wouldn't have contracted had it not been for his war against the barons, Henry III lived to 65, and Edward II was murdered.

I don't think John's death by illness should be discounted because of campaigning. Disease is a serious hazard in this era.

But if you want to look at the whole list of kings descended from Henry II - not counting those dead because of violence:

Richard: N/A
John: 50
Henry III: 65
Edward I: 68

Edward II: N/A
Edward III: 65
Richard II: N/A
Henry IV: 46
Henry V: 35
Richard II: N/A
Edward IV: 41
Edward V: N/A
Richard III: N/A


Average: 53.

50+65+68+65=248
46+35+41=122

248+122 = 370. 370/7=53.

This is better than the French average in the same period (not counting the baby John that may or may not be counted as John I), I think.

It being likely that Edward will act as a warrior king, of course, it is more likely that Edward will die in battle or contract illness while campaigning, but I really do not see it as being as far-fetched as you do that Edward could live to 60, especially given that two of his brothers lived to 58 and 61 (also Lionel of Antwerp who brings the average down for Edward III's adult sons may have been poisoned - I do not buy into this theory myself, but it is worth paying lip service to).
I've never heard that theory (but what I know of Lionel of Antwerp is minimal, so any good sources would be welcome), but even if we take it seriously the average for the three sons that weren't murdered is 55.

That's rather short of Henry III, Edward I, and Edward III - and around the average for the Plantagents in general.

I wouldn't object very loudly in any given timeline for Edward IV to reach his late sixties - but when weighing the odds, the odds favor falling short of twenty years on the throne, more like half that (which would make him 56).

Still long enough for Richard II to come to the throne as an adult (19), but a very young king nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
no he didnt.....what are you blabbering on about?

Blabbering ? On facts.

The black prince is the man who was entrusted all english possessions acquired in France at Bretignies and he lost most of it in a few years.

He also finally lost Castile to the Trastamaras.

So his living 10 or 15 more years would probably change nothing in the course of the 100 years war. It may however change things in an interesting way in english history and butterfly away the Lancasters' coup against Richard II.
 
Top