🚀 go-pugleaf

>From: "Martin Reboul" martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk

>Warwick re-enters London in triumph, with Margaret and Edward of
>Lancaster as his prisoners. With the Royal Family nicely secured
>in the Tower, Warwick sets
>about securing his position, paying otward respect to King Henry
>VI, although he is little more than a puppet. Using charm and
>guile, Warwick employs a carrot and stick approach to gain the
>support of any wavering nobility - Henry Percy is deposed, and his
>brother
>John becomes Earl of Northumberland again and controls the north.
>
>An alliance is arranged with Scotland with the help of Louis XI,
>and Louis quickly overwhelms Burgundy with English support. Henry
>Tudor returns from exile, and lives a quiet and happy life as
>Henry of Richmond, a loyal Lancastrian.
>
>Henry VI lives on for a few years, and Queen Margaret accepts a
>substantial payoff to return to Anjou, where King Louis keeps an
>eye on her. Her son Edward, married to Warwick's daughter Anne,
>comes to terms with his father-in-law after much persuasion,
>replaces his father, but is kept on a tight leash. Warwick has
>brought the late Edward IV's baby son Edward up almost as his own
>son "just in case", still a serious contender for the throne,
>despite King Edward V's sons being his grandchildren.
>
>It is now 1500, and a new century awaits - what will it bring?
>
>That's as far as I dare go...

How long are you expecting Warwick (b1428) to live? In 1500 he'd be 72 - quite
apart from having amde a _lot_ of enemies in his career
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England

Call nothing true until it has been officially denied

"Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bv8g7k$3rv$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> April 14th 1471 - the battle of Barnet: One tiny change..
>
> The Earl of Oxford returns to the field in dense fog, but instead
> of accidentally engaging Warwick's right flank and throwing the
> battle, he crashes into the Yorkist rear with 900 men. Already at
> the point of collapse, they are taken by surprise and overwhelmed.
> Edward IV, Clarence, Anthony Woodville, Essex, Arundel, Norfolk,
> Sir William Stanley, Hastings and most significant Yorkist
> supporters are killed or executed shortly afterwards. Richard,
> Duke of Gloucester, dies in battle aged 18, never to become
> Richard III. Henry VI (a Yorkist prisoner at the battle) is taken
> alive.
>
> What happens next?

Seems to me a Lancastrian triumph over Warwick is much more likely.
After all, the loyal Yorkists now hate Warwick.  I'd think he might be
in a Richard III like situation, where he's now alienated just about
everyone.  Oxford defecting to Warwick seems particularly unlikely.
But then, your knowledge of the Wars of the Roses seems superior to
mine.  But who is Warwick's natural base of support, beyond his own
family?  Alienating the Percies, in particular, seems a bad idea.

mwstone@aol.comnojunk (mike stone) wrote in message news:<20040128112816.18962.00001102@mb-m28.aol.com>...
> >From: "Martin Reboul" martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk
>
> >Warwick re-enters London in triumph, with Margaret and Edward of
> >Lancaster as his prisoners. With the Royal Family nicely secured
> >in the Tower, Warwick sets
> >about securing his position, paying otward respect to King Henry
> >VI, although he is little more than a puppet. Using charm and
> >guile, Warwick employs a carrot and stick approach to gain the
> >support of any wavering nobility - Henry Percy is deposed, and his
> >brother
> >John becomes Earl of Northumberland again and controls the north.
> >
> >An alliance is arranged with Scotland with the help of Louis XI,
> >and Louis quickly overwhelms Burgundy with English support.

That's going to be ever so popular. I don't even think England can do
much in helping France take out Burgundy. If it does, it'll be a hell
of a deal--like the USSR and Germany dividing Poland.

> > Henry
> >Tudor returns from exile, and lives a quiet and happy life as
> >Henry of Richmond, a loyal Lancastrian.
> >
> >Henry VI lives on for a few years, and Queen Margaret accepts a
> >substantial payoff to return to Anjou,

Umm. No. That woman has two reasons to stay 1)she HATES Warwick.
Hates, loathes, dispises and wants to see him dead. 2) Her son.
Margaret's hand pretty much kept the Lancasterian ship in line for a
long time. She was so wound around her son's right to be king that
she's not going _anywhere_. She'll be the ultimate mother-in-law.

> > where King Louis keeps an
> >eye on her. Her son Edward, married to Warwick's daughter Anne,
> >comes to terms with his father-in-law after much persuasion,
> >replaces his father, but is kept on a tight leash.

Again, I disagree. Quite aside from marrying down, I doubt that
Margaret would allow Warwick to do this with her son.

> > Warwick has
> >brought the late Edward IV's baby son Edward up almost as his own
> >son "just in case", still a serious contender for the throne,
> >despite King Edward V's sons being his grandchildren.

Ew. Therein lies a good chance of a Yorkist restoration. Or maybe
Margaret in Burgundy, if she's been married off yet.

> How long are you expecting Warwick (b1428) to live? In 1500 he'd be 72 - quite
> apart from having amde a _lot_ of enemies in his career

I think Warwick's toast, the same way Richard III was. The man's
nasty, and has killed the Yorkist champion while being thoroughly
hated by the brains of the Lancasterian operation.

Once Barnet is won, I think that Margaret will kill Warwick. It'll be
a nice, short Lancasterian victory.

Henry Tudor may still end up being king, albiet later, and a few more
rounds of bloodshed.

Cheers

L

"mike stone" <mwstone@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20040128112816.18962.00001102@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >From: "Martin Reboul" martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk
>
> >Warwick re-enters London in triumph, with Margaret and Edward
of
> >Lancaster as his prisoners. With the Royal Family nicely
secured
> >in the Tower, Warwick sets
> >about securing his position, paying otward respect to King
Henry
> >VI, although he is little more than a puppet. Using charm and
> >guile, Warwick employs a carrot and stick approach to gain the
> >support of any wavering nobility - Henry Percy is deposed, and
his
> >brother
> >John becomes Earl of Northumberland again and controls the
north.
> >
> >An alliance is arranged with Scotland with the help of Louis
XI,
> >and Louis quickly overwhelms Burgundy with English support.
Henry
> >Tudor returns from exile, and lives a quiet and happy life as
> >Henry of Richmond, a loyal Lancastrian.
> >
> >Henry VI lives on for a few years, and Queen Margaret accepts a
> >substantial payoff to return to Anjou, where King Louis keeps
an
> >eye on her. Her son Edward, married to Warwick's daughter Anne,
> >comes to terms with his father-in-law after much persuasion,
> >replaces his father, but is kept on a tight leash. Warwick has
> >brought the late Edward IV's baby son Edward up almost as his
own
> >son "just in case", still a serious contender for the throne,
> >despite King Edward V's sons being his grandchildren.
> >
> >It is now 1500, and a new century awaits - what will it bring?
> >
> >That's as far as I dare go...
>
> How long are you expecting Warwick (b1428) to live? In 1500 he'd
be 72 - quite
> apart from having amde a _lot_ of enemies in his career

Not unusual of in that age. The high rate of infant mortality
tends to knock the 'average' well down. The official military
'call up' age applied to anyone between 18 and 60 at that time.
He seems to have been a pretty robust fellow, although, his
daughters Ann and Isobel both died before they reached 30
(possibly from TB). Warwick's countess lived to a goodly age
though. Well, it is a 'what if' I suppose.. what if he'd died in
his 50's or 60's? As long as he lived long enough to eliminate or
appease any likely opposition, I think the result could have been
the same (providing Edward V didn't follow in his father's
footsteps).
                    Cheers
                         Martin

"hlg" <huw@ga110n7744.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<35a2576240c02a022a3cd39d936da700@news.teranews.com>...

> Margaret definitely does not sound like the sort to retire with her son's
> inheritance in any sort of doubt at all, no matter how large the douceur.
> She has been fighting for her son since 1455. Will she really hang up her
> handbag at this stage ? I suspect that if Warwick has Edward IV's children
> (Elizabeth and Edward; Richard and Catherine are not born in this TL)

Mary and Cicely have been, however.


> I believe that within two years at most, there will be a showdown between
> Margaret with all the "original" Lancastrians (the Beauforts, Courtenays,
> Percies and so on)

don't forget Oxford, the hero of Barnet...


> [1] I get exasperated by the amount of typing I have to do in any
> Wars-of-the-Roses thread. Too many Elizabeths.
> [2] Ditto Edwards
> [3] Ditto Richards. Did these Yorkists and Lancastrians have no imagination
> at the font ?

It would seem they did not.

"Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>April 14th 1471 - the battle of Barnet: One tiny change..
>
>The Earl of Oxford returns to the field in dense fog, but instead
>of accidentally engaging Warwick's right flank and throwing the
>battle, he crashes into the Yorkist rear with 900 men...

A nice one.

Not sure about the follow on. Whatever the suspicions between
Warwick and Margaret, they are unlikely to come to blows. Warwick
having won _the_ victory for Lancaster, and holding the King
himself, is too strong for Margaret to challenge. And why should
she, really?

As was noted by another poster, her drive is to see her son
Edward succeed to the throne. Warwick has married his daughter
to him, so he has the same interest.

There are three possibilities here, ISTM.

1) Warwick, having committed himself to Lancaster, and being
   unwilling to strike at the future King whose Queen will be
   his daughter, gets squeezed out of the court by his rivals.
   He's pushing 50, which for many in those days was old age.
   He retires from politics and/or dies a few years later.

2) Warwick, determined to hold onto power, quietly imposes on
   Margaret and Edward an entourage of men loyal to Warwick and
   only to him. This achieved by his power and enormous prestige
   after Barnet. (He presents the heads of Edward, Clarence, and
   Richard of Gloucester to the court.) Until he gets really old
   and dim, and probably till he dies, this keeps Margaret et al
   in line.

3) Warwick is determined to hold on to power, and thinks that his
   wealth and prestige are enough. He allows Margaret and Edward
   personal freedom, and they with Somerset, Oxford, Exeter,
   and so on conspire to have him arrested and attainted in few
   years out.

>Henry VI lives on for a few years, and Queen Margaret accepts a
>substantial payoff to return to Anjou, where King Louis keeps an
>eye on her. Her son Edward, married to Warwick's daughter Anne,
>comes to terms with his father-in-law after much persuasion,
>replaces his father, but is kept on a tight leash. Warwick has
>brought the late Edward IV's baby son Edward up almost as his own
>son "just in case", still a serious contender for the throne,
>despite King Edward V's sons being his grandchildren.

Edward "V"???  Since Henry is still alive, and never abdicated,
is it not likely that the Lancastrians will declare Edward of
York an usurper, who was never really king? In which case young
Edward of Lancaster would be Edward IV.
--
Were there eight kings of the name of Henry in England, or were there eighty?
Never mind; someday it will be recorded that there was only one, and the
attributes of all of them will be combined into his compressed and consensus
story.   --- R. A. Lafferty, _And Read the Flesh Between the Lines_

"mike stone" <mwstone@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20040128112816.18962.00001102@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >From: "Martin Reboul" martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk
>
<snip>

> >
> >Henry VI lives on for a few years, and Queen Margaret accepts a
> >substantial payoff to return to Anjou, where King Louis keeps an
> >eye on her. Her son Edward, married to Warwick's daughter Anne,
> >comes to terms with his father-in-law after much persuasion,
> >replaces his father, but is kept on a tight leash. Warwick has
> >brought the late Edward IV's baby son Edward up almost as his own
> >son "just in case", still a serious contender for the throne,
> >despite King Edward V's sons being his grandchildren.
> >
> >It is now 1500, and a new century awaits - what will it bring?
> >
> >That's as far as I dare go...
>
> How long are you expecting Warwick (b1428) to live? In 1500 he'd be 72 -
quite
> apart from having amde a _lot_ of enemies in his career
> --

I like your understated style. Has Warwick any friends left ?

As with himself and Edward IV, Warwick will probably try to run the kingdom
while the titular monarch amuses himself in whatever fashion he prefers
(debauchery, catalepsy), and it will be months at most before he and
Margaret disagree about something and are at daggers drawn again.

Margaret definitely does not sound like the sort to retire with her son's
inheritance in any sort of doubt at all, no matter how large the douceur.
She has been fighting for her son since 1455. Will she really hang up her
handbag at this stage ? I suspect that if Warwick has Edward IV's children
(Elizabeth and Edward; Richard and Catherine are not born in this TL) in
ward, this would be grounds enough for suspicion that he is up to some new
plot, or cause to plot against him before he gets any ideas about plotting.

Another possibility for the fate of Edward IV's children is that they go
into exile in Burgundy with their mother, Queen Elizabeth (formerly
Woodville) [1] . Quite how they would get away is difficult to conceive,
with Fauconberg in the way, but ir is possible. Or Margaret simply shuts
mother and children in the tower, even if she does not resort to more
drastic measures.

I believe that within two years at most, there will be a showdown between
Margaret with all the "original" Lancastrians (the Beauforts, Courtenays,
Percies and so on) and Warwick, whose supporters will be limited to Montagu
and Fauconberg. Even if Warwick proclaims the child Edward, son of Edward
IV, [2]as king, he won't attract any Yorkists. They will remember only too
well what happened to his dad. Unless Warwick is exceptionally fortunate,
and Somerset displays his well-known lack of judgement in battle, Warwick
will die in battle somewhere if he doesn't escape to exile. (He will
probably be astute and cautious enough to escape summary arrest and
execution.)

So, when Henry VI eventually shuffles off this mortal coil (probably having
lapsed into catatonia long beforehand), we have alt-Edward V. Quite what his
character will be once free of his mother (barring outside intervention, she
will probably die in 1482, as in OTL) cannot be foretold except by hostile
propaganda, but the auguries won't be good. There will be any number of
putative heirs of Edward IV, or his father, the late Richard Duke of York
[3], around which the Yorkists will plot, and the Yorkists will receive help
from Burgundy as in OTL. alt-Edward V will probably have to resort to the
same sort of tactics as did Richard III in OTL, and they will backfire in
the same manner. The Wars of the Roses will continue, probably until the
1500's.


[1] I get exasperated by the amount of typing I have to do in any
Wars-of-the-Roses thread. Too many Elizabeths.
[2] Ditto Edwards
[3] Ditto Richards. Did these Yorkists and Lancastrians have no imagination
at the font ?

"Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.21stcentury@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-F9480B.01032629012004@reader3.news.rcn.net...
> "Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >April 14th 1471 - the battle of Barnet: One tiny change..
> >
> >The Earl of Oxford returns to the field in dense fog, but instead
> >of accidentally engaging Warwick's right flank and throwing the
> >battle, he crashes into the Yorkist rear with 900 men...
>
> A nice one.
>
> Not sure about the follow on. Whatever the suspicions between
> Warwick and Margaret, they are unlikely to come to blows. Warwick
> having won _the_ victory for Lancaster, and holding the King
> himself, is too strong for Margaret to challenge. And why should
> she, really?
>
> As was noted by another poster, her drive is to see her son
> Edward succeed to the throne. Warwick has married his daughter
> to him, so he has the same interest.

Temporarily. Bear in mind that in this TL, Warwick has already topped one
son-in-law (Clarence). His widowed daughter (Isobel) has no children (they
were born 1473 and 1475 in OTL.) Isobel died in 1476, but this can be
butterflied to an earlier or later date. She is heiress to much of the
Neville estate, and there will be no shortage of Lancastrians eager for her
hand and those lovely vast tracts of land.

I can't find any Yorkist contenders to whom she could be married; the issue
of Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV and John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, are
infants in 1471, Isobel is in her twenties.



>
> There are three possibilities here, ISTM.
>
> 1) Warwick, having committed himself to Lancaster, and being
>    unwilling to strike at the future King whose Queen will be
>    his daughter, gets squeezed out of the court by his rivals.
>    He's pushing 50, which for many in those days was old age.
>    He retires from politics and/or dies a few years later.

He seems to have been quite vigorous and active; and in no mood to hang up
his sword.


>
> 2) Warwick, determined to hold onto power, quietly imposes on
>    Margaret and Edward an entourage of men loyal to Warwick and
>    only to him. This achieved by his power and enormous prestige
>    after Barnet. (He presents the heads of Edward, Clarence, and
>    Richard of Gloucester to the court.) Until he gets really old
>    and dim, and probably till he dies, this keeps Margaret et al
>    in line.
>

There aren't many men loyal to Warwick only, by now. His brother, Montagu
(assuming he survives Barnet), Fauconberg. But most of the Neville family
were firmly committed to York, and won't be welcomed with open arms by the
Lancastrians. Warwick's best hope is to marry Isobel (see above) to some
other powerful figure in Queen Margaret's court, and gain an important ally
that way. However, Warwick has turned his coat twice, and this won't be
forgotten in a hurry. He is largely on his own. Margaret will certainly
resent any attempt to encroach on Edward's future authority or dignity.

> 3) Warwick is determined to hold on to power, and thinks that his
>    wealth and prestige are enough. He allows Margaret and Edward
>    personal freedom, and they with Somerset, Oxford, Exeter,
>    and so on conspire to have him arrested and attainted in few
>    years out.

Much more likely.

>
<snip>

> >replaces his father, but is kept on a tight leash. Warwick has
> >brought the late Edward IV's baby son Edward up almost as his own
> >son "just in case", still a serious contender for the throne,
> >despite King Edward V's sons being his grandchildren.
>
> Edward "V"???  Since Henry is still alive, and never abdicated,
> is it not likely that the Lancastrians will declare Edward of
> York an usurper, who was never really king? In which case young
> Edward of Lancaster would be Edward IV.

For official purposes, the monarch would (usually) be just referred to as
"King Edward" or whoever. After all, an Act of Parliament signed into law
nowadays just refers to "Queen Elizabeth"; there isn't much point in
differentiating her from the one who died in 1603.

However, it is later historians who would need to distinguish two Edwards
who reigned so closely together (depending on when Henry the Vacant dies)

"jlk7e" <jlk7e@juno.com> wrote in message news:bdf17ac8.0401282304.39279117@posting.google.com...
> "hlg" <huw@ga110n7744.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<35a2576240c02a022a3cd39d936da700@news.teranews.com>...
>
> > Margaret definitely does not sound like the sort to retire with her son's
> > inheritance in any sort of doubt at all, no matter how large the douceur.
> > She has been fighting for her son since 1455. Will she really hang up her
> > handbag at this stage ? I suspect that if Warwick has Edward IV's children
> > (Elizabeth and Edward; Richard and Catherine are not born in this TL)
>
> Mary and Cicely have been, however.

So has Edward, in sanctuary at westminster with his mother, only a few months old...
He may die of natural causes as a boy however, if some are to be believed.

> > I believe that within two years at most, there will be a showdown between
> > Margaret with all the "original" Lancastrians (the Beauforts, Courtenays,
> > Percies and so on)
>
> don't forget Oxford, the hero of Barnet...

A lot depends on him - as it actually did. Quite a guy, who is often overlooked.

> > [1] I get exasperated by the amount of typing I have to do in any
> > Wars-of-the-Roses thread. Too many Elizabeths.
> > [2] Ditto Edwards
> > [3] Ditto Richards. Did these Yorkists and Lancastrians have no imagination
> > at the font ?

And Johns. You forgot Henries!

> It would seem they did not.

Well, it has often been called "the most difficult/complicated/confusing period in English history". Maybe that's why I like it?
             Cheers
                      Martin

"SwimLFS" <Luke7351@aol.com> wrote in message news:95fc000c.0401281922.6f948013@posting.google.com...
> mwstone@aol.comnojunk (mike stone) wrote in message news:<20040128112816.18962.00001102@mb-m28.aol.com>...
> > >From: "Martin Reboul" martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk
> >
> > >Warwick re-enters London in triumph, with Margaret and Edward of
> > >Lancaster as his prisoners. With the Royal Family nicely secured
> > >in the Tower, Warwick sets
> > >about securing his position, paying otward respect to King Henry
> > >VI, although he is little more than a puppet. Using charm and
> > >guile, Warwick employs a carrot and stick approach to gain the
> > >support of any wavering nobility - Henry Percy is deposed, and his
> > >brother
> > >John becomes Earl of Northumberland again and controls the north.
> > >
> > >An alliance is arranged with Scotland with the help of Louis XI,
> > >and Louis quickly overwhelms Burgundy with English support.
>
> That's going to be ever so popular. I don't even think England can do
> much in helping France take out Burgundy. If it does, it'll be a hell
> of a deal--like the USSR and Germany dividing Poland.
>
> > > Henry
> > >Tudor returns from exile, and lives a quiet and happy life as
> > >Henry of Richmond, a loyal Lancastrian.
> > >
> > >Henry VI lives on for a few years, and Queen Margaret accepts a
> > >substantial payoff to return to Anjou,
>
> Umm. No. That woman has two reasons to stay 1)she HATES Warwick.
> Hates, loathes, dispises and wants to see him dead. 2) Her son.
> Margaret's hand pretty much kept the Lancasterian ship in line for a
> long time. She was so wound around her son's right to be king that
> she's not going _anywhere_. She'll be the ultimate mother-in-law.

That's why she'd have to be 'removed' of course. Heavy handed though he could be, I don't think Warwick would dare have had her
offed, but you never know. One way or another, she'd have to go - you are right.

> > > where King Louis keeps an
> > >eye on her. Her son Edward, married to Warwick's daughter Anne,
> > >comes to terms with his father-in-law after much persuasion,
> > >replaces his father, but is kept on a tight leash.
>
> Again, I disagree. Quite aside from marrying down, I doubt that
> Margaret would allow Warwick to do this with her son.

Um.. she was already married to him before Barnet, in France.

> > > Warwick has
> > >brought the late Edward IV's baby son Edward up almost as his own
> > >son "just in case", still a serious contender for the throne,
> > >despite King Edward V's sons being his grandchildren.
>
> Ew. Therein lies a good chance of a Yorkist restoration. Or maybe
> Margaret in Burgundy, if she's been married off yet.
>
> > How long are you expecting Warwick (b1428) to live? In 1500 he'd be 72 - quite
> > apart from having amde a _lot_ of enemies in his career
>
> I think Warwick's toast, the same way Richard III was. The man's
> nasty, and has killed the Yorkist champion while being thoroughly
> hated by the brains of the Lancasterian operation.

In a very sticky situation, true, but he was a survivor... and in this case a winner. Winners did well at this time, and he was a
crafty fellow even if his charm had worn thin. I suspect his combination of charm and ruthlessness may have worked, remember he had
formidable family support around London and in the midlands and north - where it counted. Many of the fickle would have come round
(Lord Stanley for instance), and if he was clever, the hostile would have been 'dealt with' I think.

However, the month following that hypothetical Barnet would have been crucial. From what I know of the man, he may have gone either
way, though he was always at he best with his back against the wall, and (by now) very experienced and not as forgiving as he had
been in the past, which had led him to disaster.

> Once Barnet is won, I think that Margaret will kill Warwick. It'll be
> a nice, short Lancasterian victory.

That is possible, and almost certain if he failed to strike quickly and decisively at 'Windsor'. What would happen to his
daughter... would she ever become Queen Anne? Poor girl... she may have been happier as Mrs RichardIII !

> Henry Tudor may still end up being king, albiet later, and a few more
> rounds of bloodshed.

I can't see that happening. Jasper Tudor would have supported Henry VI/Edward V, and I doubt Henry would ever even think of himself
as a possible King of England. Not unless there was an outbreak of plague at the Palace!
                       Cheers
                               Martin

"jlk7e" <jlk7e@juno.com> wrote in message news:bdf17ac8.0401281726.43504a4e@posting.google.com...
> "Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bv8g7k$3rv$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > April 14th 1471 - the battle of Barnet: One tiny change..
> >
> > The Earl of Oxford returns to the field in dense fog, but instead
> > of accidentally engaging Warwick's right flank and throwing the
> > battle, he crashes into the Yorkist rear with 900 men. Already at
> > the point of collapse, they are taken by surprise and overwhelmed.
> > Edward IV, Clarence, Anthony Woodville, Essex, Arundel, Norfolk,
> > Sir William Stanley, Hastings and most significant Yorkist
> > supporters are killed or executed shortly afterwards. Richard,
> > Duke of Gloucester, dies in battle aged 18, never to become
> > Richard III. Henry VI (a Yorkist prisoner at the battle) is taken
> > alive.
> >
> > What happens next?
>
> Seems to me a Lancastrian triumph over Warwick is much more likely.
> After all, the loyal Yorkists now hate Warwick.  I'd think he might be
> in a Richard III like situation, where he's now alienated just about
> everyone.  Oxford defecting to Warwick seems particularly unlikely.
> But then, your knowledge of the Wars of the Roses seems superior to
> mine.  But who is Warwick's natural base of support, beyond his own
> family?  Alienating the Percies, in particular, seems a bad idea.

The last Percy would probably be one of his first victims, and not a difficult one - he was a weak fellow. John Neville wanted the
Earldom of Northumberland back and would have taken it for sure (with maximum prejudice!). The remaing Cliffords, Dacres and their
supporters would soon have come to terms or followed Percy to the grave PDQ, and I can see the avaricious Lord Stanley and other
warlords from the Welsh Marches and Midlands divvying up their territories with glee.

Warwick's natural base of support would have been greatly boosted by his recent victories - he may even have been able to rely on
support from Scotland with intervention from Louis XI. Apart from his own vast estates, he could have relied on the fleet, who
always supported him, Calais, Fauconberg Jr. who controlled the southern coast and could call up legions from Essex and Kent to
subdue London, most of Yorkshire, Humberside and the Midlands, large parts of Wales and areas of the West Country.

If he had managed to keep his cool and persuade Oxford (which he probably could have done I reckon, they were brothers-in-law and
had done well together, many interests and enemies in common), support from East Anglia too. Most importantly, every chiseller,
pirate and mercenary amongst the gentry and minor nobility who had remained 'neutral', would see the way the wind was blowing after
his recent successes and come over in droves - he was known as a very generous man who rewarded supporters well. Then of course
there was King Louis, always handy to tap for cash - vital.

The old Lancastrians were broke at this time, Burgundy was in trouble, and most of the Yorkists with any clout at all would have
died at Barnet. With the right mixture of carrot and stick, he could have done it. It would have been bloody, but he could just have
done it.... if only one of those men hadn't mistaken Oxford's banner in the fog!

                        Cheers
                                Martin

"hlg" <huw@ga110n7744.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>> 2) Warwick, determined to hold onto power, quietly imposes on
>>    Margaret and Edward an entourage of men loyal to Warwick and
>>    only to him. This achieved by his power and enormous prestige
>>    after Barnet. (He presents the heads of Edward, Clarence, and
>>    Richard of Gloucester to the court.) Until he gets really old
>>    and dim, and probably till he dies, this keeps Margaret et al
>>    in line.
>>
>
>There aren't many men loyal to Warwick only, by now. His brother,
> Montagu (assuming he survives Barnet), Fauconberg.

By "entourage", I don't mean ranking courtiers, I mean guards and
servants. Allow _no_ _one_ to be alone with Margaret or Edward at
any time.

OK, Edward and Anne can have privacy in the bedchamber; presumably
she isn't going to join any conspiracy against her father, and in
any case the _cordon_ can be extended to include her.

Make it clear to Margaret and Edward that if they try anything,
they could have accidents. Once Anne has produced an heir, this
threat is even more pointed.

Warwick's long-term problem is that Edward is going to grow up.
He's already almost 18. How long can Warwick keep him on a leash?
Warwick can't stay Regent or Lord Protector much longer.

To survive and rule the roost, Warwick must hold Edward as a
virtual prisoner, while himself functioning as king-in-all-but-name.

I don't know of any case where such an arrangement lasted
more than a few years.

It's a highly unnatural situation anyway. What does Warwick want?
There is no lawful position from which he can wield the sort of
power he wants, once the King is of age and not insane or whatever.

If he forces himself on Edward, by wealth-and-prestige, about four
years out Edward turns him out and then chops him. If Warwick
resorts to the sort of measures described above, it will take
longer. If Warwick is ruthless enough (and there is an heir) he
may chop Edward first. But he'd have to be really ruthless.

There may be one factor to keep them together longer. Edward may
not be all that happy with his mother's influence. He may turn to
Warwick for liberation from her domination.

There's one other card for Warwick to play. He can be shocked,
_shocked_ to discover that Henry VI was not only mad but impotent
at the time Edward was conceived, and that Margaret was an adulterer.
This allows him to chop Margaret and Edward for treason, while making
a great show of repentance for rebelling against Edward IV.

Then he can turn back to the York line, and elevate "Edward V" of
York, who is a year old, and be Regent for him for the next 15-17
years. Either he dies while Regent, or the old man gets pushed aside
and probably chopped when E-V comes of age.
--
Were there eight kings of the name of Henry in England, or were there eighty?
Never mind; someday it will be recorded that there was only one, and the
attributes of all of them will be combined into his compressed and consensus
story.   --- R. A. Lafferty, _And Read the Flesh Between the Lines_

"hlg" <huw@ga110n7744.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<0b59835618075843d7087ae02a642195@news.teranews.com>...

(snip)

> In this ATL, the heirs of alt.Edward V, should he die childless, are the
> Beauforts; Edmund, Duke of Somerset, and his brother John. With no
> Tewkesbury, both are alive (and among Warwick's most determined enemies, by
> the way). However, if both these also die childless, then Henry Tudor is
> indeed the Lancastrian heir.

Actually, by standard primogeniture, Henry's mother Margaret Beaufort,
as daughter of Somerset's father's older brother, would be ahead in
the succession.  But I guess Lancastrianism was based, at least
theoretically, on a sort of Salic Law...or something.  The Lancastrian
succession is rather unclear, since they were basically usurpers.

"Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bvbju6$ppm$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
<vast snip>
>
> > Henry Tudor may still end up being king, albiet later, and a few more
> > rounds of bloodshed.
>
> I can't see that happening. Jasper Tudor would have supported Henry
VI/Edward V, and I doubt Henry would ever even think of himself
> as a possible King of England. Not unless there was an outbreak of plague
at the Palace!


Perhaps not the plague, but there will almost certainly be more bloodshed in
this TL. York will certainly try and make a comeback. Edward IV's son, the
infant "other" Edward V, given that Edward, Prince of Wales (son of Henry
VI) becomes the reigning alt.Edward V once Henry goes, may be at large. If
so, a serious rebellion on his behalf is almost a certainty once he attains
mature years.

If he is in Lancastrian hands, he may well be quietly smothered at someone's
orders, and the blame which so infamously attached to Richard III in OTL
will certainly adhere to alt.Edward V, no matter who originally ordered or
performed the nefarious deed. Or, he may be kept in the Tower and paraded
every time a Yorkist rebellion occurs (as was Clarence's unfortunate son in
OTL). If dead, or presumed dead, the Yorkist claim descends to his elder
sisters and their issue, or his cousins, the de la Poles. But if the
Lancastrian alt.Edward V does attract the same sort of notoriety that
Richard III did, the most unlikely contender may be proclaimed true king by
the Yorkists.

In this ATL, the heirs of alt.Edward V, should he die childless, are the
Beauforts; Edmund, Duke of Somerset, and his brother John. With no
Tewkesbury, both are alive (and among Warwick's most determined enemies, by
the way). However, if both these also die childless, then Henry Tudor is
indeed the Lancastrian heir.