Differences Between a Surviving York Court and the Tudor Court of OTL

[Kellan Sullivan]

Those of my readers who have been keeping up with my TL, The Red Princess will see that I'm slowly edging closer to 1483, Edward IV's OTL death year. Now, with a POD in the 1470s, there are many things that are going to be different by the time we get to the mid-1480s. But at the same time, England is TTL, as OTL, bearing the scars of the Wars of the Roses.

Part of what I'm wondering is about the domestic front in England. If the Yorks stay in power, it's going to be a very different dynamic to the Tudors (Lancasters) ending up in power as OTL.

For instance, a case could be made for Edward IV's brother-in-law, the duke of Buckingham.
OTL he associated with Richard III, supposedly murdered the Princes in the Tower, then got beheaded for leading an uprising against Richard. His son, the next duke, was likewise beheaded for treason (of which More says he was probably guilty) for stirring the Tudor pot, and because he, like the Countess of Salisbury at a later point as well as several other peers, had Plantagenet blood and Henry VIII was slightly paranoid about this key aspect.

Another fact was the policy of the Tudors. Thanks to them, the 'new men' that were Empson, Dudley, Wolsey, Brandon, Cromwell, Rich etc, without gentle birth, came to premier positions in government, due to distrust of the nobility that were either previously pro-Yorkist or had Plantagenet blood.

How would this be altered if the York branch of the Plantagenets were to stay in power, and a reversal of OTL's marriage of the red rose and the white were to occur?

 

[JonasResende]

Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, Stanley's another one who'll climb some, just not necessarily as high as he did OTl.

On the other hand, it could get fun, what with lots of people who had unfortunate run-ins with an axe (Buckingham (although I fear he may still get the chop), Stanley, several members of the de la Pole family). I wonder though, will Henry Tudor come back before Edward dies? And will it be as a contrite supporter, or as a rebel? OTL he held off coming back as a wait-and-see game to see if Edward would honor his pledge that he would be forgiven, but then Edward died and it all went to custard. He came back as king.

And I'm sure it could result in an alternate spate of marriages for a lot of people. Margaret Beaufort's half-blood relatives won't necessarily be able to climb as high as OTL - the Poles, the St. Johns, the Welles, etc)

 

[Rheinbund]

You could also have Georges Plantagenêt duke of Clarence brother of Edward IV that try to took the power and overthrow his brother (in OTL) and got with a daughter of Neville, one of the most influent noble of England. He could try to took the power.

 

[Just a Rube]

You could also have Georges Plantagenêt duke of Clarence brother of Edward IV that try to took the power and overthrow his brother (in OTL) and got with a daughter of Neville, one of the most influent noble of England. He could try to took the power.

Clarence was ridiculously ambitious, but he was also ridiculously incompetent in his scheming. A pretty clear case of what TVTropes calls Chronic Backstabbing Disorder.

No one on any side trusts him after Barnet, and he is very likely to end up more or less the same way as OTL (especially if he continues to incompetently and inconsistently intrigue against his brother as OTL).

I haven't kept up with the Red Queen, but I'd expect a similar divide as OTL to spring up between the Woodvilles and their opponents (most prominently OTL's Richard III, Buckingham and Hastings, who were the driving factors behind the OTL coup). Henry VII's court included a lot of former members of the Woodville faction (despite being the "Lancastrian" heir, most of his support came from former Yorkists opposed to Richard, rather than the handful of former Lancastrian loyalists); if they win out you'd see some of the same faces.

 

[Kynan]

A Yorkist court is going to have two key features that differentiate itself from the Tudor court of the 1500's:

1. A lack of new men: this one has already mentioned, but it's important. As the second generation and beyond comes into power, you're going to find that these members of the established, powerful nobility are going to be much more meddling, and immovable than the nobility under Henry VII and Henry VIII. Other than the Duke of Buckingham and the Duke of Norfolk (a Duke that owed his title to the Tudors and thus could theoretically could lose it easily), the Tudors dealt in lower nobility, to both keep themselves rich and to prevent massive alternate powers from happening. They also suppressed alternate people of strong royal claims, instead focusing on those with little noble blood but much skill. Now, with the older nobility still in place, new men will probably rise in some capacities, but it's a lot harder to displace the Dukes of Gloucester, Clarence and Buckingham (along with the other Earls, Marquis ect.) who have the protective charms of being family relations and much more powerful than under the Tudors.
2. No need to prove themselves: At this point, the Yorkist regime isn't going to be hungry for prestige. They have the country, they have the recognition. Once the issue of Henry Tudor in Brittany is done (and it'll be dealt with by probably bringing him home and sending off to be an official in Wales, with his title but less the lands) they have no major political issues. It'll be domestic squabbling over who comes first, dealing with Scotland and other things in that vein. Thus, you'll see the English taking a much more aggressive stance in terms of foreign politics, particularly through the dispersion of the daughters of Edward IV. For example, you might find Elizabeth of York a bride for Manuel, Duke of Beja, but not when she was offered OTL, but later, as a counterpoint to the Spanish. That is unlikely, but it's an example of what type of politics they could play. Most likely, they'll look to anti-French marriages (Spain, Austria, Italian Duchies ect). But the point is, they aren't looking to prove themselves internationally. They know they are a real power in European politics (a second tier one, but vitally important in the scheme of things) so they're going to flex their political muscles more.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

You could also have Georges Plantagenêt duke of Clarence brother of Edward IV that try to took the power and overthrow his brother (in OTL) and got with a daughter of Neville, one of the most influent noble of England. He could try to took the power.

Clarence is already dead. His son is currently in Burgundy, so he's a non-starter (Clarence, not Warwick).

Clarence was ridiculously ambitious, but he was also ridiculously incompetent in his scheming. A pretty clear case of what TVTropes calls Chronic Backstabbing Disorder.

No one on any side trusts him after Barnet, and he is very likely to end up more or less the same way as OTL (especially if he continues to incompetently and inconsistently intrigue against his brother as OTL).

I haven't kept up with the Red Queen, but I'd expect a similar divide as OTL to spring up between the Woodvilles and their opponents (most prominently OTL's Richard III, Buckingham and Hastings, who were the driving factors behind the OTL coup). Henry VII's court included a lot of former members of the Woodville faction (despite being the "Lancastrian" heir, most of his support came from former Yorkists opposed to Richard, rather than the handful of former Lancastrian loyalists); if they win out you'd see some of the same faces.

Well, Richard isn't going to act as OTL, I'll say that much. The new queen (Edward V's wife) is his stepdaughter, so he's got a line of communication here he didn't OTL. He'll still have the falling out with the Hastings' and probably Buckingham, but he's not going to have such a fear of being eclipsed by the Wydeville clan

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

A Yorkist court is going to have two key features that differentiate itself from the Tudor court of the 1500's:

1. A lack of new men: this one has already mentioned, but it's important. As the second generation and beyond comes into power, you're going to find that these members of the established, powerful nobility are going to be much more meddling, and immovable than the nobility under Henry VII and Henry VIII. Other than the Duke of Buckingham and the Duke of Norfolk (a Duke that owed his title to the Tudors and thus could theoretically could lose it easily), the Tudors dealt in lower nobility, to both keep themselves rich and to prevent massive alternate powers from happening. They also suppressed alternate people of strong royal claims, instead focusing on those with little noble blood but much skill. Now, with the older nobility still in place, new men will probably rise in some capacities, but it's a lot harder to displace the Dukes of Gloucester, Clarence and Buckingham (along with the other Earls, Marquis ect.) who have the protective charms of being family relations and much more powerful than under the Tudors.
2. No need to prove themselves: At this point, the Yorkist regime isn't going to be hungry for prestige. They have the country, they have the recognition. Once the issue of Henry Tudor in Brittany is done (and it'll be dealt with by probably bringing him home and sending off to be an official in Wales, with his title but less the lands) they have no major political issues. It'll be domestic squabbling over who comes first, dealing with Scotland and other things in that vein. Thus, you'll see the English taking a much more aggressive stance in terms of foreign politics, particularly through the dispersion of the daughters of Edward IV. For example, you might find Elizabeth of York a bride for Manuel, Duke of Beja, but not when she was offered OTL, but later, as a counterpoint to the Spanish. That is unlikely, but it's an example of what type of politics they could play. Most likely, they'll look to anti-French marriages (Spain, Austria, Italian Duchies ect). But the point is, they aren't looking to prove themselves internationally. They know they are a real power in European politics (a second tier one, but vitally important in the scheme of things) so they're going to flex their political muscles more.

Firstly, Norfolk owed his title to Richard AFAIK, not Tudor. He was under suspicion for fighting on the wrong side at Bosworth, and Elizabeth of York was instrumental in moving for Lady Anne to marry the Earl of Surrey (which Henry DIDN'T want (at least according to Strickland)).

Next, there is the theory that the reason that Gloucester acted as he did was because he feared the Wydevilles would force him from power. As I said, Clarence is dead and his son is in exile in Burgundy, while Buckingham's going to lack a powerful ally in Richard he did OTL, so if he gets uppity, he likely goes to Tower Hill. The only remaining duke in England (Suffolk) is uncle to Edward V. And I feel that saying "family feeling" will protect them isn't a guarantee. Edward IV exterminated the Beaufort line (his cousins), consciously assented to the murder of Henry VI (a rival for the throne) and ordered the execution of his beother, the duke of Clarence. Henry VIII executed Buckingham and the Countess of Salisbury (both his cousins) and his dad got rid of Stanley (his stepfather), imprisoned several others (de la Poles mostly). I don't think a surviving York court will be overly sentimental to do what needs tobe done.

As to foreign policy, I could see it following a policy similar to what you described.

 

[Kynan]

Firstly, Norfolk owed his title to Richard AFAIK, not Tudor. He was under suspicion for fighting on the wrong side at Bosworth, and Elizabeth of York was instrumental in moving for Lady Anne to marry the Earl of Surrey (which Henry DIDN'T want (at least according to Strickland)).

Next, there is the theory that the reason that Gloucester acted as he did was because he feared the Wydevilles would force him from power. As I said, Clarence is dead and his son is in exile in Burgundy, while Buckingham's going to lack a powerful ally in Richard he did OTL, so if he gets uppity, he likely goes to Tower Hill. The only remaining duke in England (Suffolk) is uncle to Edward V. And I feel that saying "family feeling" will protect them isn't a guarantee. Edward IV exterminated the Beaufort line (his cousins), consciously assented to the murder of Henry VI (a rival for the throne) and ordered the execution of his brother, the duke of Clarence. Henry VIII executed Buckingham and the Countess of Salisbury (both his cousins) and his dad got rid of Stanley (his stepfather), imprisoned several others (de la Poles mostly). I don't think a surviving York court will be overly sentimental to do what needs to be done.

As to foreign policy, I could see it following a policy similar to what you described.

I was talking about Norfolk's 2nd creation, not the first. Henry VII and Henry VIII kept their nobility in check much more than the York Kings, and I still believe that's partially because the Yorkist Regime had such an intermingling of family and blood. I know it doesn't mean everything will be peachy, but there'll at least be a level of trust in the court of Edward V that you didn't see in Henry VIII's early reign. It's not "oh I'll just leave the crown right here" levels of trust, but it's a lot better than what the Tudors had. The Yorks may have been seen as usurpers by some, but if they've cancelled out the Lancastrian threat, then they're going to be pretty stable in comparison.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Something else I'm wondering: With a Lancastrian queen-consort might we see some of the pro- Lancastrian families (like the de Veres, the Percies, the Courtenays) that had been in disgrace received back at court? Or will Edward V be unwilling to let bygones be bygones? I'm not thinking like a Love Day thing like Henry VI held, but be willing to judge a person as capable on their own merits rather than say "sorry, your dad killed my uncle Benjin, so you can't".

Also, what of his younger half-brother. OTL Richard Grey didn't marry, but he also had Richard III put him out of his misery in '83. So might the younger Grey boy get married? And who might be considered a good match for the king's half-brother?

 

[mcdnab]

There aren't many differences between Henry VII's reign and that of Edward IV in OTL. Much of his policy in administration was in effect a continuation - there were some areas where Henry went further in part because of his instability and the fact that his was a new dynasty - Henry's advantage was that many of the old families were either extinct by Edward IV's death and Richard's usurpation or were minors.

In terms of a surviving Yorkist line and a peaceful succession on Edward IV's death - then you can probably expect much the same.

Ignoring the high nobility for a moment the real power and influence at court at this period were the immediate members of the household (the gentlemen and their connections who saw the King in a very personal way every day) - it is notable that many of Edward IV's household supported rebellions against Richard III in OTL. These men were usually of means and came from the shires (they were country gentleman of some means in most cases) - they might be related to the royal family (Edward's household included his brother in law Thomas St Leger for example) or might have connections to aristocratic families etc or were long standing companions (such as Hastings brother).

These men would also serve as Justices of the Peace, would be summonsed to Parliament etc - some would rise through the ranks due to the connections they made and might indeed end up as peers or their descendants would over time due to the opportunities of being in personal attendance on the monarch.

Many of Henry's so called new men may well have come to note during Edward V's reign - Empson was a successful lawyer, knight of the Shire etc (he was in his late thirties by Henry VII's accession), Dudley was young and again a rising lawyer when he attracted Henry's attention in the 1490s but he was the son of a Knight and grandson of a baron, Brandon's family were a prominent East Anglian family and so on. John Morton (who was nearly sixty at Henry's accession) is sometime described as a new man but he became a Bishop under Edward IV.

Henry essentially continued to rely on the great families just as much as any other King and on his paternal and maternal relatives (and like the Yorkists many of those relatives were not top flight aristocrats but gentlemen or the lower nobility - the Welles, Poles etc)

The Tudor idea of new men - middle class professionals in the administration - was not a massive shift as they had always played a role - some would argue that as the role of government increased they became more necessary and therefore more visible and a lot of historians believe that to describe it as a deliberate Tudor policy is an exaggeration.

For a surviving Edward V the royal household will include the men and boys he probably grew up with members of his council in Wales and their connections along with connections of his father and mother - it becomes a personal choice of the monarch due to the close contact - these men would dress and undress him, serve him his food etc.

What he will also have is some pretty powerful and wealthy male relatives - the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Buckingham principally and his brother the Duke of York and Norfolk - but all will be reliant on continuing royal favour.

Edward IV was pretty conciliatory to most Lancastrians in his first reign - he was more aggressive after the brief restoration of Henry VI.

By the 1480s and Edward's death - the Courtenay's were powerless and had really vanished from the political landscape, de Vere was a wandering exile who didn't pose that much of a threat, Henry Tudor either comes home and is allowed to inherit his mother's wealth or he stays in exile along with his uncle. The Percy's had reconciled themselves to Yorkist government and the 4th Earl of Northumberland was loyal to Edward IV (though he probably resented playing second fiddle to Richard of Gloucester in the north).

You will have to decide what to do with all the dodgy legal deals Edward IV had made to enrich his wider circle - it did alienate some of the nobility who saw it as a threat to their long-term financial security.

So the Warwick estates - technically they should have gone to the male heir (son of John Neville on Warwick's death and then his heirs when he died young) with the Salisbury and Beauchamp inheritances jointly split between Warwick's daughters (and in the case of the Beauchamp inheritance it should have rested with Warwick's widow and then passed to her daughter's or their heirs)

The Holland inheritance - should have been split by very distant co-heirs but was settled on Edward's sister Anne and her daughter by her second husband - a small part was reserved for Lord Richard Grey and the rest would pass to Dorset's heir who was supposed to marry Anne St Leger.

Norfolk settled on Richard Duke of York by his father (the Howards and Berkeley co-heirs were ignored) and in the event of Anne Mowbray's death it would remain with the heirs of Edward IV.

By the 1480s many of the older generation were dying off - you will have several church appointments falling in your lap. Many of the characters that became Henry VII's court were around and served under Edward IV so don't discount people.

Edward V is also going to have surviving relatives on his maternal side which will continue to play a role in his household and government - he is also related quite closely to a number of peers through his maternal and paternal ancestry.

Edward V will also be a bit short of cash as he like his father has married a wife without any wealth - he is also stuck with providing for his mother (Elizabeth was left Sheen I think by Edward IV along with the dower settled on her which came out of crown lands), his grandmother is still living and holding her dower from the York duchy, he has numerous sisters who will need significant dowers (Edward IV intended them to have around 10,000 on their marriages but that might have to be higher if Edward V looks abroad for them) - he's might need his own Morton's fork.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Richard of Shrewsbury: Since his brother isn’t marrying Anne of Brittany, he is, which means that his poor de Mowbray wife is in need of another husband. Gloucester might push his son’s suit, but Edward, because he has to deal with a bunch of crap relating to his dad’s shady deals with the nobility, is not going to let that one fly.
The Berkeleys, who should’ve been the next heirs, were disregarded on grounds of the marquess being in debt up to his eyeballs and also his son being deceased, and his brother disinherited (due to a disadvantageous marriage), he lacked heirs and means to support the dukedom. He later willed the marquessate to the crown IIRC, leaving little brother with only the barony.
The Howards, who would’ve inherited should the Berkeleys have been unavailable, were OTL considered of little consequence, and only got the dukedom in the reign of Richard III, lost it because of Bosworth and got it back a short while later.
Here, Elizabeth (OTL’s Anne) de Mowbray, is marrying the same Thomas Howard as married Anne of York OTL. The Berkeleys are perhaps going to kick up a fuss, but all Edward had to do OTL was settle the marquess’ debts and he was willing to sign on the dotted line. I figure it’s unlikely that this will change here.

The Holand Inheritance: The lady Anne will not be marrying the marquess of Dorset, despite the fact that he wants it to happen, and the queen’s in his corner. The rapaciousness of the Wydeville clan is still within living memory, so I could see the king wanting to prevent that same shadow from looming over his reign. The Holand coheirs have been forced to buy their inheritance (minus the choice bits the crown swiped) back from the king. They’re not happy about it, but it’s not as though they can tell the king what to do.

The Kingmaker’s Inheritance: to be split between the dukes of Clarence and Gloucester. However, the Neville heirs, OTL created and then uncreated earl of Northumberland, marquess of Montagu, duke of Bedford etc. is going to survive his early death here (I can’t seem to find out what killed him in 1483, so I assume it’s not set in stone). Anything he wants back from that – I’m not sure, but Margaret of Clarence was created Countess of Salisbury and her son was styled Lord Montagu, so I’m assuming that he might want either title back – he’s going to have to go the same route as the Holands and buy it back from the crown.
The Clarence children: the earl of Warwick is currently in exile on the continent. He might return to London at some point (I haven’t decided yet), or live out his life in exile and end up being created duke of Clarence/Warwick by some foreign power who’s got a beef with London (I’m looking at you, France) as a sort of combo between Perkin Warbeck and Robert Dudley, Duke of Northumberland.
As long as her brother remains in exile (and technically ‘dead’ to his title), his sister, Marge, is a rather choice heiress. Gloucester’s going to be petitioning for her to marry his son, but Edward V, not wanting to create another Warwick-King faction, is going to stomp on that. Hard. The queen (from what I can find out, Margaret was in Elizabeth Wydeville’s household OTL) is obviously going to try and marry her off to a Wydeville relation. Which might fly, might not, haven’t decided yet (especially if Edward V is trying to be more conciliatory toward the nobility and smooth feathers his dad might’ve ruffled).

The Nevilles: The children of the Marquess of Montagu (also the only non-Percy earl of Northumberland AFAIK) are in an interesting space. Obviously, as the children of someone who was attainted as a traitor, they don’t have the most thrilling prospects. The eldest child, Anne (b.1458) married William Stonor, next girl, Elizabeth (b.1464) married Baron Scrope of Masham (brother or father to the Scrope boy Richard III slated to marry Cecily of York), Margaret (b.1466) married John Mortimer and then our very own Charles Brandon (her niece did, too), so he might make an appearance in that regard. The remaining girls, Lucy and Isabel, married knights. The fact that they managed a Scrope (who was clearly in some sort of favor with Uncle Dickon) and Brandon (who was an opportunistic groom if ever there was one) seems to indicate that these Neville cousins weren’t as far fallen as might be thought. Margaret was a widow, but clearly she either had some land left her by her husband, or else Brandon would’ve seen no use in her. Same goes for her niece, Anne Browne, who married Brandon two years later. He wouldn’t have married a woman nearly twenty years his senior (Margaret) if she brought nothing to the table.

The Clergy: Lionel Wydeville is the only one of the king’s relatives in the cloth, so I could see the king pushing him (in spite of his age) for some of the plumier posts that have fallen vacant with the passing of the Old Guard. Morton might also climb some, but I must confess to being rather ignorant on the clergy at the time.

Margaret Beaufort: She’s sitting on the Beaufort inheritance, but unfortunately, she’s not the only co-heir, and her relation to the last duke was further from the table. What she has got working for her is that she’s popular at the Yorkist court, and married to a Yorkist noble, in spite of her Lancastrian blood. Her only child, Henry Tudor, will be making an appearance soon when he gets restored to his earldom, after he’s begged forgiveness and after Maggie B has made a considerable donation to the king’s coffers. Then, he’ll be married off to Elizabeth Herbert and that’s the Tudors dealt with. Jasper might/mightn’t wed. If he does, it won’t be to the dowager duchess of Buckingham or the like, so he’ll probably take some girl from a good family and may/not end up with one or two kids (haven’t decided yet).

The Beaufort Inheritance: Thanks to Elinor Talbot birthing a son, Edward, in 1468, from her wedding to the last duke of Somerset, this little boy (who may or may not be the king’s half brother) (Not making this up, Elinor had a son by Edward IV OTL, Edward never acknowledged the boy (to my knowledge) or he died young) is the heir to the Beaufort fortunes. However, Edward V isn’t going to hand him the title of duke of Somerset back. So, he’s simply earl of Worcester until he gets promoted. Plus, (legal) dad being a traitor doesn’t really help matters, so he’s lost a considerable amount of his lands/income to his aunts (Lady Stafford, duke of Buckingham’s mother; and Lady Butler, great-grandmother of Mary, Anne and George Boleyn as well as Mary’s first husband OTL

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

I'm thinking that after Edward IV's death, there are going to be three main factions at court:

1) The Wydevilles. Led by the Queen, her stepsons, possibly her second son (who unlike Edward V, has been raised with his sisters in the viper's nest that is the court) and including her near familial relations.
2) Hastings. The power bloc that is opposed to the Wydevilles gaining any more power than they already have, plus they're going to be the ones following Edward's last wishes.
3) OTL Richard III. Faction opposed to the Wydevilles gaining power. May include the duke of Buckingham, some die-hard Lancastrians (what with his stepdaughter being the underage Lancastrian heiress), some Northern families following his wife's Neville standard.

Sorry if this sounds overly simplistic, esp since there could be people that fall in more than one faction. Either way, until Edward V is old enough, he's going to have to learn how to walk a fairly taut tightrope as a way of attempting to stay neutral.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

Another thing I realized about this situation. Would the House of York actively seek their chances for the French throne, even though at this point we've reached critical Spider, if you know what I mean?

 

[DanMcCollum]

Clarence was ridiculously ambitious, but he was also ridiculously incompetent in his scheming. A pretty clear case of what TVTropes calls Chronic Backstabbing Disorder.

It was funny - a few years ago a good friend got me into Shakespeare and we developed this game of figuring out which fictional characters could 'play' Shakespearean stage roles. It was naturally decided that Starscream would make a great Richard III (and now I can just hear Starscream muttering "and now is the winter of our discontent ...") But, it seems that George, was probably the more Starscream of the Yorkist brothers - I had never drawn the comparison until now

 

[mcdnab]

Relating to the Mowbray inheritance - legally the 4th Duke of Norfolk's daughter was his sole heir and could hold the Nofolk Earldom and the Mowbray Baronies. She is a great heiress - even if she is not married to the Duke of York - it would be odd indeed for the King to waste such a prize on a member of his household. The Howards by the 1470s were quite wealthy and well connected with a strong presence at court - the reason Edward IV did not buy them off is probably because they were not as skint as the Berkeley's not because the Berkeley claim was stronger.

There was no "order" of inheritance when we are talking co-heirs through a female line - women heiress were usually treated equally in law and primogeniture did not apply - so two sisters would equally transmit their claims - the Berkley's and Howards were legally in the same position irrespective of the order of birth of their Mowbray ancestresses. The titles would fall into abeyance until there was only one legal candidate left or it was ended by the crown in favour of one of the claimants.

Neither would have really expected to inherit whilst the 4th Duke lived and whilst his daughter lived. Her wardship will fall to the King and nobles will be quick to offer to "buy" her marriage (to give you an example Northumberland would pay Henry VII £4,000 for the marriage of his daughter to the young Duke of Buckingham).

Anne of Brittany was born in 1477 and really most would assume her father would have more children and a male heir - Anne Mowbray inherited in 1476 (and the King made it clear she would marry his second son as she did in 1478) - Anne of Brittany's birth is not likely to change that. You can still marry the children and have Richard renounce the marriage (he wasn't legally of age to consent to the marriage would be enough to dispense the match) later in order to propose him for Anne - though long-term I think it will be difficult to get the Breton marriage to go ahead - or have Anne Mowbray remain a royal ward until someone buys her marriage or the King uses her to "reward" someone.

Relating to the Beaufort inheritance - Margaret's father was 1st Duke of Somerset the dukedom went extinct on his death and the Earldom passed to his brother however her inheritance from him was largely unfettered by any restrictions - that was the source of her wealth and will not be affected by any children born to her cousin Edmund. In OTL Margaret's uncle (who was the 1st Duke of the second creation and Edmund's father) - only had £300 a year at the time he inherited his brother's Earldom of Somerset which is why he got so much out of Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou he needed the money - a surviving line from him would not alter Margaret's personal finances - in those circumstances as in otl she is still a rich woman.
Are you proposing that Eleanor Talbot (Lady Butler) - marries Edmund Beaufort sometime between the death of her husband and her own death in 68 - cos he was in France after the Yorkist victory and did not return until Henry VI's return - he was never Duke of Somerset formally and never inherited any lands (the Beaufort brothers were all under attainder from Edward IV's victory in 61 - the eldest made peace with Edward and was restored but then fell out of favour and was again attainted). All of this is prior to your point of departure.

Warwick - depends what you do with the Earl after his death - if you attaint him then the Neville inheritance (which would have passed to his nephew George Neville) passes to the crown as will the Salisbury inheritance of his mother. The Beauchamp/Warwick inheritance would revert back to his wife (and then could be transmitted to her heirs in the usual manner). Edward in OTL did not attaint Warwick but divided the bulk between his brothers who were married to Warwick's daughters treating the widowed Countess as is she were legally dead - the lion's share went to Clarence (then reverted again to the crown on his execution), Gloucester's northern holdings were guaranteed to him during the lifetime of the male line of John Neville etc (if they died out then in the event of Richard having no issue they could revert to the Neville heirs). One note on John Neville's daughter's marriages - this was in part because their mother was an heiress herself (from her father and maternal uncle) so the children were not without financial expectations hence able to make reasonable matches.

Note on the "rapaciousness" of the Woodvilles - this has grown from anti Yorkist and Richard III propaganda and is exaggerated - the male family members by enlarge got nothing from Edward IV during his second reign - the only appts were to Lionel as Bishop of Salisbury and Anthony 2nd Earl Rivers. The Queen's sisters were nearly all dead by the time of Edward IV's death and their children were all minors by the time of Edward V's succession.
The King's step sons - Dorset was initially betrothed to Anne Holland and then married Hastings step daughter Cecily Bonville (the source of his wealth) - again his brother Richard had got nothing. Edward IV did about the same for his step sons as Henry VI had done for his half brothers - title and an heiress.

The Holland estate was settled on the King's sister Anne Duchess of Exeter after her divorce from Holland before your POD - it was to go to her daughter by Holland who was betrothed to Dorset - Hollands death and the death of Anne Holland meant the reversion of the estates went to her daughter by Leger by special remainder in part because the next heir was Holland's sister whose second husband had been a Lancastrian (though their son would become loyal supporter of Edward in the 1470s).
St Leger is a loyal member of the King's household why would Edward V want to punish his father's loyal friend? (who in this timeline won't rebel against Richard III and lose his life). The principal heir to the 3rd Duke of Exeter without the remainder is his sister Anne Holland and her son Ralph Neville who succeeded as 3rd Earl of Westmorland in 1484.

 

[mcdnab]

Just a further note on the above - you are of course free to do what you like with your tl - but these deals were all politically and financially important to the Yorkist reign and its stability.

Supporters expected to be rewarded through royal patronage in terms of local and national influence whether land based acquisitions or roles in administration.

Edward used his immediate family and wider circle to achieve this and it is unlikely his son will change course and he was raised by men Edward knew well and trusted.

Edward IV had a large number of dependent family members to provide for through his reign - and he was not above bending the usual rules of inheritance to provide for his family without alienating crown lands and reducing his own income - therefore it is unlikely that a change, the birth of a Lancastrian female heir, is going to change that.

He in addition married a woman without the usual dower that would have helped fill the royal coffers - as you have Edward V also marrying an English woman (no matter her pedigree) with no great dower the coffers will need more filling.

Young Edward V has numerous sisters to dower (if they are to marry well), a mother to provide for, and a brother to maintain.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

@mcdnab: Fair enough. Although I wasn't planning to let Edward V do this in one fell swoop. Elizabeth, Mary and Cecily at least are going to be married off before their father's death. Which leaves only the Ladies Anne and Katherine (Bridget's already slated for a convent) to be dowered and Richard of Shrewsbury to maintain.

The royal income would be knocked by the loss of the lands being restored to its rightful heirs, but, them having to pay to get it back (while raising some murmurs of resentment) means a decent/much needed cash injection into the treasury over time (since I doubt anyone's gonna have enough to pay a lump sum, more in the line of installments).

In addition, the minute Anne of Lancaster has a kid (esp if its a boy), Uncle Dickon, Queen Marquerite etc are going to have a sure way of letting their opinions bleed through into government (I'm thinking of Queen Anne being less Jane Seymour and more Katherine of Aragon). Edward won't necessarily take it well (his wife trying to rule) BUT he's going to be smart enough to know that valuing her opinion, if not always following it, is a good way to keep her stepfamily on his side, after all, Gloucester's motto OTL was "loyalty binds me".

Edward's also going to be fishing for a better dowered bride for Richard of Shrewbury (a Spanish infanta comes to mind) so that he no longer has to support him. Not saying he'll get it, just that he might.

Also, Henry VII managed to rid himself of the nobility having their own armies/soldiers, is there a way for Edward V to attempt doing this? Or would it have to wait for the reign of his successor?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

@mcdnab: So St. Leger holds onto the Exeter claim, which would make her an heiress like Elizabeth de Mowbray and Margaret Plantagenet. Might Edward consider betrothing her to his brother if de Mowbray is unavailable?

Otherwise how would you suggest resolving the cashflow problems of the Edwardian court? Since he's going to have either pissed off nobles (who've lost their inheritance) or a beggarly king (if he hands it all back)

 

[ranichi17]

@Kellan Sullivan Richard only became opposed to his sister-in-law during the all too brief regency under Edward V because the Wydevilles were gaining too much power. Before that it was Clarence who strongly opposed Liz.

Speaking of Clarence, he'd probably still try his power grab here if Isabel still dies, so it's the chopping block for him (or a barrel of Malmsey wine, if you prefer that version), and his children become royal wards to be disposed off in marriage.

I haven't actually caught up with TRP whoops.

 

[mcdnab]

In your scenario it is unlikely that Richard and the Queen's family will be on bad terms (he wasn't in otl until he decided to grab the throne). Richard himself was certainly an efficient administrator and the evidence is that Edward V's council in Wales was well-run by Rivers and the other councillors.

I also don't necessarily think his loyalty will automatically rest with his step-daughter - she may well to him be an unwelcome reminder of his wife's first marriage. they may have a poor or good relationship.

Either way if he sticks by his nephew then I suspect the loyalty will go to him not the step-daughter.

I can't see Margaret having any influence (i assume you are keeping her in England not packing her off to France, retirement and death) she's probably been kept in comfortable confinement for the last decade or so with little access to anyone - a spent force I would think.

If "Anne of Lancaster" is more like her grandmother of Anjou and her grandfather of Warwick then no I doubt she will be too quiet with her opinions - but then a Queen's power was very dependent on her relationship with her own household and her husband. In this case (as in that of Elizabeth Woodville) she had no external support from a loving royal father overseas etc hence she becomes much more dependent. Her income, jointure, and dower will be set by the King. If she appoints officials that he doesn't like it will be likely that he will order them dismissed - doesn't make for marital harmony in a case where there is little affection.

Edward IV had spent time trying to improve the financial picture - and he had in OTL that nice pension from the French *until they cancelled it and dumped Elizabeth of York*
A new King gets the automatic dues and is expected to live off them - the only real excuse for more is war on the horizon but new taxes in the form of a subsidy were usually unpopular.

The easiest way to increase royal finances is to ensure efficient government - proper collecting of dues from the royal estates - known as ordinary revenues - that would include the duchy of Lancaster revenues and the York family holdings, lands returned to the crown following the death of a man without heirs, attainted property etc - Henry VII got around £29,000 a year from his lands in 1485/6 but with better management he nearly doubled that to £42,000.

Edward IV had made a bit of a start before Henry but the aftermath if his early death and Richard's usurpation interrupted that.

Returning estates to "rightful" heirs is a bit of a waste of good land - technically the land is the Kings - are the rightful heirs necessary for good government in which case give them back subject to certain conditions etc, if the rightful heirs are not on side why take the risk and give the lands to someone you want to reward instead or keep them for yourself to improve the financial picture or endow your relatives.

Another thing you can do is get an Act of Resumption - dating back it can recover lands alienated from the crown over a set period (Henry VII did one dating to 1455) but it doesn't necessarily bring in much.

Other main income came from custom dues - The duties levied on wool, leather, cloth and wine were the most valuable. Edward IV had modernised the administration to improve collection it raised around £30,000 a year in the early years of Henry VII - so a similar figure should apply to the latter years of Edward IV

The other source were his feudal dues although very dated they could be profitable - those who held land directly from the crown and owed the King certain dues in return for their land. Wardships came into this when a minor inherited and the Crown took the revenue from those estates (and sold the heir or heiress off to the highest bidder for marriage etc) - sometimes the king would reward a peer by granting one of these wardships direct to him - far cheaper than granting him land for example. Henry VII was getting around £6,000 a year from this by the end of his reign. The monarch was also entitled to a fee when land was transferred from one owner to another.
The monarch as head of the judiciary was also entitled to part of the profits made by the courts from fines etc.

There was also extraordinary revenue - parliamentary grants, loans and benevolences, clerical taxes, pensions from foreign monarchs etc - parliamentary tax grants were inefficient and didn't usually raise a lot however good you were at enforcing it, benevolences were hated but worked much better introduced by Edward IV - basically the King needs your money - they were sort of forced loans never paid back.
Parliamentary grants were usually matched with a grant from the church, he also could keen Bishoprics vacant for a while pocketing their revenues.

Henry VII also issued contracts for good behaviour to his nobles forcing them to pay him if they failed to carry out what they were promising whether good behaviour or some service to the King. Henry turned them into an art form.

Henry did not really get rid of the retainers held by his nobles it is a bit of an urban myth - the great peers in his reign still had large households - Edward IV in 1468 limited the practice of retaining except for legal advisers, domestic servants, estate officials and, rather vaguely, those in ‘lawful service’. Unsurprisingly, the reference to ‘lawful service’ proved a major loophole.
In reality King's needed the retainers of their nobles cos they made up the national army at time of war because England did not have a standing army. Henry VII simply revived Edward's law issued a new statute which was similar that nobles had to submit names to the king for approval and pay fines if they broke the rules. Large noble retinues still continued.