King Edward IV lives another 15 years

[mcdnab]

Gloucester is a problems unless Edward IV in his final 15 years revises the Neville settlement of 1475 - Richard's hold on those lands is exceptionally weak after the death in may 1483 of George Neville former Duke of Bedford and the death of his own son (if it happens as in otl) with those deaths his hold on those estates is reduced to a life interest (reverting to Lord Latimer who is a minor) - which significantly reduces his power and patronage.

Now Edward may well revise the terms but there is no guarantee that he will. And any dispute over the inheritance will involve Dorset (the Queen's son) who had the custody and marriage of the Earl of Warwick.

Buckingham - he is a probable focus for rebellion however he has been kept from his family's traditional role (although given he was a minor until the early 1470s) particularly in areas dominated by those closer to Edward. But much of his present reputation descends from the wrongly named rebellion against Richard in 1483 and the support he had during that revolt largely (though not wholy) came from supporters of Edward IV who wanted to restore his son (and their own influence). He also wants restoration of the Lancastrian half of the de bohun inheritance which Edward kept for himself.

Henry Tudor - Assuming he avoids getting caught up in any Anglo-French conflict then I think a return home - at huge cost to his mother in land deals with Edward i suspect. Perhaps a restoration of his title of Richmond (though it had been given to Gloucester) - as to his uncle depends if Edward wants to annoy the Herbert's by giving Pembroke back to Jasper.

Defunct Lancastrian rebels - Northumberland was restored to his titles and served Edward IV loyaly throughout the 1470s so he is an unlikely rebel the main likely rebel is the Earl of Oxford, the last real remaining loyalist, but was a prisoner of Edward IV and his influence had been broken (in OTL he escaped in around 1484 and joined Henry Tudor).

 

[JonasResende]

Henry Tudor - Assuming he avoids getting caught up in any Anglo-French conflict then I think a return home - at huge cost to his mother in land deals with Edward i suspect. Perhaps a restoration of his title of Richmond (though it had been given to Gloucester) - as to his uncle depends if Edward wants to annoy the Herbert's by giving Pembroke back to Jasper.

Defunct Lancastrian rebels - Northumberland was restored to his titles and served Edward IV loyally throughout the 1470s so he is an unlikely rebel the main likely rebel is the Earl of Oxford, the last real remaining loyalist, but was a prisoner of Edward IV and his influence had been broken (in OTL he escaped in around 1484 and joined Henry Tudor).

As I understand it, there was a time when Henry Tudor was betrothed to the Queen's niece, Elizabeth Herbert, the only daughter of the then earl of Pembroke. So if that marriage goes through, Pembroke descends to the Tudors, so maybe Jasper can marry Ms Herbert instead? Or failing that, Jasper is perhaps granted another title (unlikely, I should imagine), or he marries an heiress to a title?

 

[CP11]

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.

Sorry I was referring to the figure who Edward III supposedly met and who claimed to be his father, and to the plot of the Earl of Kent supposedly believing his half brother was alive, as evidence that pretenders or claimants existed and the rumour could cause problems. Guess that didn't come across clearly in my post.

Gloucester is a problems unless Edward IV in his final 15 years revises the Neville settlement of 1475 - Richard's hold on those lands is exceptionally weak after the death in may 1483 of George Neville former Duke of Bedford and the death of his own son (if it happens as in otl) with those deaths his hold on those estates is reduced to a life interest (reverting to Lord Latimer who is a minor) - which significantly reduces his power and patronage.

Now Edward may well revise the terms but there is no guarantee that he will. And any dispute over the inheritance will involve Dorset (the Queen's son) who had the custody and marriage of the Earl of Warwick.

Buckingham - he is a probable focus for rebellion however he has been kept from his family's traditional role (although given he was a minor until the early 1470s) particularly in areas dominated by those closer to Edward. But much of his present reputation descends from the wrongly named rebellion against Richard in 1483 and the support he had during that revolt largely (though not wholy) came from supporters of Edward IV who wanted to restore his son (and their own influence). He also wants restoration of the Lancastrian half of the de bohun inheritance which Edward kept for himself.

Henry Tudor - Assuming he avoids getting caught up in any Anglo-French conflict then I think a return home - at huge cost to his mother in land deals with Edward i suspect. Perhaps a restoration of his title of Richmond (though it had been given to Gloucester) - as to his uncle depends if Edward wants to annoy the Herbert's by giving Pembroke back to Jasper.

Defunct Lancastrian rebels - Northumberland was restored to his titles and served Edward IV loyaly throughout the 1470s so he is an unlikely rebel the main likely rebel is the Earl of Oxford, the last real remaining loyalist, but was a prisoner of Edward IV and his influence had been broken (in OTL he escaped in around 1484 and joined Henry Tudor).

I agree with all of this, but cant see Jasper getting his title back, would be surprised if the acceptance of Henry back into the fold extended to the most diehard of Lancastrians... at least not until Henry had proved his trustworthiness for a substantial period.

The French situation in the 1480s would be interesting, Edward hadn't shown any great sign of offending the French but with Elizabeth's betrothal to the Dauphin broken and with Brittany and Burgundy at stake I think he would have to seriously consider military action, although whether he personally leads the army to France is questionable.

 

[Tudorfan]

The French situation in the 1480s would be interesting, Edward hadn't shown any great sign of offending the French but with Elizabeth's betrothal to the Dauphin broken and with Brittany and Burgundy at stake I think he would have to seriously consider military action, although whether he personally leads the army to France is questionable.

He wouldn't; he'd be far too fat to lead now!

 

[JonasResende]

Well...Henry VIII was so fat they had to build special apparatus just to get him up a flight of stairs, and yet he still led the attack on Boulogne AFAIK. And besides, he can attack France from behind a desk, too, not likely to be his style, but it can be done.

 

[Tudorfan]

Very true.

 

[mcdnab]

Looking back with hindsight and thanks to the huge mythology surrounding Henry VII and his descendants - it is hard to assume he wasn't a key figure before his invasion and accession but he just wasn't.

However if you have a united house of york and Edward living longer he becomes an even more minor figure.

Edward had ruled unchallenged since his restoration. He had always been conciliatory towards Lancastrian figures during his first reign and in his second the challenge was effectively wiped out by the Lancastrian losses - By the 1480's there are no male Beaufort's and no Duke of Exeter.
A Lancastrian party just doesn't exist anymore in fact you can realistically state that Henry VII's victory and accession was more a result of York v York.
Edward has huge domestic support in part due to his household and family connections and the vast benefits he had bestowed on loyal York supporters creating new systems of patronage in key areas.
The nation is relatively peaceful and prosperous and his governance of the realm is pretty good (certainly when you compare it to the previous three decades) - Much of Henry VII's so-called innovations were based on Yorkist administration.
My error regarding Pembroke though - The earldom of Pembroke was surrendered to the crown by the 2nd Herbert Earl in return for that of Huntingdon in 1479 - Edward IV gave the earldom to his son the Prince of Wales. The 2nd Herbert Earl does not seem to have been of the same stuff as his father (a very loyal supporter of the crown) but he did continue to exercise influence in Wales etc.
Jasper Tudor was probably far more likely not to want to return and posed no real threat however his nephew has a much stronger reason to return although his father's title and estates were forfeit - his mother's wealth is a key motivational factor for him (and her).
Edward has to judge which is the greater issue - offending Margaret Beaufort's relatives (her mother's second family and her third husband) who might have hopes of receiving some of her wealth, his own rights to it on her death, bringing back to England Henry Tudor and restoring him in some way that negates any potential threat however minor.

I agree with all of this, but cant see Jasper getting his title back, would be surprised if the acceptance of Henry back into the fold extended to the most diehard of Lancastrians... at least not until Henry had proved his trustworthiness for a substantial period.

The French situation in the 1480s would be interesting, Edward hadn't shown any great sign of offending the French but with Elizabeth's betrothal to the Dauphin broken and with Brittany and Burgundy at stake I think he would have to seriously consider military action, although whether he personally leads the army to France is questionable.

 

[Teejay]

Sorry I was referring to the figure who Edward III supposedly met and who claimed to be his father, and to the plot of the Earl of Kent supposedly believing his half brother was alive, as evidence that pretenders or claimants existed and the rumour could cause problems. Guess that didn't come across clearly in my post.

Historian Ian Mortimer has argued that Edward II actually was not killed in Berkeley Castle and escaped to live out the rest of his life on the continent until 1330.

http://www.ianmortimer.com/EdwardII/death.htm

The French situation in the 1480s would be interesting, Edward hadn't shown any great sign of offending the French but with Elizabeth's betrothal to the Dauphin broken and with Brittany and Burgundy at stake I think he would have to seriously consider military action, although whether he personally leads the army to France is questionable.

Edward was being paid a pension from King Louis XI, although I don't know if his son Charles VIII* would continue paying that pension to Edward IV. Because Louis XI in OTL died in the latter half of 1483. Therefore, as long as Edward IV was being paid that pension, he would not go to war against France.

*From 1483 to 1491, Anne de Beaujeu and Peter II, Duke of Bourbon were regents of France.

 

[Teejay]

Gloucester is a problems unless Edward IV in his final 15 years revises the Neville settlement of 1475 - Richard's hold on those lands is exceptionally weak after the death in may 1483 of George Neville former Duke of Bedford and the death of his own son (if it happens as in otl) with those deaths his hold on those estates is reduced to a life interest (reverting to Lord Latimer who is a minor) - which significantly reduces his power and patronage.

Before Edward IV's death I believe if you told people what Richard of Gloucester would do after Edward IV died. They would be saying WTF, because Richard was extremely loyal to his brother.

I believe Richard III only decided he wanted to take the crown, because he feared that the Woodvilles would eliminate him. Once Edward V had come of age and dismisses Richard as lord protector. Also I dont discount the role Anne Neville played as well, since she was the daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker's daughter, therefore it is not inconceivable that she played a role similar to Lady Macbeth as well.

 

[Alex Richards]

Historian Ian Mortimer has argued that Edward II actually was not killed in Berkeley Castle and escaped to live out the rest of his life on the continent until 1330.

http://www.ianmortimer.com/EdwardII/death.htm



Edward was being paid a pension from King Louis XI, although I don't know if his son Charles VIII* would continue paying that pension to Edward IV. Because Louis XI in OTL died in the latter half of 1483. Therefore, as long as Edward IV was being paid that pension, he would not go to war against France.

*From 1483 to 1491, Anne de Beaujeu and Peter II, Duke of Bourbon were regents of France.

I am highly suspicious of any theory that relies on people in power suddenly performing a complete 180 degree policy U-Turn on their attitude towards a potentially dangerous figure (this being the part of Mortimer's theory that Isabella and Mortimer allowed Edward to be released), or on deposed monarchs being able to hide in strategically important castles for 18 months without anyone noticing.

I'd also note that I am very deeply suspicious on any theory where the main proponents I can find are a writer of historical fiction, an expert on a completely different period of history and someone who opens their argument by claiming that as, from a purely theoretical and logical point of view, there is no such thing as absolute proof, all evidence is circumstantial (he actually gives the example of Queen Victoria, stating that the circumstantial evidence gives a 100% probability that she died on that day, but that the proof is not absolute because of the theoretical possibility that everyone was lying.) Frankly his evidence for the theory looks very, very flimsy.

Before Edward IV's death I believe if you told people what Richard of Gloucester would do after Edward IV died. They would be saying WTF, because Richard was extremely loyal to his brother.

I believe Richard III only decided he wanted to take the crown, because he feared that the Woodvilles would eliminate him. Once Edward V had come of age and dismisses Richard as lord protector. Also I dont discount the role Anne Neville played as well, since she was the daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker's daughter, therefore it is not inconceivable that she played a role similar to Lady Macbeth as well.

Evidence? You're essentially making stuff up here.

 

[mcdnab]

Richards antagonism to the Woodville's dates from after his brother's death when in effect he and his supporters were trying to justify his actions.

His relationship with the Queen, her brother's and her eldest son was cordial - in fact Richard knighted one of her brother's during the Scots war.

There was no great Woodville faction at court in the late 1470s early 1480s - there were three key individuals (and in fact one of their biggest issues was they did not tend to act in concert) - Rivers as Governor of the Prince of Wales was highly regarded, Dorset (the Queen's eldest son) was less well-regarded and ambitious, and The Queen whose patronage and power effectively ended with her husband's death (English Queen Dowager's power usually stemmed from their dower estates but much depended on their relationship with the new monarch).

There is very little hard evidence to support the idea that Edward IV named Richard as Protector of the Realm - in effect Richard took the position at the urging of Hastings (who had a poor relationship with Dorset and the Queen) after taking control of the new King and arresting Rivers. In effect the rump of the late King's council (which had initially looked as if it was planning to rule in the young King's name without any regent) had little option but to accept Richard's Protectorship and even then it was limited until Edward V's coronation planned for the summer.

We don't know Richard's motivation for his actions but the most likely one is he was urged to exert his influnece by those who had a reason to fear Edward IV's death meant a loss of influence and being a pretty typical medieval prince he saw an opportunity and took it.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Historian Ian Mortimer has argued that Edward II actually was not killed in Berkeley Castle and escaped to live out the rest of his life on the continent until 1330.

http://www.ianmortimer.com/EdwardII/death.htm

Mortimer's theories are well written and researched and entertaining, but i am not one for totally believing it. Between the beginning of his essay in "The Greatest Traitor" and his expanding on in in "The Perfect King" all to denounce his detractors (which he specifically mentions) i myself am highly dubious of the Edward II theory.

Henry Tudor - Assuming he avoids getting caught up in any Anglo-French conflict then I think a return home - at huge cost to his mother in land deals with Edward i suspect. Perhaps a restoration of his title of Richmond (though it had been given to Gloucester) - as to his uncle depends if Edward wants to annoy the Herbert's by giving Pembroke back to Jasper.

Defunct Lancastrian rebels - Northumberland was restored to his titles and served Edward IV loyaly throughout the 1470s so he is an unlikely rebel the main likely rebel is the Earl of Oxford, the last real remaining loyalist, but was a prisoner of Edward IV and his influence had been broken (in OTL he escaped in around 1484 and joined Henry Tudor).

I am curious, but do you believe the theory that Edward was willing to marry Elizabeth off to Henry during his life? or is that actually a proven theory or just more Tudor propaganda.

It is a good way to unite both houses, but Henry is just too much of a threat to keep alive.

 

[mcdnab]

I don't think it was ever a serious consideration - and from 1475 to 1482 she wasn't available as she was betrothed to the Dauphin.
Had Edward lived he was going to need new allies and Elizabeth is too valuable an asset (given her age) to waste on a minor exile.

 

[Mikestone8]

I don't think it was ever a serious consideration - and from 1475 to 1482 she wasn't available as she was betrothed to the Dauphin.
Had Edward lived he was going to need new allies and Elizabeth is too valuable an asset (given her age) to waste on a minor exile.

Esp as the death of Mary of Burgundy in 1482 had just put Archduke Maximilian, heir to the Holy Roman Empire, back on to the marriage market. Max was probably the most eligible widower in Europe.

 

[Thoresby]

I am curious, but do you believe the theory that Edward was willing to marry Elizabeth off to Henry during his life? or is that actually a proven theory or just more Tudor propaganda.

It is a good way to unite both houses, but Henry is just too much of a threat to keep alive.

Henry Tudor wasn't a threat at all. He was a penniless and irrelevant exile until a perfect storm of the House of York imploding brought him back on the scene. If you had said to anyone in 1475 that Henry Tudor would become King they would have laughed at you and as a penniless irrelevance the Yorkists aren't going to both sending assassins after him and definitely they aren't going to marry a Royal Princess to him. Elizabeth would be reserved for a truly important marriage, either a major magnate (which Henry wasn't) or a foreign Prince.

 

[Teejay]

Esp as the death of Mary of Burgundy in 1482 had just put Archduke Maximilian, heir to the Holy Roman Empire, back on to the marriage market. Max was probably the most eligible widower in Europe.

If Edward IV had lived say another 15-20 years as I proposed in the beginning of the thread. It is likely Elizabeth of York would have been married to Archduke Maximillian. Any first son of theirs (lets call him Eduard) have, would very well have become Archduke of Austria and maybe Holy Roman Emperor (which Maximillian's grandson Charles became in OTL).

 

[Ladymadchan]

If Edward IV had lived say another 15-20 years as I proposed in the beginning of the thread. It is likely Elizabeth of York would have been married to Archduke Maximillian. Any first son of theirs (lets call him Eduard) have, would very well have become Archduke of Austria and maybe Holy Roman Emperor (which Maximillian's grandson Charles became in OTL).

I agree with that. Maximillian was a very appropriate match for her (IRL he was interested in marrying her after Bosworth). And if there were concerns about England and Burgundy/HRE already being allied with a marriage between Maximillian's son Philip and Elizabeth's sister Anne, the first betrothal could be broken.

 

[el t]

Edward IV

Queen Elizabeth may be also dead by then. I don't think that the young earl of Warwick would have ended up in the Tower for all of those years, like he did under Henry VII. Richard of Gloucester could also pre-decease Edward IV, and in that case I see some problems over the Warwick inheritance.

 

[Tudorfan]

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.

If there is a war with France... again... then Edward IV won't be involved in it; not directly anyway - he was much too fat to get on a horse by 1481, so any time later would render it impossible.

 

[Janprimus]

If Edward IV had lived say another 15-20 years as I proposed in the beginning of the thread. It is likely Elizabeth of York would have been married to Archduke Maximillian. Any first son of theirs (lets call him Eduard) have, would very well have become Archduke of Austria and maybe Holy Roman Emperor (which Maximillian's grandson Charles became in OTL).

That depends, there also is Philip the Handsome, who'll at least inherit Burgundy.
TTL Eduard will be entitled to his share in the Austrian Hereditary Lands, and as a Habsburg he'd entitled to title to archduke of Austria (dynastically; like IOTL the Spanish Habsburgs). However who'll become the Habsburg candidate for the position of Holy Roman Emperor, especially since it still is unlikely that Philip (jure uxoris) and Joanna will inherit Castille & Aragon. If that doesn't happen, then Philip will also be interested in the position of Holy Roman Emperor, not to mention that even when he becomes king consort, he'll still be interested.