As Old1812 noted, Richard had arranged to marry Joanna of Portugal, while his niece Elizabeth was to marry the Duke of Beja. The fallback choice appears to have been Isabella of Aragon. Joanna was 33 years old, certainly young enough to bear several children. She also had previously served as regent for her brother while he was on military expedition, so Richard may have been thinking of having Joanna run England while he went on a military expedition. Joanna did die in 1490 in OTL, but that could be butterflied away in TTL. Isabella of Aragon was 15 in 1485, certainly young enough to have several children, though she only had 1 in OTL. She had also been promised to Joao II of Portugal by the Treaty of Alcacovas, so a match between her and Richard III doesn't seem likely. She died at age 27 and seems to have had poor health.
A Richard for All Seasons - Richard III wins the Battle of Bosworth Field
- Thread starter Philippe le Bel
- Start date
As Old1812 noted, Richard had arranged to marry Joanna of Portugal, while his niece Elizabeth was to marry the Duke of Beja. The fallback choice appears to have been Isabella of Aragon. Joanna was 33 years old, certainly young enough to bear several children. She also had previously served as regent for her brother while he was on military expedition, so Richard may have been thinking of having Joanna run England while he went on a military expedition. Joanna did die in 1490 in OTL, but that could be butterflied away in TTL. Isabella of Aragon was 15 in 1485, certainly young enough to have several children, though she only had 1 in OTL. She had also been promised to Joao II of Portugal by the Treaty of Alcacovas, so a match between her and Richard III doesn't seem likely. She died at age 27 and seems to have had poor health.
Kunigunde of Austria was well-educated and 20 years old in 1485. In OTL in 1487, she married a man who was 18 years older against the wishes of her father.
Because making a bastard legitimate is the best way to start a shitstorm given that he has just made his nephews and nieces bastards. It also makes his authority weaker.
Philippe le Bel
Banned
His position legally is precarious enough as it is, since he had parliament make his nephews and nieces bastards on a pretty flimsy pretext (Edward IV was still legally betrothed when he got married), so I don't think that he would take this easy way out. Too dangerous.
@BlueFlowwer and I showing off our hivemind, I was typing this as she posted
I'm not sure it was a flimsy pretext, as it depends on whether there was a valid prior engagement to Eleanor Butler. That's one for people more expert than me to decide. ITTL it will be politic for people to accept it as valid though. And I agree Richard won't raise a bastard to be his heir, instead he'll look for another bride. Or, nominate a surviving nephew or more remote connection. Who would be accepted as heir if Richard died before marrying anyway?His position legally is precarious enough as it is, since he had parliament make his nephews and nieces bastards on a pretty flimsy pretext (Edward IV was still legally betrothed when he got married), so I don't think that he would take this easy way out. Too dangerous.
@BlueFlowwer and I showing off our hivemind, I was typing this as she posted
Regarding how the nobility regards Richard after his quick action to kill off the Stanleys - I would reckon stunned at first, worry thereafter. Which might translate into forced retirement as his earlier namesake at some point. Possibly in favour of a son or a.n.o.. I doubt nobles are happy with such arbitrary (as they'll see it) execution of their peers. The Scots got rid of James III in the 1480s so there's another example.
BTW, what's the blog consensus on the deaths of the Princes in the Tower - Richard or Henry Tudor? I've always been partial to the thesis of Truth is the Daughter of Time but I'm aware it's not the academic consensus. It does strike me as unlikely that Richard wouldn't have publicised their "sad deaths from fever/whatever" had he been responsible but maybe he had a reason.
This is a common misunderstanding of the term "precontract". It is not a claim that Edward IV had been betrothed to Eleanor Butler when he married Elizabeth Woodville. It is a claim that Edward IV had married Eleanor Butler and that this previous contract of marriage meant that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous, and thus invalid and the children illegitimate.
Joanna does look the most likely candidate for Richard at present.
Even if she dies at the same time as OTL she could have 2-3 kids, hopefully 1 male and surviving.
Even if she dies at the same time as OTL she could have 2-3 kids, hopefully 1 male and surviving.
Philippe le Bel
Banned
It would not have been flimsy if somebody had brought it up as soon as Elizabeth of York was born, or even as soon as Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville. But bringing it up a decade after the marriage was fait accompli, and with Edward IV's children having been accepted as legitimate since birth, was kind of flimsy. Richard would have to be very correct about his own children's status to avoid similar events being possible.
In OTL many people seemed to believe that John de la Pole, Richard's nephew by his sister Elizabeth, was heir to the throne. England had already confirmed that succession could pass through women, with Matilda and then also with Edward IV's claim descending more closely from a granddaughter of Edward III than any grandson. So, since all of Edward IV's children were named bastards, and Edward IV and Richard's brother George's children attainted for their father's treason, the next in line is Richard's sister Elizabeth of York, Duchess of Suffolk. Though apparently many seemed to think that it would simply transmit through her to her son John.
The precedent for Richard killing that Stanleys is indeed negative, but he has no tangible domestic enemies at this point. The mightiest men now existing in the realm all fought with him at Bosworth, and are infuriated that the Stanelys would sit at the sidelines and making sure to opportunistically join the winning side. The precedent of confiscating the lands of relatives of condemned men is hundreds of years old at this point.
Philippe le Bel
Banned
Well actually, according to the rules that the English followed since the accession of Henry II, Warwick is in front of John. And I don't think that any king has enough political capital to get the barons and earls to accept such a deviation from the succession. It's not as if Warwick is incapacitated or otherwise unworthy. And the only way that he can be put back into the succession is if he's un-attainted, so he is not otherwise unworthy in that scenario. Now, would he be strong enough to hold everything together and keep the monarchy relevant? Probably not, he's been sidelined and basically under house arrest for his whole adolescent and adult life at this point.
Does removing the attainder put him back into normal succession? I thought it only added them?
My guess is that it restores his proper place but I'm open to correction.
I've not had much luck finding a full answer on reversal of attainder with respect to the royal succession. I suspect it's not been tested.
In the event of the end of the Gloucester line after Warwick has been restored to his lands and titles I suspect they'll contest a DeLaPole succession because of it. Unless Richard specifically outlines the succession when restoring Warwick.