WI: Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales survives

Historico

As everyone knows, I've been on my recent Tudor kick, and It has sparked an interest in me in the Last Plantagenet sovereign, King Richard III. Although there has been quite a few TL's featuring the former Lord Protector surviving the Battle of Bosworth, by Killing Henry Tudor, and effectively quelling the Lancastrian supporters for the rest of his reign. Yet, most authors seem to get stuck on the issue of King Richard III"s heir, as both his son...Edward of Middleham and his wife Queen Anne Neville preceded him death before the battle. Although Richard III had indeed named his nephew(from his sister Elizabeth of York, Duchess of Suffolk), John de la Pole as his heir, John seems to dismiss all claim as heir apparent and was relatively alright with the idea of having Henry VII as his sovereign.

But What if that wasn't the case, and the 11 year old Prince of Wales, although sickly from birth, manages to pull through his illness in April of 1484 and lives? How might the final year of King Richard III's reign develop if his son at least gave him some assurance that his Yorkist claim might be continued after his death? Would the Battle of Bosworth still have taken place as IOTL? If Richard III dies as per OTL, could the Yorkists still hold out long enough for a regency to be set up for the young Edward? Or might it his chance to sit on the throne, really rest on the fate of his father? And if Richard rules long enough ITTL at least until Edward reaches maturity(around 1491), do we know enough about Edward of Middleham to discern what kind of King might he be? I can't wait to hear the responses back on this you guys lol
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
Dissent against Richard rose after his son's death because rumours that he would remarry (and possibly marry his niece) rose fully to the surface and threatened to undermine him. Whilst he had a son, he was safe, but with Edward dead dissent rose.

IIRC Buckingham's rebellion derived partly from this, and partly from Buckingham's own ambitions to succeed Richard, now that he did not have an heir of the blood

Thus you have a big butterfly, because a lot of Henry Tudor's support came from exiles who had fled after the failure of Buckingham's rebellion

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Mikestone8

Grey Wolf said:
Dissent against Richard rose after his son's death because rumours that he would remarry (and possibly marry his niece) rose fully to the surface and threatened to undermine him. Whilst he had a son, he was safe, but with Edward dead dissent rose.

IIRC Buckingham's rebellion derived partly from this, and partly from Buckingham's own ambitions to succeed Richard, now that he did not have an heir of the blood

Thus you have a big butterfly, because a lot of Henry Tudor's support came from exiles who had fled after the failure of Buckingham's rebellion

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Click to expand...


Sorry, but Buckingham's Rebellion was several months before the deat of EoM.
 

el t

Edward of Middleham

He would have joined the Earl of Warwick in the Tower, and died in captivity. Unless some supporters of Richard III manage to get him over the Scottish border after Bosworth, perhaps. He will definitely be a thorn in Henry Tudor's side.
 

CP11

By my knowledge Edward was brought up in his father's own household so as regards to what sort of King he may have been it seems likely he would be cut from the same cloth as his father, making him a decent battle commander if nothing else.

But alot does depend on wether Henry Tudor still wins the battle as Edward would only have been 12 or so at the time. Personally I think with a obvious heir Richard may recieve slightly greater support from the country and maybe more importantly isnt going to go on his brave but foolhardy charge across the battlefield. Richard refused to flee into exile or retreat but things maybe different if he has a surviving son as his death on the field would almost certainly lead to Edward's death.
 

mcdnab

Richard was in trouble with or without a direct heir.
It is arguable whether he would have survived if his son had lived.
Buckingham's rebellion, rumours of the death of Edward V etc all happened before the death of Middleham.
However by 84 things were looking better at least on the surface, Richard was a capable administrator and most of the country was so fed up of dynastic squabbles they were willing to put up with anyone on the throne.
But the damage had been done in 1483 - the vanishing of the princes meant new hope to a forgotten exile and an opportunity for foreign powers to interfer and that had little to do with whether Richard of Gloucester had a direct heir or not.
He didn't help matters by his need to rely on his own northern affinity to govern the ream which unsettled the organisation of government by Edward IV and would put people's noses out of joint.
 

CP11

Richard is in trouble but he could definately have survived made it north and raised another army to continue the fighting if he fleed the battle when he had the chance. And even if Richard dies I think if his son had survived he would have had a decent chance of at least having a battle to win back his crown, either straight away as the North rises for him (assuming he was sent to Sherriff Hutton as his cousins were in OTL) or he manages to flee into exile, probably to his Aunt Margaret of Burgundy.

What I'm basically saying is that Henry Tudor has a much tougher time of keeping his throne if Edward of Middleham survives
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top