How likely would it be for a third faction to rise up and take power during the War of the Roses? Preferably a faction that isn't connected to the Houses of Lancaster or York, and who would that faction be?
He's probably the best bet. The Buckingham mob were pretty wealthy, even before Richard took over in 1483. If he had the right backing, he might manage something. That's a big "if" though.
How likely would it be for a third faction to rise up and take power during the War of the Roses? Preferably a faction that isn't connected to the Houses of Lancaster or York, and who would that faction be?
Can I just point out that the aims of Buckingham's Rebellion were to A) put Edward V back on the throne, and when they heard that he might be dead, became B) to put Henry Tudor on the throne? Buckingham had no intention of leading a new faction, he just opposed Richard III and intended to replace him with a better candidate.
The real issue here is that three-way wars simply don't happen. You'll always find it hard to add a third faction to anything, because there's usually no convincing reason why the third faction wouldn't in fact be part of one of the existing two sides.
You are correct. However, it took a very specific set of circumstances for him tolaunch the rebellion of OTL. Without the two Ricardian coups of 1483, Tudor is still a nonentity, and Buckingham a loyal Yorkist. My reasoning is that he's one of the few people remaining by the time Edward IV kicks the bucket. Hastings is unlikely to betray Edward and his sons, whereas Buckingham obviously did so in OTL. However, for Stafford to set himself up as a third party in the struggle, we probably require a much more turbulent period between 1475 and 1483. Of course, if that's the case, there's no guarantee Buckingham survives this period.Can I just point out that the aims of Buckingham's Rebellion were to A) put Edward V back on the throne, and when they heard that he might be dead, became B) to put Henry Tudor on the throne? Buckingham had no intention of leading a new faction, he just opposed Richard III and intended to replace him with a better candidate.
The real issue here is that three-way wars simply don't happen. You'll always find it hard to add a third faction to anything, because there's usually no convincing reason why the third faction wouldn't in fact be part of one of the existing two sides.
what about the Duke of Clarence having a son, who would by primogeniture have a better claim than the Lancastrians.
of course, that'd butterfly the Wars of the Roses by a lot. so... *shrugs*
I assume he means Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, rather than George. But yes, as stated, it probably butterflies the Wars of the Roses entirely.Wouldn't that be Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, son of Clarence, who was killed by Henry VII in 1499? Yes, he has a superior claim to the Lancastrians, but it wouldn't really make a difference.
Wouldn't that be Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, son of Clarence, who was killed by Henry VII in 1499? Yes, he has a superior claim to the Lancastrians, but it wouldn't really make a difference.
That claim was, as you say, spurious in the extreme. It was also just one of the claims used to justify the usurpation. Going from memory here, but I think there were three. The main reason it was allowed to slide was the fact that firstly, the thing was something of a fait accompli already. Secondly, he was the male line heir presumptive, and the rival claimant, Edmund Mortimer, Lionel's grandson through the female line, was about seven years old.Of course, Henry IV based his claim on that Edmund Crouchback, Duke of Lancaster, son of Henry III, was actually older than Edward I and was just switched because of his supposed deformity. Guess how many actually believed that.