WI: Henry VII dies of the Sweating Sickness?

[Kellan Sullivan]

Wasn't warwick mentally illbecause he was essentially locked up his whole life? ITTL this would probably be averted.

The oft-repeated line about Warwick being an imbecile is probably more propaganda than anything else.

As to Lincoln "locking down" EoY, not that crazy of an idea. They were all at Sheriff Hutton (I think) at the time of Bosworth.

The idea of Lincoln's dad pushing for the marriage is laughable though. AIUI his father was pretty much a non-entity despite his position as brother-in-law to the kings of England

 

[The Professor]

Buckingham had access, just because he controlled the tower doesn't mean that he has done it. He was, as has been said before, responsible but not necessarily culpable)

Could it have been Richard's Queen, Anne Neville?.

She had had a terrifying life, all ups and downs. For the moment she was reasonably safe as Richard's consort, but should anything happen to Richard she would be in the same situation as Elizabeth Woodville had been on Edward IV's death - a widow desperately trying to protect a young son in shark-infested waters. Even if Richard was prepared to risk leaving the Princes alive, she might not have been. And she might have been able t covince oters that she was acting o Richard's behalf.

This would also explain Richard's deafening silence on the subject, since were his wife's action discovered, no one would believe that he was not involved. He could only keep schtum and hope that the issue would die away.

Could even be both for different reasons.

I usually lean to Buckingham for a rescue/"rescue" attempt (depending on Edwardian Yorkist or Lancastrian sympathies), but Anne for removing a threat to her family.

 

[HortenseMancini]

I've seen it suggested that the earl of Derby was responsible. Is there any merit to that?

 

[The Professor]

I've seen it suggested that the earl of Derby was responsible. Is there any merit to that?

The summary on Wikipedia kind of rules it out logistically.

Stanley was made Constable of England by Richard III towards the end of 1483, the year in which Edward V and Richard, Duke of York (the Princes in the Tower) disappeared from their confinement in the Tower of London. As Constable (originally a position which constituted command of the royal armies), Stanley was formally responsible for anyone who entered or left the Tower[5] – then the most secure of royal palaces. In this capacity, and as a loyal member of the Ricardian regime at the time, it can be argued that he was at least an accessory to the Princes' deaths, since once they had entered the security of the Tower they were never seen or heard of again, however his tenure as Constable came after their disappearance .[6] That said, since the Duke of Buckingham preceded Stanley as Constable of the Tower, Stanley could realistically only have had such an opportunity after Buckingham's rebellion and execution in October and November 1483 on becoming Constable. This would have given Richard and Buckingham – considered far more likely contenders for killer of the Princes[7] – ample opportunity to dispose of the Princes between their confinement in June 1483 and the rebellion in October.

Also, since Buckingham's uprising was expressly staged in favour of Henry Tudor's claim to the throne – rather than that of the missing Edward V – it seems reasonable to assume that Buckingham knew the Princes were already dead prior to his rebellion and, hence, Stanley succeeding as Constable.

Personally I think that if he did have access he'd either be available for Gloucester to blame without issue, or his shrewdness would have provided reasonable proof of Gloucester's hand in it. Thomas Stanley played to win after all.

 

[Awkwardvulture]

So basically what you're saying is that Richard and Stafford are the most likely to have had the Princes killed?

 

[The Professor]

So basically what you're saying is that Richard and Stafford are the most likely to have had the Princes killed?

No, Anne and the elder Stafford (Buckingham) are the most likely based on both access and usefulness.
Killing the Princes doesn't serve Richard III more than keeping them alive and impotent.

 

[CaptainShadow]

No, Anne and the elder Stafford (Buckingham) are the most likely based on both access and usefulness.
Killing the Princes doesn't serve Richard III more than keeping them alive and impotent.

Wouldn't Stanley also have access? This is pre-PoD so he could be trying to further his stepson's ( Henry VII) interests.....

 

[The Professor]

Wouldn't Stanley also have access? This is pre-PoD so he could be trying to further his stepson's ( Henry VII) interests.....

Only if they died after Buckingham's rebellion, which begs the question why Buckingham would think his rebellion could succeed if the Princes were alive and well. Buckingham's rebellion is what gave Stanley access as that is when he became Constable of England.

 

[Rex Romae]

Loving the discussion re: who killed the Princes in the Tower, but I'll focus on replying to the posts that touched on the subject question.

If union of the lines is the goal then it has to be Stafford to one of Edward's daughters, preferably the eldest (I've been shown that Edward I had an entail ranking his daughters by age in succession).
Charles Somerset is merely the untitled bastard of a claimant, he has no claim in his own right by the laws of the time.
I should also note that Stafford's stepfather is now Jasper, who has no claim in his own right.
And that Thomas Stanley, King of Mann, is wed to Henry Tudor's mother Margaret from who Henry's claim descended.

It makes sense that the succession rights of Edward's daughters are ranked by age, and I knew that Stanley was married to Beaufort and is thus Henry Tudor's stepdad.

Fair enough regarding Somerset, he's a longshot I threw out mainly because he's an adult man with Lancastrian blood. Re: Jasper, I believe he married Catherine Woodville in November, which is after the POD; the marriage may very well still go ahead, and especially if Stafford is to be king, but it does mean that Jasper is hypothetically free to marry EoY if things develop in that direction.

The oft-repeated line about Warwick being an imbecile is probably more propaganda than anything else.

As to Lincoln "locking down" EoY, not that crazy of an idea. They were all at Sheriff Hutton (I think) at the time of Bosworth.

The idea of Lincoln's dad pushing for the marriage is laughable though. AIUI his father was pretty much a non-entity despite his position as brother-in-law to the kings of England

I agree. No one who's been locked up in the Tower for most of their life since childhood would be able to distinguish between a goose and a capon, I reckon.

That's the thing, though - Henry VII here dies after Bosworth, after he had already taken EoY and her sisters into custody, after Lincoln had already swore fealty to him. The Tudor loyalists will be able to secure EoY far quicker than de la Pole here. Besides, he had no army to hold onto EoY with even if he was at Sheriff Hutton (and I've seen arguments saying that Lincoln was at Bosworth as well), nor do his later actions OTL point to a particularly decisive man or a man with much resources available to him.


I think the way things shake out, Stafford, son of Buckingham, is betrothed to EoY and crowned as Edward VI, while Jasper/Oxford/Stanley/etc. forms a semi-stable regency council of sorts? Warwick remains locked up and the focal points of revolts such as the (other) Stafford & Lovell Rebellion and Lambert Simnel. If de la Pole tries to move too early, he will be arrested and executed for treason. So what would a regency, as opposed to Henry VII's active and invested rule, look like for England?

Stafford seems the type to dress smartly, and didn't appear to have much political or military ability OTL. I'll have to read more on what his personality and character were like OTL, but the accusations of treason he faced points to a certain degree of ambition, so he will definitely try to hold on to his unlikely crown by any means despite his lack of outstanding talent. Not the best combination, IMO, and his aborted childhood will not help things in this regard. A pliant puppet for his regents, England may very well be the breeding ground for further discontent, paving the way for a Yorkist restoration.

The legal and financial reforms conducted by Henry VII will not take place here, England will probably pursue a more subdued foreign policy (no Treaty of Etaples?), and possibly most significantly, no marriage (yet) between James IV and a non-existent Margaret Tudor (though one of alt-Edward VI's sisters might be wed to James instead?). Overall the realm might be in a state of exacerbated malaise that will take a truly excellent monarch to rise itself out of.

 

[CaptainShadow]

Still hoping for a queen regnant! Elizabeth of York.

The Lancastrian claim ought to pass to Worcester IMHO.
Jasper Tudor marrying EoY would have great political ramifications of it's own, seeing as he has no claim himself(not to mention the age difference....uggghhh😖)

 

[FalconHonour]

Stafford seems the type to dress smartly, and didn't appear to have much political or military ability OTL. I'll have to read more on what his personality and character were like OTL, but the accusations of treason he faced points to a certain degree of ambition, so he will definitely try to hold on to his unlikely crown by any means despite his lack of outstanding talent. Not the best combination, IMO, and his aborted childhood will not help things in this regard. A pliant puppet for his regents, England may very well be the breeding ground for further discontent, paving the way for a Yorkist restoration.

Ambition, yes, but as someone once put it, 'Hoping a Stafford isn't going to do anything stupid is like hoping a snowball will freeze in Hell' (I may be paraphrasing, but that was the general gist) His father has just died as 'the most untrue creature living'. That's not going to endear him to the Yorkists, particularly not any pro-Ricardian ones that are still floating about. I'm not saying he and Elizabeth shouldn't marry or that it's not the best way to stabilise the country in the short term, but I can't see him being a particularly good/popular/effective King...

 

[Awkwardvulture]

Yeah, if Stafford becomes king he'll quickly die of "Stomach Complaints" or trip down the stairsitis..

 

[VVD0D95]

I do think jasper to Elizabeth is the most likelt
Option, if not the. I could see Warwick to Elizabeth happening

 

[The Professor]

Still hoping for a queen regnant! Elizabeth of York.

The Lancastrian claim ought to pass to Worcester IMHO.
Jasper Tudor marrying EoY would have great political ramifications of it's own, seeing as he has no claim himself(not to mention the age difference....uggghhh😖)

If by Worcester you mean Charles Somerset, unfortunately at this time an untitled bastard would not be considered.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

The legal and financial reforms conducted by Henry VII will not take place here,

There aren't many differences between Henry VII's reign and that of Edward IV in OTL. Much of his policy in administration was in effect a continuation - there were some areas where Henry went further in part because of his instability and the fact that his was a new dynasty - Henry's advantage was that many of the old families were either extinct by Edward IV's death and Richard's usurpation or were minors.

In terms of a surviving Yorkist line and a peaceful succession on Edward IV's death - then you can probably expect much the same.

Ignoring the high nobility for a moment the real power and influence at court at this period were the immediate members of the household (the gentlemen and their connections who saw the King in a very personal way every day) - it is notable that many of Edward IV's household supported rebellions against Richard III in OTL. These men were usually of means and came from the shires (they were country gentleman of some means in most cases) - they might be related to the royal family (Edward's household included his brother in law Thomas St Leger for example) or might have connections to aristocratic families etc or were long standing companions (such as Hastings brother).

These men would also serve as Justices of the Peace, would be summonsed to Parliament etc - some would rise through the ranks due to the connections they made and might indeed end up as peers or their descendants would over time due to the opportunities of being in personal attendance on the monarch.

Many of Henry's so called new men may well have come to note during Edward IV's reign - Empson was a successful lawyer, knight of the Shire etc (he was in his late thirties by Henry VII's accession), Dudley was young and again a rising lawyer when he attracted Henry's attention in the 1490s but he was the son of a Knight and grandson of a baron, Brandon's family were a prominent East Anglian family and so on. John Morton (who was nearly sixty at Henry's accession) is sometime described as a new man but he became a Bishop under Edward IV.

Henry essentially continued to rely on the great families just as much as any other King and on his paternal and maternal relatives (and like the Yorkists many of those relatives were not top flight aristocrats but gentlemen or the lower nobility - the Welles, Poles etc)

The Tudor idea of new men - middle class professionals in the administration - was not a massive shift as they had always played a role - some would argue that as the role of government increased they became more necessary and therefore more visible and a lot of historians believe that to describe it as a deliberate Tudor policy is an exaggeration.

By the 1480s many of the older generation were dying off - you will have several church appointments falling in your lap. Many of the characters that became Henry VII's court were around and served under Edward IV so don't discount people.

Edward V will also be a bit short of cash as he like his father has married a wife without any wealth - he is also stuck with providing for his mother (Elizabeth was left Sheen I think by Edward IV along with the dower settled on her which came out of crown lands), his grandmother is still living and holding her dower from the York duchy, he has numerous sisters who will need significant dowers (Edward IV intended them to have around 10,000 on their marriages but that might have to be higher if Edward V looks abroad for them) - he's might need his own Morton's fork.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

and possibly most significantly, no marriage (yet) between James IV and a non-existent Margaret Tudor (though one of alt-Edward VI's sisters might be wed to James instead?).

Richard III was pushing for Margaret of Clarence or Anne de la Pole to take Cecily's place in the engagement IIRC, and then Henry VII offered Elizabeth Wydeville for James III (after Margarethe of Denmark died), and Anne/Katherine of York for James IV until Margaret Tudor was born. Not unthinkable that one of the Annes or Katherine winds up in Scotland depending on how quickly EoY's husband gets things settled

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...york-court-and-the-tudor-court-of-otl.416225/

 

[Kome]

I think the way things shake out, Stafford, son of Buckingham, is betrothed to EoY and crowned as Edward VI, while Jasper/Oxford/Stanley/etc. forms a semi-stable regency council of sorts? Warwick remains locked up and the focal points of revolts such as the (other) Stafford & Lovell Rebellion and Lambert Simnel.

So its a 7 year old King Edward VI Stafford pitted against a 10 year old Warwick/False Warwick.

War of the Roses with smaller claimants.

 

[Rex Romae]

Still hoping for a queen regnant! Elizabeth of York.

The Lancastrian claim ought to pass to Worcester IMHO.
Jasper Tudor marrying EoY would have great political ramifications of it's own, seeing as he has no claim himself(not to mention the age difference....uggghhh😖)

If Jasper marries EoY then she might be the Queen Regnant, with her Tudor King-Consort. The age gaps are going to be wonky no matter what, unfortunately. Jasper from all accounts is a loyal soldier, not prone to foolhardy ambition - would he be content with stepping over his nephew's body to seize the crown? As with Edward Stafford I need to read up on Jasper's personality to gauge how far he would go to ensure his sacrifices were not in vain. Being Lord Protector and/or regent for young Stafford is already a pretty meteoric rise for the man, as far as things go.

Ambition, yes, but as someone once put it, 'Hoping a Stafford isn't going to do anything stupid is like hoping a snowball will freeze in Hell' (I may be paraphrasing, but that was the general gist) His father has just died as 'the most untrue creature living'. That's not going to endear him to the Yorkists, particularly not any pro-Ricardian ones that are still floating about. I'm not saying he and Elizabeth shouldn't marry or that it's not the best way to stabilise the country in the short term, but I can't see him being a particularly good/popular/effective King...

Oh, I totally agree, and I did add a bunch of disclaimers about how Edward VI will not be a good monarch whatsoever. Having done research, it seems that aside from being a fop, Stafford is also notorious for his temper, harboured remarkably anti-French attitudes, shied away from participating in personal combat whenever he can, and may have had some form of depression, a problem only made worse if he's an unpopular and puppeted King since childhood. He could have been more pious than the norm, as he planned on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem - given that he was raised by Margaret Beaufort OTL, a fact I do not see changing here, this piety of his might become even more accentuated, for good or ill.

Edward's brother, Henry, is notably similar to OTL Henry VIII in appetites and temperament, and constantly owed the Crown a hefty debt, so he will be another source of financial drain on Edward VI.

However, Stafford also proved reasonably competent in managing his English, if not Welsh, estates, so England is not totally doomed. And...

snip

...it would seem that the "New Men" who Henry VII employed OTL might come to serve Edward VI as well, though probably not to the same degree of efficacy and loyalty. Their allegiances will be divided between the King's various overmighty ministers, rather than the child-King himself.

Richard III was pushing for Margaret of Clarence or Anne de la Pole to take Cecily's place in the engagement IIRC, and then Henry VII offered Elizabeth Wydeville for James III (after Margarethe of Denmark died), and Anne/Katherine of York for James IV until Margaret Tudor was born. Not unthinkable that one of the Annes or Katherine winds up in Scotland depending on how quickly EoY's husband gets things settled

Its certainly possible, and James IV himself was interested in such a match if I'm not mistaken. I think a daughter of Edward IV would be the most likely, because marrying the sister of Warwick or Lincoln to the King of Scotland is not a great idea for the shaky Stafford reign.

So its a 7 year old King Edward VI Stafford pitted against a 10 year old Warwick/False Warwick.

War of the Roses with smaller claimants.

And maybe a sneaky Richard IV over the horizon if Stafford and his regents muck things up badly enough.

 

[Awkwardvulture]

Ok, so I'm far from an expert in this time period, nor am I the best writer(I know more about the 16th century), but here is my proposed overview of Elizabeth of York's reign and marriage to Jasper Tudor:

Aftermath of Henry Tudor's death
Upon hearing of his nephew's death of the sweat, Jasper Tudor was devastated, he had been the closest thing to a father the boy had ever had, and Henry had been more of a son to him than a nephew. Still, he vowed to honor his nephew's memory by taking up the Lancastrian cause himself and by uniting the Lancastrian and Yorkist factions in the most fitting way possible... Thus, soon after Henry's death, he proposed marriage to Elizabeth of York and promised that he would make her Queen in her own right, while he would be the King Consort. It was said that Elizabeth, while hesitant to marry a man older than her own mother, agreed as she believed it would be her best chance of solidifying her rule.
The two moved very quickly, Jasper and his allies arranged for a swift wedding, and then coronation at Westminster Abbey, with several prominent priests witnessing the wedding(Which took place on November 7th) so that no one could easily waylay Elizabeth and force her to marry them. Shortly thereafter the act of Titulus Regius was repealed, and Elizabeth of York was announced rightful Queen of England in her own right.

Reign
Upon her coronation, Elizabeth of York, now Queen Elizabeth I, knew she had to be vigilant, for, even with Lancastrian support, as well as the support of Yorkists that had opposed her uncle Richard III, there were still several looming threats to her rule. The first and foremost was her young cousin, Edward Plantagenet, the 17th Earl of Warwick, for while he was just a child, he was the only living legitimate Plantagenet male. As a result, she acted quickly, and gave him an ultimatum, he would be able to keep his lands, and his life, if he swore loyalty to her, and would not make any marriages or alliances that she did not approve of. The young boy, perhaps terrified, accepted, and to be safe, Edward and his sister Margaret became wards of King Jasper. The two, in spite of the fact that their marriage had taken place over political concerns, seemed to love each other deeply in spite of the age difference, and Jasper would play a key role in modernizing the Royal Army and adding more ships to the Royal Navy. In regards to her many younger sisters, Elizabeth would arrange fabulous matches for several of them: most notably for Cecily of York and Anne of York, who would both become Holy Roman Empresses through their marriages, with Cecily marrying Maximillian I as his second wife, and Anne marrying Phillip of Burgundy, who would later become Phillip I, Holy Roman Emperor. Her penultimate sister, Catherine of York would later become Queen of Scotland through her marriage to King James IV of Scotland as well. After the deal with Warwick, the remainder of Queen Elizabeth the first's thirty-five-year reign was mostly peaceful and prosperous, with the only internal rebellion being from her cousin, Edward Stafford, the third Duke of Buckingham, who rose up to press his claim on the throne via his descent from Edward III in the year 1502. He was unable to amass much support against the popular queen, and she personally lead her much larger army to crush that of the would-be usurper, who was attained and beheaded shortly after his defeat on May 27th... Though she was heartbroken by her husband's death from Pneumonia in 1495, Elizabeth would spend the rest of her reign ensuring that England would become one of the most prosperous nations in Western Europe, and in 1505, sponsored the creation of a colony at Newfoundland, laying the foundations for English colonization in North America. She would ultimately die of natural causes at the age of fifty-four on June 12th, 1520, and would be succeeded by her eldest son Arthur.

Family Tree
Queen Elizabeth I of England,(b.1466, d.1520, r. from 1485) m.King Jasper I of England(b.1431, d.1495) had issue
1)Arthur, Prince of Wales(b.1486) m.Catherine of Aragon(b.1485) had issue
2)Prince Edward, Duke of York(b.1487)
3)Prince Henry, Duke of Bedford(b.1488, d.1488)
4)Princess Elizabeth of England(b.1490)
5)Princess Cecily of England(b.1491)
6)Prince George, Duke of Bedford (b.1493)
7)Princess Mary of England(b.1494, d.1494)
8)Prince Edmund, Duke of Somerset(b.1496, posthumous son of Jasper)

King Arthur I of England(b.1486) m. Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England(b.1485) had issue
1)Princess Mary of England, Queen of Spain(b.1501)m. Miguel, Prince of Portugal, Asturias, and Girona(b.1498)
2)Stillborn daughter(1503)
3)Jasper, Prince of Wales(b.1505)m.Catherine of Austria(b.1507)
4)Princess Elizabeth(b.1507, d.1507)
5)Prince John, Duke of Richmond (b.1509, d.1509)
6)Prince Henry, Duke of Richmond (b.1512)
7)Stillborn son(1513)
8)Prince Edward, Duke of Exeter (b.1516)