George, Duke of Clarence was Edward IV’s brother. The Duke of Buckingham was someone else entirely. George, Duke of Clarence was the third son of Richard of York. Initially he supported his brother Edward and so long as Edward remained without sons he was next in line to the throne.
But in 1469 George married Isabel Neville. As the power of the Woodvilles became more obvious George joined with Warwick in plotting against Edward, principally because he hoped that the Kingmaker would make him king. He went with Warwick, his mother-in-law and his heavily pregnant wife to Calais where, despite the fact that Isabel was in the middle of a difficult labour they were refused entry.
Once in France Warwick made an alliance with Margaret of Anjou whereby his younger daughter Anne was married to Prince Edward.
Clarence seeing which way the wind was blowing returned to England and was forgiven. Ultimately George accused Elizabeth Woodville of witchcraft, found himself arrested for treason and was privately executed in the Tower for treason – possibly in the vat of Malmsey. He deserves a longer post but this is by way of a correction for yesterday’s over enthusiastic pressing of the publish button.
The Duke of Buckingham on the other hand was Henry Stafford and because this is the Wars of the Roses he has a complicated family tree which in essence makes him very Plantagenet because he is descended from two sons of Edward III. During the reign of Edward IV he was married off to Catherine Woodville – who he doesn’t appear to have liked very much. He came to the forefront of events on the death of Edward IV. Buckingham sided with Richard in the power struggle against the Woodvilles for control of the young Edward V; is one of the suspects accused of murdering the princes in the Tower; plotted against Richard to bring Henry Tudor to England. He was captured and executed in November 1483. He also requires a post of his own – I shall add them to my list.
We noticed but too polite to comment.If we had perfection it would matter but as we are just human what does it matter.If you are talking to historians we all work out what you mean.The article was good so pat your self on the back.
George Villiers was Duke and he lived is South Wales near Brecon. It always puzzled me how he raced across to join Richard at Stoney Stratford in one afternoon.I did it in car on back lanes from Brecon Hospital gates across to Shropshire and hop over to the London road and down as far in Buckinghamshire as Stoney took from 9.30am to well after 5pam. I did hit a build up on the M1 but tell me how on horse George Villiers rode to join Richard,unless he was staying at Ludlow with the boys and Lord Grey. Deceiving Richard into discussing his plans and after turning on him as enemy. He simply could not have ridden over that ground in the time he said he did.
There’s nothing like following in someone’s footsteps to find out whether the story is correct or not. Would it have been possible with a change of horse and riding as the crow flies perhaps? I think your idea has possibilities.
George of Clarence went out of the immediate line of succession with the birth of Elizabeth of York in 1465. England allowed succession through a woman; and, at least officially, to a woman. (Although note that no one ever hailed Margaret Beaufort as “Queen”).
England’s lack of salic law did, of course, result in the Hundred Years War with Edward III claiming France through his mother Isabella a.k.a the She-Wolf of France. You are absolutely correct. It’s interesting reading the chronicles though and looking at Edward’s grandson Henry VIII and his increasing desperation for a son – women might have been allowed to inherit but no one thought it was a good idea. And, as you say, strictly speaking Henry Tudor should never have become king since Margaret Beaufort didn’t die until a few weeks after him. The impression one gets of Clarence is that he viewed himself as an adult male Plantagenet and that he didn’t regard baby girls as much of an impediment – though I should have clarified, so thank you for the comment – which has sent me off on a trail of ‘what ifs.’