Wi: The Kingmaker had a son?

Aha, I think for my notes, calling the kid Edward might make it better.

So, Edward Neville born 1453, grows up alongside George and Richard.

Also, could butterflies see off Edmund's death?

Rutland. Possibly.

its 1453. Butterflies could see OTL Edward IV marry margaret beaufort. However unlikely that is, it is still possible.
 
One thing about the Neville inheritance is that its was a, as you said, fuckton of land. In fact, i am pretty sure that Richard Neville was the largest landowner in England at the tie, and the only family that could probably match him estate/land wise were the Lancastrians, and maybe even Norfolk (i think Norfolk, but definitely the House of Lancaster).
Yeah, it's a lot of wealth, and a lot of power. Coupled with a man as charismatic as the Kingmaker, and it's a very dangerous brew. Norfolk is probably best of the rest behind the Beauchamp-Neville-Despenser behemoth and Lancaster, you're right.
In all honesty, dividing it up between George and Richard was a smart move, because all that land going to one of them would be really dangerous, and would make them a threat. SO really if Warwick did have a son, i would probably expect him to be attained rather quickly. And unless this hypothetical son dies on the battlefield, he would probably go the same route as George's OTL son, Edward Duke of Warwick, who lived in the tower for most of his life under Henry VII. Too dangerous to kill, but just as dangerous to keep in the open for people to rally around.
Yeah, there's a lot of imponderables, but dividing the land was much safer. If Edward had given more land to the male line inheritor (George Neville, Duke of Bedford, Montague's son), it may have helped even more.

The ideal for the crown is that this Neville ends up as one of the near 25% of nobles who grows to see himself unable to produce male heirs, and marries his daughter back into the royal family, thus returning the land to the crown. That needs quite a bit of luck, though. Timings of births have to vaguely fit, and no foreign alliances needing cemented by matrimony.
 
Yeah, it's a lot of wealth, and a lot of power. Coupled with a man as charismatic as the Kingmaker, and it's a very dangerous brew. Norfolk is probably best of the rest behind the Beauchamp-Neville-Despenser behemoth and Lancaster, you're right.

Yeah, there's a lot of imponderables, but dividing the land was much safer. If Edward had given more land to the male line inheritor (George Neville, Duke of Bedford, Montague's son), it may have helped even more.

The ideal for the crown is that this Neville ends up as one of the near 25% of nobles who grows to see himself unable to produce male heirs, and marries his daughter back into the royal family, thus returning the land to the crown. That needs quite a bit of luck, though. Timings of births have to vaguely fit, and no foreign alliances needing cemented by matrimony.

Hmm interesting, so if one of the butterflies of this kid's existence is that Urusula of York survives, could we see a marriage between the two of them? If so would that negate the other Neville-York marriages?
 
Hmm interesting, so if one of the butterflies of this kid's existence is that Urusula of York survives, could we see a marriage between the two of them? If so would that negate the other Neville-York marriages?
It should do. Then again, Isabel marrying Clarence should have put the kibosh on a Gloucester-Anne match.

My understanding is that canon law at the time treated one's in laws as one's own relatives. So, if Isabel is married to Richard's brother, then she becomes his sister. If Isabel is Richard's sister, then so, by extension, is Anne. Now, they did get dispensation from the Pope for a marriage, but that was based on the fact that they were related to a forbidden degree through their parents (first cousins once removed?) rather than the marriage of their siblings. This dispensation survives. There is no record of any other application, and if the interpretation was what I'm led to believe, they're unlikely to get dispensation for consanguinity in the first degree even if they asked. Occam's Razor suggests that they probably didn't bother.

It all gets a bit iffy, really.
 
It should do. Then again, Isabel marrying Clarence should have put the kibosh on a Gloucester-Anne match.

My understanding is that canon law at the time treated one's in laws as one's own relatives. So, if Isabel is married to Richard's brother, then she becomes his sister. If Isabel is Richard's sister, then so, by extension, is Anne. Now, they did get dispensation from the Pope for a marriage, but that was based on the fact that they were related to a forbidden degree through their parents (first cousins once removed?) rather than the marriage of their siblings. This dispensation survives. There is no record of any other application, and if the interpretation was what I'm led to believe, they're unlikely to get dispensation for consanguinity in the first degree even if they asked. Occam's Razor suggests that they probably didn't bother.

It all gets a bit iffy, really.

Hmm very true, and one that puts a very interesting spin on the whole tenament of the church and inter family relations as it were.

As for Edward Neville, what might be his role with things. Might he convince his father against Barnet, and perhaps earlier rebellions?
 
Richard Neville, the 16th Earl of Warwick, played a crucial role in the war of the roses, earning his name the Kingmaker from these actions. Now his marriage to Anne De Beauchamp only produced two daughters, Isabel born in 1451 and Anne born in 1456. What I am wondering is, what might've happened had he had a son born in say 1453 named Edward? What changes could this boy have brought?

1) It very likely butterflies Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, as it will tweak all Warwick's actions, including those in the 2nd St Albans campaign. That's where Sir John Grey of Groby was killed.

2) More importantly, it divides Warwick's loyalties (so to speak). OTL, all the future of his house was in his two daughters and their husbands. Isabel was married to George of Clarence, so that was it for him. (Anne remained unmarried until during his rebellion against Edward IV, she was married to the Lancastrian Prince of Wales.) Thus he was OTL wholly committed to Yorkist victory for the prosperity of his descendants - until he hedged and committed to Lancaster.

Here he has a son, who will carry the house forward regardless of who wins.
 
1) It very likely butterflies Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, as it will tweak all Warwick's actions, including those in the 2nd St Albans campaign. That's where Sir John Grey of Groby was killed.

2) More importantly, it divides Warwick's loyalties (so to speak). OTL, all the future of his house was in his two daughters and their husbands. Isabel was married to George of Clarence, so that was it for him. (Anne remained unmarried until during his rebellion against Edward IV, she was married to the Lancastrian Prince of Wales.) Thus he was OTL wholly committed to Yorkist victory for the prosperity of his descendants - until he hedged and committed to Lancaster.

Here he has a son, who will carry the house forward regardless of who wins.

Hmm interesting, what makes you think this kid's existence would butterfly away the marriage to Woodville?
 
Hmm interesting, what makes you think this kid's existence would butterfly away the marriage to Woodville?
Well, unless 2nd St Albans plays out exactly as OTL, then she's not a widow. Bearing in mind that the PoD is nearly a decade before the War starts, it's pretty much impossible for the scenario to give us St Albans as in OTL.

As Anarch says, a Warwick with a son may do things very differently long before Ludford Bridge and the start of the war proper.
 
Well, unless 2nd St Albans plays out exactly as OTL, then she's not a widow. Bearing in mind that the PoD is nearly a decade before the War starts, it's pretty much impossible for the scenario to give us St Albans as in OTL.

As Anarch says, a Warwick with a son may do things very differently long before Ludford Bridge and the start of the war proper.

Hmm interesting, what sort of things might he do differently?
 
Few points
1) the birth of a son doesn't necessarily change Neville's actions in the 1450s. The sources and reasons for his support for York and antipathy towards the regime of the Queen and her supporters remain in place. Even in OTL he wouldn't not have been positive that he wouldn't have a son by his wife she was around thirty when her youngest surviving daughter was born in 1456 and realistically could have continued producing children into the late 1460s.
2) A male child might not completely butterfly all the actions of the Wars of the Roses in the 1450s - in fact a son will mean Warwick will do far more to ensure his wealth passes untouched - and Margaret of Anjou's supporters included many who argued about his rights including the Somerset's who had a claim to the Warwick lands of his wife (whose half sister's were excluded from the Warwick inheritance because Anne Beauchamp inherited from her brother's infant niece and was therefore the closest relative of the full-blood)

3) Warwick was probably the richest peer in England by the 1460s and his son would have certainly been a catch as heir to the Despencer & Beauchamp inheritance of his mother, the Salisbury inheritance of his grandmother and the entailed portion of the Neville lands of his father.
4) A surviving brother reduces Isabella and Anne's value considerably - although still a good match they are not going to be as attractive to the King's brothers.
5) George's marriage complicated things for Edward IV after Barnet - under normal practice he could have attainted Warwick and confiscated the lot - though his widow would have been liable to claim a dower from them and insist on the return of her own patrimony. Hence the complicated dealings of the early 1470s with George and Richard much to their mother in law's fury (she would still be demanding her properties back when Henry VII came to the throne)/
In ATL with a surviving son - attainder is the best option (whether George or Richard have married either of the girls or not) for Edward IV. The teenage Neville would still legally be able to inherit his mother's estates on her death - but you can't rule out a remarriage for her (and though children were unlikely by this point) a powerful well connected second husband could enjoy his wife's rights not just to her death but to his own as well if there was a well-disposed monarch to support him.
 
Few points
1) the birth of a son doesn't necessarily change Neville's actions in the 1450s. The sources and reasons for his support for York and antipathy towards the regime of the Queen and her supporters remain in place. Even in OTL he wouldn't not have been positive that he wouldn't have a son by his wife she was around thirty when her youngest surviving daughter was born in 1456 and realistically could have continued producing children into the late 1460s.
2) A male child might not completely butterfly all the actions of the Wars of the Roses in the 1450s - in fact a son will mean Warwick will do far more to ensure his wealth passes untouched - and Margaret of Anjou's supporters included many who argued about his rights including the Somerset's who had a claim to the Warwick lands of his wife (whose half sister's were excluded from the Warwick inheritance because Anne Beauchamp inherited from her brother's infant niece and was therefore the closest relative of the full-blood)

3) Warwick was probably the richest peer in England by the 1460s and his son would have certainly been a catch as heir to the Despencer & Beauchamp inheritance of his mother, the Salisbury inheritance of his grandmother and the entailed portion of the Neville lands of his father.
4) A surviving brother reduces Isabella and Anne's value considerably - although still a good match they are not going to be as attractive to the King's brothers.
5) George's marriage complicated things for Edward IV after Barnet - under normal practice he could have attainted Warwick and confiscated the lot - though his widow would have been liable to claim a dower from them and insist on the return of her own patrimony. Hence the complicated dealings of the early 1470s with George and Richard much to their mother in law's fury (she would still be demanding her properties back when Henry VII came to the throne)/
In ATL with a surviving son - attainder is the best option (whether George or Richard have married either of the girls or not) for Edward IV. The teenage Neville would still legally be able to inherit his mother's estates on her death - but you can't rule out a remarriage for her (and though children were unlikely by this point) a powerful well connected second husband could enjoy his wife's rights not just to her death but to his own as well if there was a well-disposed monarch to support him.

Hmm interesting, and are you still convinced warwick would turn coat alongside his son/
 
Top