An Earlier Tudor England?

Deleted member 204809

Say Catherine of Valois survives way longer and, being the mother of the king, is able to more get Edmund and Jasper integrated into Henry VI’s inner circle far more quickly, being their half-brothers and all.

Edmund Tudor is married to Anne Holland, the daughter of the 2nd Duke of Exeter, and her brother Henry Holland dies, meaning whatever issue the two produce will be the senior Lancastrian heir as they are descended from John of Gaunt’s daughter Elizabeth of Lancaster. Moreover, Anne is the niece of the Duke of Buckingham as her mother was Anne Stafford.

Now, I have an outlandish scenario here. Edward of Westminster is never born. I’m not sure if the First Battle of St Albans occurs but perhaps York is more emboldened considering Henry VI lacks an heir. During the battle Henry VI is killed by the arrow that injured him OTL. Then, somehow York is killed, how I’m not sure.

From this position, I’m pretty sure an alternative Henry VII is crowned king. Edmund Beaufort is dead. I’m not sure Salisbury and Warwick have the gall to demand the Earl of March declared king. They do not have the king hostage, so they wouldn’t be able to push their demands even if they wanted to. London wouldn’t accept king killers and traitors into the city gates.
 

Elfwine

Edmond Dantès said:
From this position, I’m pretty sure an alternative Henry VII is crowned king. Edmund Beaufort is dead. I’m not sure Salisbury and Warwick have the gall to demand the Earl of March declared king. They do not have the king hostage, so they wouldn’t be able to push their demands even if they wanted to. London wouldn’t accept king killers and traitors into the city gates.
Click to expand...
Why not?

They had no problem letting Edward IV in OTL as far as any objection to people attacking Henry VI. TTL's Henry Tudor doesn't really have much going for him as far as winning them over, either.
 

Elfwine

Edmond Dantès said:
What do you mean they had no objection letting Edward IV in?
Click to expand...
The people of London had no problem with letting Edward into the city OTL. I'm not sure why in this scenario they're suddenly going to be staunch supporters of the House of Lancaster and refuse to let traitors past the city gates.
 

Bob_Jenko

Elfwine said:
The people of London had no problem with letting Edward into the city OTL. I'm not sure why in this scenario they're suddenly going to be staunch supporters of the House of Lancaster and refuse to let traitors past the city gates.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Both in 1461 and 1471 they welcomed Edward in with open arms and allowed him to be crowned/retake the throne.
Edmond Dantès said:
I’m not sure Salisbury and Warwick have the gall to demand the Earl of March declared king
Click to expand...
Well, if Henry VI is dead with no issue, he's really their best bet. He's their nephew/cousin, he has a very strong blood claim and he's old enough (13) to not need a long regency but young enough for them to control for at least a few years. Even after that they're going to be Edward's chief supporters. If it's either him or Henry Tudor, he's definitely their pick. The Tudors while having more influence here were upstarts, though having Buckingham potentially in their corner would give them a stronger position.

Both have the "problem" of their claim going through the female line, though that would likely strengthen Edward's claim - the reason they were skipped was because of that, but his claim comes from the second and fourth sons of Edward III, Henry's here only goes through the third. So through primogeniture Edward has the stronger claim.
 

Bob_Jenko

Also a random thought, but I wonder if Edward does take the throne (which I think he would) that he would then be married to Margaret Beaufort quite soon afterwards. Which would be ironic for Margaret Beaufort to be part of the "anti-Tudor faction" to the extent there would be one (probably depending on how much of a fuss the Turdors/Buckingham put up).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top