Arthur, son of Duke Humphrey, participates in the Wars of the Roses

[Tom Colton]

Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, younger brother of Henry V, is one of the few figures related to the Wars of the Roses who was universally exalted (at least until the end of his life, where he was tried for treason by William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk for causes acknowledged to be purely political manouvering on Suffolk's part) by contemporaries and later historians, being the very paragon of honour and chivalry. He's also the founder of the predecessor of the Bodleian Library in Oxford.

He didn't have any surviving children by his first wife, but his second wife (and former mistress), Eleanor Cobham was probably the mother of one or both of his surviving children, Antigone and her brother Arthur, who's the subject of this WI. Both Arthur and Antigone were almost certainly born out of wedlock, but given that Humphrey legally married Eleanor afterwards, they could probably be legtimised (or a document proving as such, a la the Beauforts, could easily be "discovered", read: fabricated.)

Towards the end of Humphrey's life, Eleanor was accused of necromancy and sentenced to public penance and life imprisonment, being held in Anglesey when he finally croaked it. Arthur was accused of treason at the same time as his father and was sentenced to the most extreme punishment, i.e. hanging, drawing and quartering, but was pardoned of all these crimes in an apparent show of clemency by Suffolk (see here). Nothing more is known of Arthur's fate, and he might have died not long afterwards.

But what if he doesn't, and, say, goes to his mother (who admittedly probably still was one of the most hated women in England) to drum up support for the Lancastrian cause, and raises a force in Wales (maybe based on his name?) to contest against Richard of Gloucester? Or would he in fact declare for the Yorkists? Would his public re-emergence be best timed before or after hostilities break out eight years later at St. Albans?

In short, what are the odds of there being a King Arthur of England?

 

[Death's Companion]

Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, younger brother of Henry V, is one of the few figures related to the Wars of the Roses who was universally exalted (at least until the end of his life, where he was tried for treason by William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk for causes acknowledged to be purely political manouvering on Suffolk's part) by contemporaries and later historians, being the very paragon of honour and chivalry. He's also the founder of the predecessor of the Bodleian Library in Oxford.

He didn't have any surviving children by his first wife, but his second wife (and former mistress), Eleanor Cobham was probably the mother of one or both of his surviving children, Antigone and her brother Arthur, who's the subject of this WI. Both Arthur and Antigone were almost certainly born out of wedlock, but given that Humphrey legally married Eleanor afterwards, they could probably be legtimised (or a document proving as such, a la the Beauforts, could easily be "discovered", read: fabricated.)

Towards the end of Humphrey's life, Eleanor was accused of necromancy and sentenced to public penance and life imprisonment, being held in Anglesey when he finally croaked it. Arthur was accused of treason at the same time as his father and was sentenced to the most extreme punishment, i.e. hanging, drawing and quartering, but was pardoned of all these crimes in an apparent show of clemency by Suffolk (see here). Nothing more is known of Arthur's fate, and he might have died not long afterwards.

But what if he doesn't, and, say, goes to his mother (who admittedly probably still was one of the most hated women in England) to drum up support for the Lancastrian cause, and raises a force in Wales (maybe based on his name?) to contest against Richard of Gloucester? Or would he in fact declare for the Yorkists? Would his public re-emergence be best timed before or after hostilities break out eight years later at St. Albans?

In short, what are the odds of there being a King Arthur of England?

Gloucester being one of the most exalted men in England is news to me. Conquest by Juliet Barker is goes into a decent amount of detail about his exploits in France actually undermining the English War effort there and Bedford and having to repeatedly intervene in England where Gloucester was Lord Protecter and rather fiscally inept. He was destroyed in part because he was firmly for continuing the war in France when everyone else was realising that the fight there was hopeless (the country was bankrupt the French were picking up the habit of winning battles and the last great English armies kept fighting pointless campaigns on behalf of their commanders's personal interests rather than trying to do what was best for the kingdom) and so his wife was used to discredit him so that there wasn't anyone for the pro war faction to rally behind.


His son inheriting all this mess probably would not be a particularly useful figure to rally around. Yes his father was popular but not universally so and he was tried, found guilty and died in disgrace. His mother was hated and completely without allies and Arthur himself has no power base or allies and would be very young at the time.