King Edward IV lives another 15 years

Instead of dying at the age of 40 in 1483, King Edward IV of England lives for another 15 years. His grandson Henry VIII died at around age 55, despite his very unhealthy lifestyle (similar to what Edward IV had) in his latter years.

In this TL I am assuming his oldest son Edward dies in 1485 of some illness and his younger son Richard is 25 when he succeeds his father as King Richard III. Given the opinion I give below, King Richard III in this timeline regins until 1550 (a reign of 52 years)

*I am of the opinion Richard III did not murder the princes in the tower or anybody else murdered. However Edward V died of some illness or an attempt to cure it, in 1483. This plausible given that he was visited by Doctor Argentine at this time in the Tower of London, having him die of some illness or in some attempt to cure him of this illness. Also I believe his brother Richard lived the rest of his life in obscurity as Richard of Eastwell, dying in 1550 (at the age of 77).

Possible butterflies would be too important there to really give more than general observations, IMHO.

Maybe a general, and welcomed, reaffirmation of English state. On which lines, I'm not too sure. Edward proven to not indulge about knighthood fantasises as his allies, neither to the ruthless policies of his ennemy Louis IX.
He didn't seem to be quite abled in foreign policies, while more on inner business.
I won't see a wheelturn on alliances, probably an Habsburgh-Lancaster agreement against France is to be expected; but about its exact enforcement, I would be cautious.

Teejay said:

*I am of the opinion Richard III did not murder the princes in the tower or anybody else murdered. However Edward V died of some illness or an attempt to cure it, in 1483. This plausible given that he was visited by Doctor Argentine at this time in the Tower of London, having him die of some illness or in some attempt to cure him of this illness. Also I believe his brother Richard lived the rest of his life in obscurity as Richard of Eastwell, dying in 1550 (at the age of 77).

Click to expand...

Well, first off I find this theory very implausible for two very simple reasons:

1. If Edward V had died of illness, why didn't Richard say so? Hell, he could even have claimed Richard, Duke of York, had caught the same illness and also died. Fundamentally speaking, there is no reason for Richard to hide the fact that his young nephew is seriously ill and then dies of it, as natural causes immediately strengthens his position on the throne (and if some are going to find it suspicious that they just happened to fall ill at that point in time, well they'd find any conveniently timed situation suspicious).

2. Richard of Eastwell appears to be about 4 years too old to have been Richard, Duke of York. Supposedly he was the son of Richard III and met the latter at the age of 16 just before the battle of Bosworth. Richard, Duke of York, would have been 12. In any case, had he been the legitimate son of Edward IV and rightful ruler of the country, rather than the illegitimate and unacknowledged son of Richard III, I can't see him being able to live in such secrecy or being allowed to by Henry VII.

Anyway, presuming that Edward IV does live to see his sons into adulthood- and I personally would assume it would be Edward not Richard who becomes the next king but that's by-the-by, then the House of York will probably remain on the throne until disrupted by lack of male heirs or so forth. The Tudors are pretty irrelevant without an unpopular king to gain support from after all.

It may be interesting if this sparks the beginning of a trend for 'English' marriages with those of aristocratic stock in the country, but I think Edward and Richard would probably end up marrying abroad, either France, Spain or the Empire as the OTL choices were by and large.

Alex Richards said:

Well, first off I find this theory very implausible for two very simple reasons:

1. If Edward V had died of illness, why didn't Richard say so? Hell, he could even have claimed Richard, Duke of York, had caught the same illness and also died. Fundamentally speaking, there is no reason for Richard to hide the fact that his young nephew is seriously ill and then dies of it, as natural causes immediately strengthens his position on the throne (and if some are going to find it suspicious that they just happened to fall ill at that point in time, well they'd find any conveniently timed situation suspicious).

Click to expand...

Because exactly the same horror and suspicion would occur as did in OTL when the Princes were believed to be dead. In hindsight Richard should have came out and said they were dead, removing them as a threat before rebellions could begin in their name(and then adopt Tudor). However, at the time it was a seemingly reasonable approach for Richard, a man with a proven track record in government to try to let his governing do the talking.

Obviously we now know that didn't work but I don't think Richard could have just said 'oh woops the princes died of illness... guess I'm king' as it was the harming (or perceived harming) of the prince which seems to have really turned people against Richard.

I don't believe the Richard of Eastwell theory personally, but do think that Richard had every reason to fear the princes dying a natural death, after he had became King. A dead pretender leads to imposters (as occurred with Edward II), whereas Tudor proved the value in being able to present the supposed pretender with Warwick.

CP11 said:

Because exactly the same horror and suspicion would occur as did in OTL when the Princes were believed to be dead. In hindsight Richard should have came out and said they were dead, removing them as a threat before rebellions could begin in their name(and then adopt Tudor). However, at the time it was a seemingly reasonable approach for Richard, a man with a proven track record in government to try to let his governing do the talking.

Obviously we now know that didn't work but I don't think Richard could have just said 'oh woops the princes died of illness... guess I'm king' as it was the harming (or perceived harming) of the prince which seems to have really turned people against Richard.

I don't believe the Richard of Eastwell theory personally, but do think that Richard had every reason to fear the princes dying a natural death, after he had became King. A dead pretender leads to imposters (as occurred with Edward II), whereas Tudor proved the value in being able to present the supposed pretender with Warwick.

Click to expand...

That happened with Richard II, not Edward II. That after Richard II died from likely being starved to death on Henry IV's orders. There were people claiming to be Richard II, until Henry V decided to transfer the remains of Richard II to Westminister Abbey.

Alex Richards said:

Well, first off I find this theory very implausible for two very simple reasons:

1. If Edward V had died of illness, why didn't Richard say so? Hell, he could even have claimed Richard, Duke of York, had caught the same illness and also died. Fundamentally speaking, there is no reason for Richard to hide the fact that his young nephew is seriously ill and then dies of it, as natural causes immediately strengthens his position on the throne (and if some are going to find it suspicious that they just happened to fall ill at that point in time, well they'd find any conveniently timed situation suspicious).

2. Richard of Eastwell appears to be about 4 years too old to have been Richard, Duke of York. Supposedly he was the son of Richard III and met the latter at the age of 16 just before the battle of Bosworth. Richard, Duke of York, would have been 12. In any case, had he been the legitimate son of Edward IV and rightful ruler of the country, rather than the illegitimate and unacknowledged son of Richard III, I can't see him being able to live in such secrecy or being allowed to by Henry VII.

Click to expand...

For a long time, I actually thought that the Princes in the Tower had been murdered on the orders of Richard III. However I have done a little investigation into this and I have doubts now.

The Richard of Eastwell hypothesis is argued by David Baldwin in his book "The Lost Prince: The Survival of Richard of York". I do admit unless Richard of Eastwell remains undergo a DNA test, it never going to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. However I don’t believe that Richard of Eastwell was Richard III’s bastard son, because Richard would have openly acknowledged any other bastards he had, apart from the two (John and Katherine) he had acknowledged.

Teejay said:

For a long time, I actually thought that the Princes in the Tower had been murdered on the orders of Richard III. However I have done a little investigation into this and I have doubts now.

The Richard of Eastwell hypothesis is argued by David Baldwin in his book "The Lost Prince: The Survival of Richard of York". I do admit unless Richard of Eastwell remains undergo a DNA test, it never going to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. However I don’t believe that Richard of Eastwell was Richard III’s bastard son, because Richard would have openly acknowledged any other bastards he had, apart from the two (John and Katherine) he had acknowledged.

Click to expand...

To be honest, the biggest problem I have is that there's really no real reason for it to be anyone else. Treating the situation as a murder case, Richard really is the one with the biggest means, motive and opportunity, and it beggars belief that in a situation where they're alive but he's being accused of having them murdered to such an extent that it's weakening his grip on the crown, that he wouldn't do something like allow Elizabeth Woodville to see them on the condition of staying out of any plots. I mean it basically gets to the point that either Richard had them murdered (which really wouldn't be out of the ordinary for medieval monarchs) or he was completely inept at politics (which doesn't make sense considering he managed to survive for so long in them).

IIRC a DNA test at this point would only prove that he was, indeed, a Plantagenet. Distinguishing between Edward IV and Richard III would be very, very difficult considering the amount of degradation that will have occurred. It's also a bit odd considering the time period that if Richard of Eastwell was indeed the younger of the two Princes that not one person at the time would have suggested it. No offense, but based on a Google search that book by Baldwin is the first, and so far only, time that any historian has ever suggested that Eastwell was, in fact, Richard of York, which considering the 500 years of intervening time and intense interest on the date makes me incredibly suspicious (it's a theory that the Richard III Society would probably love to promote if there was any evidence for it, considering it absolves Richard III of blame for one death outright, casts doubt on the other death and generally makes him seem a better chap all-round). Frankly the more I do read up on the theory the more it just falls apart.

If Edward IV lives on into the 1490s then his eldest son succeeds quite smoothly I would suspect if he lives if he doesn't then his brother succeeds again quite smoothly.

As to the fate of the Prince's the likeliest theories are:
a) Murdered with or without Richard III's knowledge but almost certainly sometime in 1483.
b) Both were killed or injured in some botched rescue attempt - not particularly credible
c) One dies of some childhood illness and the other survives to be either killed or left to obscurity with the tacit agreement of either Richard III or Henry VII - again both Richard and Henry had a relatively ruthless streak and in my view wouldn't have wanted to take any risk with the security of their throne.

Richard's biggest problem was to produce one or both to dispell rumours of their death would have effectively made them a focus for rebellion for any malcontent and especially after the death of his own only legitimate son.
Sort of dammed if he did and dammed if he didn't.

However his usurpation had effectively abolished the House of York's security

Edward IV dreamt quite big for his children in terms of alliances -
Elizabeth of York for the future Charles of France until the betrothal was abandoned shortly before Edward's death.
Cecily for the future James IV (or his uncle) at various points.
Anne of York for Philip of Burgundy
Catherine of York for Juan of the Asturias.
The future Edward V for Anne of Brittany

Now it might be unlikely but there is a chance some if not all would have come to pass but it is clear he was eager to establish the House of York on an international stage not withstanding his and both his brother's marrying domestically.

Alex Richards said:

To be honest, the biggest problem I have is that there's really no real reason for it to be anyone else.

Click to expand...

The Duke of Buckingham, who had access (as Constable of England, which made him senior to the 'constables' in charge of individual castles such as the Tower), just before his rebellion: It creates a charge that he could bring against Richard to help justify the rebellion and clears two people with an arguably better claim to the throne than he himself possessed (as "current" heir to Edward III's youngest son Thomas, Duke of Gloucester) out of his way.

Would Henry Tudor take on Edward IV if he had lived longer? What would have been the fate of Henry Tudors Mother? Who wins between Edward IV and Henry Tudor?

Simreeve said:

The Duke of Buckingham, who had access (as Constable of England, which made him senior to the 'constables' in charge of individual castles such as the Tower), just before his rebellion: It creates a charge that he could bring against Richard to help justify the rebellion and clears two people with an arguably better claim to the throne than he himself possessed (as "current" heir to Edward III's youngest son Thomas, Duke of Gloucester) out of his way.

Click to expand...

Though the Constable of the Tower, Sir Robert Brackenbury, was a long time servant of Richard who would have queried any orders that seemed at all "sus" to him.

Incidentally, he had for several years been Richard's Treasurer, so is likely to have been familiar with his master's handwriting, so that bringing a forged document would have been very risky.

Duke 4 said:

Would Henry Tudor take on Edward IV if he had lived longer? What would have been the fate of Henry Tudors Mother? Who wins between Edward IV and Henry Tudor?

Click to expand...

Margaret Beaufort's relationship with Edward IV was pretty good - she was a regular at court despite her Lancastrian connections.
There is some suggestion she had actively tried to get Edward to agree to allow her son's return to England and to inherit her estates on her death.
If he edged it was probably due to financial reasons, greed and a wish to avoid upsetting her third husband.

Tudor was lucky in that Richard III's usurpation had split support down the middle and created the circumstances for a revival of Tudor's hopes - with foreign support of course.

A surviving Edward IV and a smooth transfer of power to an adult son - reduces Tudor's claim even further.

Lancaster based their succession on being the senior male line heirs, by that justification Edward IV was lawfully the King after the death of Henry VI, Edward of Westminster and the last male Beaufort (if you accept their right to the throne)

By 1483 you would be hard pressed to find anyone who really disputed the House of York's security and right to rule.

Wasn't one of Edward's comments on Harry Tudor that "he was a person of no import, not worth worrying about"?

More an irritant than anything else - the only people who took him seriously were his mother and uncle and in time of war or diplomatic crisis whichever foreign power wanted to use him as a tool against Edward.

mcdnab said:

More an irritant than anything else - the only people who took him seriously were his mother and uncle and in time of war or diplomatic crisis whichever foreign power wanted to use him as a tool against Edward.

Click to expand...

So he's like Perkin Warbeck come early. Since the only people who 'liked' Perkin were those that didn't like Henry VII?

Duke 4 said:

Would Henry Tudor take on Edward IV if he had lived longer? What would have been the fate of Henry Tudors Mother? Who wins between Edward IV and Henry Tudor?

Click to expand...

No, Henry Tudor was only able to challenge the House of York because Richard III's usurpation of the throne split the Yorkist camp right down the middle. With a legitimate, seasoned King in power Henry Tudor stays in exile in France unless Edward IV convinces France to hand him over.

I wonder though what the French price will be for handing him over.

Actually it might not be that big a price but I can't see a suriviving Edward IV without a fresh war or minor skirmish with France in the 1480s.

In 1482 Louis XI breaks the Dauphin's betrothal to Elizabeth of York to betrothe Charles to Margaret of Austria instead as part of the Peace of Arras.
Edward was incensed and the likelihood had he lived was conflict with France.

Assuming Louis XI dies as in OTL - then in the Summer of 1483 the French are pretty weak - with Anne of Beaujeau as Regent for her brother. Though through the 1480s she was in conflict with both Orleans and Francis of Brittany

With a surviving Edward IV - he is going to press for ratification of his heir's marriage to Anne of Brittany agreed around 1480 - leaving the French with a headache - Brittany absorbed into England.

France's solution is to try and force Francis to dump his heir's marriage with Edward Prince of Wales which won't happen without war.

If war comes then I wouldn't rule out Edward forcing his breton ally to send Anne to the English court as part of her betrothal agreement.

For the French the obvious solution betrothing her to Charles VIII means dropping Margaret of Austria and her dower the Counties of Artois and Franche Comte. (Which happened in OTL)

Tudor suddenly become a more important figure at least to his French hosts but whether they are capable of mounting an armed invasion without any domestic support would be difficult to guess at.

There's also the question of how much Richard would be able to do to Scotland, from his power-base in northern England, during those 15 years...

OK, potential problems

-1- Richard, Duke of Gloucester
OK, he may remain loyal, though given king's brothers and uncles in recent times this is not a given. If widowed and heirless, he will without a doubt look to remarry and thus create his own line, for his own not inconsiderable inheritance. Even if Richard himself does not stir up trouble, his son may in Richard III's time.

-2- Buckingham
How unstable was he?

-3- Henry Tudor
He will probably happy to be reinstated as Earl of Richmond and have a rapprochement with the crown. If he has not done this by the time Richard takes the throne, then he becomes increasingly unlikely to marry and beget heirs and thus even easier for Richard to say Oh, OK then, come back and take up the title.

-4- Other nobles who had lost out
The War of the Roses had winners, and thus losers. Some, like the Beaufort line of Dukes of Somerset effectively died out (except for a bastard line that today are the Dukes of Beaufort), others remained angry and looking for a chance to last out, to tie their support to a cause.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf