WI: Elizabeth of York born a boy?

So, WI things play out differently and Elizabeth Woodville conceives a son with Edward IV, giving birth to a prince (who we'll call *Edward V here, for clarity's sake) in early 1466, rather than a daughter as in OTL?

What are the possible long term and short term effects of this scenario?

In particular, how will this effect the King's relationship with the Earl of Warwick and his brother Clarence? Will events play out differently than in OTL with Edward IV in a much more secure position earlier in his reign? Or will Warwick still rebel and attempt a Lancastrian restoration or to put Clarence on the throne And looking further ahead, if Edward IV still dies in 1483 as in OTL, I assume that *Edward V will be in a much stronger position, as he'll already be seventeen and there will be no need for a regency?
 
My first thought when I read the thread title was that *Edward would have made life much more difficult for Gloucester, but you made a much more reasonable point about Warwick and Clarence. I think it is very possible that the existence of an heir would butterfly away a lot of things. I am not sure that it would totally stop Lancastrian efforts at rebellions, but it may be enough to keep Clarence and possibly even Warwick in line. At the very least, I would be surprised if Clarence revolted against his brother and nephew, leaving Warwick little opportunity to defect.

Of course, a Woodville heir may have made even more people annoyed at Edward and we may get earlier and more frequent rebellions.


Off topic, and this may be a dumb question: Was Elizabeth of York called "of York" because she was the last of the Yorkist heirs, because her father was once Duke of York, or because she was born in York?
 
My first thought when I read the thread title was that *Edward would have made life much more difficult for Gloucester, but you made a much more reasonable point about Warwick and Clarence. I think it is very possible that the existence of an heir would butterfly away a lot of things. I am not sure that it would totally stop Lancastrian efforts at rebellions, but it may be enough to keep Clarence and possibly even Warwick in line. At the very least, I would be surprised if Clarence revolted against his brother and nephew, leaving Warwick little opportunity to defect.

Of course, a Woodville heir may have made even more people annoyed at Edward and we may get earlier and more frequent rebellions.


Off topic, and this may be a dumb question: Was Elizabeth of York called "of York" because she was the last of the Yorkist heirs, because her father was once Duke of York, or because she was born in York?

Because she was the Yorkist heiress.
 
My first thought when I read the thread title was that *Edward would have made life much more difficult for Gloucester, but you made a much more reasonable point about Warwick and Clarence. I think it is very possible that the existence of an heir would butterfly away a lot of things. I am not sure that it would totally stop Lancastrian efforts at rebellions, but it may be enough to keep Clarence and possibly even Warwick in line. At the very least, I would be surprised if Clarence revolted against his brother and nephew, leaving Warwick little opportunity to defect.

Of course, a Woodville heir may have made even more people annoyed at Edward and we may get earlier and more frequent rebellions.

I would have thought the only way Warwick and Clarence could rebel if there's a male heir around would be by directly attacking the legitimacy of the king's wedding and hence of the heir, which would be a lot harder for Edward to forgive. If Clarence is killed around 1470 or so that has a number of consequences - no children, Isabel Neville presumably lives a while longer, Richard of Gloucester gets to grab all the Warwick estate when he marries Anne Neville instead of only half of it, that sort of thing.

When Edward IV dies, Richard has a much starker choice than OTL - either he rebels straight away or he bends the knee. There'll be no regency type arrangement for him as in OTL. I think he'd bend the knee unless he's convinced that the Woodvilles will try and have him attainted and executed, which they *probably* won't.

Off topic, and this may be a dumb question: Was Elizabeth of York called "of York" because she was the last of the Yorkist heirs, because her father was once Duke of York, or because she was born in York?

The middle one. It's the same reason why Prince Charles' son was called Prince William of Wales and why his son is Prince George of Cambridge.
 
Off topic, and this may be a dumb question: Was Elizabeth of York called "of York" because she was the last of the Yorkist heirs, because her father was once Duke of York, or because she was born in York?

The second one.

She could have been called "of England" since her father was King of England, but that would have raised awkward issues since the Tudors, being Lancastrians, did not view the Yorkist kings as legitimate rulers
 
The middle one. It's the same reason why Prince Charles' son was called Prince William of Wales and why his son is Prince George of Cambridge.

William is "of Wales" because his father is Prince of Wales. George is "of Cambridge" because his father is Duke of Cambridge.

Elizabeth of York's father was not Duke of York during her lifetime. It could be said that she was never the child of the Duke of York as there was none until her younger brother was given the title.

I thank those who answered that the York designation came from her role as heiress. I assume then that she was called as such no earlier than 1485. Though I suppose she would always have been The Lady Elizabeth as a king's daughter until she became the Queen.
 
I imagine in foreign diplomacy she would be more generically referred to as "the daughter of England", going over State Papers diplomats often didn't even bother transcribing princess' names.
 
Top