What if Richard of Gloucester never became King Richard III?

[Circle of Willis]

Perhaps the Duke of Gloucester is outmaneuvered by his Woodville in-laws, and they successfully escort the boy-king Edward V to London for a smooth coronation. Or he doesn't move against said Woodvilles at all and cooperates in getting Edward to the capital. Or he just plain slips on some ice while climbing his castle's stairs in the winter of 1482 and hits his head. Regardless, one of the most (in)famous usurpers in medieval English history fails to actually usurp his nephew's throne and presumably never gets a play written about him by Shakespeare, while the Princes in the Tower do not stay in said Tower and at least the elder of the two becomes king.

How would the Yorkist court (led by a still-loyal Gloucester as Lord Protector, queen-mother Elizabeth Woodville, and/or Elizabeth's brother and young Edward's mentor Anthony, Earl Rivers for a few more years until the king comes of age) deal with Henry Tudor, internal reforms and tensions between pro- and anti-Woodville factions, foreign affairs around the turn of the century and the Reformation?

Re: Edward V, since he was only 12 when he died and was never even crowned it's rather hard to get a picture of his character or the policies he'd embark on if he retains his crown. All I've been able to find is that he was betrothed to Anne, the heiress to Brittany and that Dominic Mancini, an Italian diplomat who visited the English court around the time of Edward IV's death, had some good things to say about him, suggesting that he may have been handsome (plausible, since both of his parents were reportedly very good-looking as well) and intellectually inclined:

In word and deed he gave so many proofs of his liberal education, of polite nay rather scholarly, attainments far beyond his age; ... his special knowledge of literature ... enabled him to discourse elegantly, to understand fully, and to declaim most excellently from any work whether in verse or prose that came into his hands, unless it were from the more abstruse authors. He had such dignity in his whole person, and in his face such charm, that however much they might gaze, he never wearied the eyes of beholders.

 

[Airedale260]

You seem to really love this section, I have to say, although I do enjoy these things myself...

Anyway, to answer the actual question: The Woodvilles were actually quite unpopular with the English nobility, and Edward V was very much attached to his mother’s side, seeing himself as a Woodville rather than a Plantagenet. Edward’s education in kingship didn’t really start until shortly before Edward IV’s quite unexpected death. He wasn’t ready for it, so he was taking his cues from family members who got into their positions thanks to their sister’s marriage to the king rather than on actual merit and had at best mediocre political and military skills. And this is all before you consider the fact that boy kings in general do not do we

So you now have a boy king whose legal guardian is an uncle he doesn’t know and despises based on what his mother’s family says, his mother’s family is, as I said, extremely unpopular among the major players in the kingdom, the uncle in question is a highly regarded military commander, and there’s also the significant issue that Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville may not have been valid based on a prior contract of marriage to Eleanor Talbot (and despite what Richard III bashers claim, there was something seriously problematic given the sources that claimed this were quite reputable).

Meanwhile, across the English Channel is another young man, one Henry Tudor, who has a claim of his own to the throne, and can muster a decent amount of support from nobles who are rather put out over the Yorkists in general.

What probably happens is Henry Tudor lands and manages to get even more support among the nobility who are tired of the Woodvilles’ high-handedness and arrogance, and Edward V still gets deposed and likely quietly executed along with his brother, the only difference being that it might be a few more years.*

*-I say ‘might’ because there is some speculation that it was Henry VII rather than Richard who ordered the boys’ execution. After all, Titulus Regius declared Elizabeth of York a bastard alongside her brothers, and if it’s no longer valid that means they’re in the way of his ascension to the throne and his ability to cement his hold on it through his marriage to her and their children, which was what placated anyone who still held Yorkist sympathies.

 

[Circle of Willis]

You seem to really love this section, I have to say, although I do enjoy these things myself...

Heh, guilty as charged there. I came on to the Sietch in hopes of finding an alternate history forum that wouldn't demand I explain myself or start suspecting me of being Literally Omega Hitler if I ask the wrong questions or like timelines like New Deal Coalition Retained, and I'm pretty sure 95% of my posts on here so far were on this subforum.

Anyway, to answer the actual question: The Woodvilles were actually quite unpopular with the English nobility, and Edward V was very much attached to his mother’s side, seeing himself as a Woodville rather than a Plantagenet. Edward’s education in kingship didn’t really start until shortly before Edward IV’s quite unexpected death. He wasn’t ready for it, so he was taking his cues from family members who got into their positions thanks to their sister’s marriage to the king rather than on actual merit and had at best mediocre political and military skills. And this is all before you consider the fact that boy kings in general do not do we

So you now have a boy king whose legal guardian is an uncle he doesn’t know and despises based on what his mother’s family says, his mother’s family is, as I said, extremely unpopular among the major players in the kingdom, the uncle in question is a highly regarded military commander, and there’s also the significant issue that Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville may not have been valid based on a prior contract of marriage to Eleanor Talbot (and despite what Richard III bashers claim, there was something seriously problematic given the sources that claimed this were quite reputable).

Meanwhile, across the English Channel is another young man, one Henry Tudor, who has a claim of his own to the throne, and can muster a decent amount of support from nobles who are rather put out over the Yorkists in general.

What probably happens is Henry Tudor lands and manages to get even more support among the nobility who are tired of the Woodvilles’ high-handedness and arrogance, and Edward V still gets deposed and likely quietly executed along with his brother, the only difference being that it might be a few more years.*

*-I say ‘might’ because there is some speculation that it was Henry VII rather than Richard who ordered the boys’ execution. After all, Titulus Regius declared Elizabeth of York a bastard alongside her brothers, and if it’s no longer valid that means they’re in the way of his ascension to the throne and his ability to cement his hold on it through his marriage to her and their children, which was what placated anyone who still held Yorkist sympathies.

On Edward's legitimacy and that of his siblings, would Bishop Stilington still be so bold as to go public with his claims in a timeline where the boy has already been properly crowned and anointed king? After that point, true or not, accusing him of bastardy would be treason, and any Woodvilles on the regency council would be nuts to not have him silenced immediately.

Would Tudor's claim be taken so seriously without Richard's controversial usurpation and the subsequent purge of not just the hated Woodvilles but also well-liked, anti-Woodville yet non-Ricardian 'Old Yorkists' like William Hastings, followed by death of his own heir (Edward of Middleham)? To my understanding his Lancastrian claim was extremely weak - his mother was a Beaufort descended from a legitimized Lancastrian bastard from several generations prior - and all the male-line Lancastrians and Beauforts were dead, as were all the die-hard Lancastrian leaders except for the Earl of Oxford (who was already in prison when Edward IV died, and IOTL only escaped because his jailer didn't approve of Richard's coup).

I could see the likes of Hastings banding with Richard to topple Woodville influence (which is what he did IOTL) but not supporting Tudor, and probably not supporting Richard in deposing a crowned Edward V either (as Hastings was most likely killed because Richard knew he'd never go along with a usurpation IRL). Tbh, I can't really see any faction other than Tudor's own wanting to knock Edward off the throne altogether if even a few years pass - Uncle Richard is not likely to see much point to dethroning his nephew if the butterfly effect fails to save his wife & son from death, and I think guys like Hastings would at most prefer to replace him with his brother if he turns out as oppressive and vindictive about the whole 'Woodville purge' business as Richard II. If Mancini's description of him is accurate, I believe the chances of Edward V going in that direction (once he's old enough to make any decisions of his own) would be quite low - he'd never agree to execute his mother or the uncle who mentored him, of course, but he might have the brains to bow to his magnates' demand to curb Woodville influence & settle for keeping them alive and in control of what estates they already have, rather than going on a RII-esque vengeance spree and alienate any non-Woodville support he still has.

Also, considering Edward V was set to marry Anne of Brittany in a few years, couldn't he just request his father-in-law to extradite Tudor as a wedding gift? Tudor himself might just submit to Yorkist rule in exchange for restoration to the Earldom of Richmond IMO, due to the extreme weakness of his claim and the lack of any obvious Lancastrian support base for a good while. (Not to say he couldn't act if such a base emerges, but from everything I've read about him he doesn't strike me as the kind of hothead to rush any invasion or coup attempt without making sure he had all the pieces for success in place first)

Anyway, if it comes to blows, do you think Anthony Woodville could have been an even match for Gloucester or Henry Tudor? From what I've read he seems to have been an okay record as a war leader (participating in Edward IV's later battles and helping fend off a French invasion of Brittany in the 1470s), firmly committed to York's cause while not having any way to seize the throne for himself unlike Richard, and had a good reputation as both a scholar and a knight at home and abroad. Hastings, another veteran commander and proven York loyalist, would surely be another man of quality Edward could count on.

 

[Airedale260]

Heh, guilty as charged there. I came on to the Sietch in hopes of finding an alternate history forum that wouldn't demand I explain myself or start suspecting me of being Literally Omega Hitler if I ask the wrong questions or like timelines like New Deal Coalition Retained, and I'm pretty sure 95% of my posts on here so far were on this subforum.

Quite understandable, I wound up on here for similar reasons. Anyway, to continue the discussion:

On Edward's legitimacy and that of his siblings, would Bishop Stilington still be so bold as to go public with his claims in a timeline where the boy has already been properly crowned and anointed king? After that point, true or not, accusing him of bastardy would be treason, and any Woodvilles on the regency council would be nuts to not have him silenced immediately.

Given that Stillington also caused issues into Henry VII's reign, I don't think this would have fazed him. And the issue isn't whether he's telling the truth: There were a lot of people in the country who thought that something was off about all this; Mancini's reports on this demonstrate it.

Would Tudor's claim be taken so seriously without Richard's controversial usurpation and the subsequent purge of not just the hated Woodvilles but also well-liked, anti-Woodville yet non-Ricardian 'Old Yorkists' like William Hastings, followed by death of his own heir (Edward of Middleham)? To my understanding his Lancastrian claim was extremely weak - his mother was a Beaufort descended from a legitimized Lancastrian bastard from several generations prior - and all the male-line Lancastrians and Beauforts were dead, as were all the die-hard Lancastrian leaders except for the Earl of Oxford (who was already in prison when Edward IV died, and IOTL only escaped because his jailer didn't approve of Richard's coup).

I could see the likes of Hastings banding with Richard to topple Woodville influence (which is what he did IOTL) but not supporting Tudor, and probably not supporting Richard in deposing a crowned Edward V either (as Hastings was most likely killed because Richard knew he'd never go along with a usurpation IRL). Tbh, I can't really see any faction other than Tudor's own wanting to knock Edward off the throne altogether if even a few years pass - Uncle Richard is not likely to see much point to dethroning his nephew if the butterfly effect fails to save his wife & son from death, and I think guys like Hastings would at most prefer to replace him with his brother if he turns out as oppressive and vindictive about the whole 'Woodville purge' business as Richard II. If Mancini's description of him is accurate, I believe the chances of Edward V going in that direction (once he's old enough to make any decisions of his own) would be quite low - he'd never agree to execute his mother or the uncle who mentored him, of course, but he might have the brains to bow to his magnates' demand to curb Woodville influence & settle for keeping them alive and in control of what estates they already have, rather than going on a RII-esque vengeance spree and alienate any non-Woodville support he still has.

It really depends; the problem is that there was a very good chance Edward V would have been the same type of king as Richard II, the last boy king thrust into a role for which he really wasn't ready. He barely knew his father or his father's family, and what little he knew, he didn't like. So he's already not inclined to be favorable, and what happens if Richard retains the protectorate is that it's merely delaying the inevitable.

As far as Edward being merciful and not going off the deep end: Six years is a long time for opinions to develop, and if he's harboring resentment I can see that easily boiling up and over the top, at least so far as his uncle is concerned. And given what happened the last time and how tensions have only increased over the decades since, it wouldn't be an idle concern. Meanwhile, he's just as if not more likely to continue listening to his mother and his favorite uncle rather than the magnates.

If he executes Richard, then Tudor's up to bat as the only claimant opposed to Edward. If he doesn't, I can see Henry moving in to take advantage the fight to allow his enemies to weaken one another and then strike. If it's Richard who wins, then Henry can make overtures to the Woodvilles as he did previously along with loyalists like Hastings; if it's Edward who wins, then he can wait for the inevitable overreach by the Woodvilles and present himself as the candidate of restoring the status quo ante (and almost certainly still marries Elizabeth of York to cement his family's claim).

Also, considering Edward V was set to marry Anne of Brittany in a few years, couldn't he just request his father-in-law to extradite Tudor as a wedding gift? Tudor himself might just submit to Yorkist rule in exchange for restoration to the Earldom of Richmond IMO, due to the extreme weakness of his claim and the lack of any obvious Lancastrian support base for a good while. (Not to say he couldn't act if such a base emerges, but from everything I've read about him he doesn't strike me as the kind of hothead to rush any invasion or coup attempt without making sure he had all the pieces for success in place first)

Anyway, if it comes to blows, do you think Anthony Woodville could have been an even match for Gloucester or Henry Tudor? From what I've read he seems to have been an okay record as a war leader (participating in Edward IV's later battles and helping fend off a French invasion of Brittany in the 1470s), firmly committed to York's cause while not having any way to seize the throne for himself unlike Richard, and had a good reputation as both a scholar and a knight at home and abroad. Hastings, another veteran commander and proven York loyalist, would surely be another man of quality Edward could count on.

If Edward V continues to hold on, then Henry likely makes a run for France before that happens, as they'll certainly be happy to take an opportunity to screw with "ze Eengleesh pigdogs" and shelter a potential rival claimant. Whether he'd be able to make good on it is another question, but I think there would be an opening at some point given how fractious English politics were -remember, it wasn't until Henry VIII that there was no longer a threat of pretenders to the throne, since it was through him that the claims were all united.

As far as Anthony Woodville goes, he had a decent reputation but I don't think he would have been able to match Richard, who was considered both a brilliant commander and had sizable estates and resources to call upon. He has Hastings, sure, but Richard has his supporters as well. Woodville may have been fairly intelligent and a scholar, but as a military commander, not to mention being unable to really muster the kind of support his family would need...I think the answer is 'no'. Against Henry Tudor, maybe, but I think either Richard or Woodville would go too far, some conflict would break out, and there would be too big an opening for Tudor not to take advantage of.

The only way Edward V can really hang in there is if he's able to force a peace between the Woodvilles and Richard III, and I think both Elizabeth Woodville and Richard III have attitudes (and egos) that won't allow for them to come to terms. Plus, even if Richard III is overthrown as Lord Protector, there are enough powerful nobles (Stafford, Howard, the Stanleys, etc) who would see it far more advantageous to support Henry if he restores their families to their positions and break the Woodvilles' grip on power.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Quite understandable, I wound up on here for similar reasons. Anyway, to continue the discussion:

Given that Stillington also caused issues into Henry VII's reign, I don't think this would have fazed him. And the issue isn't whether he's telling the truth: There were a lot of people in the country who thought that something was off about all this; Mancini's reports on this demonstrate it.

It really depends; the problem is that there was a very good chance Edward V would have been the same type of king as Richard II, the last boy king thrust into a role for which he really wasn't ready. He barely knew his father or his father's family, and what little he knew, he didn't like. So he's already not inclined to be favorable, and what happens if Richard retains the protectorate is that it's merely delaying the inevitable.

As far as Edward being merciful and not going off the deep end: Six years is a long time for opinions to develop, and if he's harboring resentment I can see that easily boiling up and over the top, at least so far as his uncle is concerned. And given what happened the last time and how tensions have only increased over the decades since, it wouldn't be an idle concern. Meanwhile, he's just as if not more likely to continue listening to his mother and his favorite uncle rather than the magnates.

If he executes Richard, then Tudor's up to bat as the only claimant opposed to Edward. If he doesn't, I can see Henry moving in to take advantage the fight to allow his enemies to weaken one another and then strike. If it's Richard who wins, then Henry can make overtures to the Woodvilles as he did previously along with loyalists like Hastings; if it's Edward who wins, then he can wait for the inevitable overreach by the Woodvilles and present himself as the candidate of restoring the status quo ante (and almost certainly still marries Elizabeth of York to cement his family's claim).

Hmm, it does seem like Edward is due for a stormy start to his reign even if he survives/thrives. I suppose much would depend on his actions and those of pretty much everyone around him in the interim, which could go so many ways that it's rather difficult to speculate. I think he'd have the advantage of not having a Peasants' Revolt to deal with, which seems to have been what inflated RII's ego to the point that he mortally offended his uncles and magnates, but I do agree that he's bound to butt heads with Gloucester sooner or later unless he shakes off Woodville influence quickly, which doesn't seem particularly likely. At the very least, if he wants to do that he might have to build an alternative power-base anyway (perhaps continuing his father's policies of investing in English business and promoting men from the middle class into his government).

Though Elizabeth of York's marriage is an interesting point: I think Edward IV wanted to make a foreign match for her (as he did for all his children), but they all fell through before his death. However, one scenario I've seen raised by others on AH.com before I left is that she could be married off to Maximilian, the Holy Roman Emperor, after the death of his first wife Mary of Burgundy in 1482, and it does strike me as a highly plausible course for the Yorkist court to attempt charting regardless of whether Gloucester or the Woodvilles are calling the shots.

It actually solves basically all of both sides' foreign problems since it conveniently combines the Anglo-Breton alliance (formed by Edward V & Anne of Brittany's own marriage) with the Habsburg-Burgundian one into a single grand anti-French coalition, to be further reinforced by the match between Maximilian and Mary's son Philip to Joanna the Mad of Spain. Seems like an easy way to turn any renewed War of the Roses into the flashpoint for a broader European war, or conversely for any European war to result in the French sponsoring Henry Tudor's expedition against England.

If Edward V continues to hold on, then Henry likely makes a run for France before that happens, as they'll certainly be happy to take an opportunity to screw with "ze Eengleesh pigdogs" and shelter a potential rival claimant. Whether he'd be able to make good on it is another question, but I think there would be an opening at some point given how fractious English politics were -remember, it wasn't until Henry VIII that there was no longer a threat of pretenders to the throne, since it was through him that the claims were all united.

As far as Anthony Woodville goes, he had a decent reputation but I don't think he would have been able to match Richard, who was considered both a brilliant commander and had sizable estates and resources to call upon. He has Hastings, sure, but Richard has his supporters as well. Woodville may have been fairly intelligent and a scholar, but as a military commander, not to mention being unable to really muster the kind of support his family would need...I think the answer is 'no'. Against Henry Tudor, maybe, but I think either Richard or Woodville would go too far, some conflict would break out, and there would be too big an opening for Tudor not to take advantage of.

The only way Edward V can really hang in there is if he's able to force a peace between the Woodvilles and Richard III, and I think both Elizabeth Woodville and Richard III have attitudes (and egos) that won't allow for them to come to terms. Plus, even if Richard III is overthrown as Lord Protector, there are enough powerful nobles (Stafford, Howard, the Stanleys, etc) who would see it far more advantageous to support Henry if he restores their families to their positions and break the Woodvilles' grip on power.

Coupled with what I was saying above, I'm reminded of the fate of the younger De La Pole brothers, who as Richard III's nephews through his middle sister the Duchess of Suffolk became the primary Yorkist claimants after the extinction of the male Yorks. The last of them of any relevance, Richard, actually lived comfortably for a while at the French court as a pretender (troubling the House of Tudor with his mere existence) and fought in the French army, which eventually got him killed at the Battle of Pavia. I could see Tudor taking that role ITL, though obviously inverted toward the House of York, and more likely to get to lead a French army to invade England if the aforementioned 'broader European war' lasts a while (the De La Poles almost got a chance IRL, but hostilities ended just as they were marshaling their mercenaries in Brittany).

Then again, perhaps having a clear and clearly dangerous foreign enemy + foreign-backed claimant to rally against would keep the Yorkists' internal tensions at a slower and more manageable boil than otherwise. I doubt Gloucester or Elizabeth Woodville would ever fully reconcile for the reasons you've said, but I also have a hard time picturing either openly trying to start a war in Yorkist England when it's obvious that doing so would just set them up to get crushed by a French-backed Tudor. More-so Richard, who seems to have had a generally dutiful character and a good eye for the big picture, but Elizabeth wasn't without her smarts either and would be aware that such a scenario would naturally endanger her sons' lives.

 

[Airedale260]

Yeah it's not that Elizabeth Woodville was an idiot; quite the contrary. The problem was that she moved too far too fast.

As far as a grand coalition goes, it's something that might well set off a conflict on the order of the Thirty Years' War given that it would guarantee practically every Western European power is involved. HRE tries to take back the Duchy of Burgundy, England tries to get back the old Angevin territories, Castile and Aragon stir shit up along the Pyrenees and likely Italy...and on the other side it's likely France, Scotland, and maybe some of the Italian city-states. At which point France and Germany get wrecked, and the former might well be dismembered or at least returned to second-rate status where the King of France controls Paris and the lands around there.

And then, because of the population disparity, the English probably lose their grip on at least part of it and the wars are back on *again.*