Remember that legitimacy is a matter of doing right in the eyes of God, not the reigning King. Yes, there had been a long marriage and a long "legitimacy" for Edward IV's children, but the argument that the marriage was invalid, if proved so, overrides that completely and totally. The idea is that your marriage must be correct and perfect in the eyes of God. If you have been priorly married and this makes your second marriage bigamous, then this is deemed as a travesty to God, and therefore your marriage is null and void. God's law and authority totally overrides the authority of Kings, thus if your marriage is invalid "in the eyes of God" then it doesn't matter who you are or how long you've been married, you can't be legitimate unless you can prove your legitimacy to God. A good illustration for this is Mary I, daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. Mary was roughly 17 when she was declared illegitimate, and Catherine's marriage to Henry lasted 24 years, but as soon as Henry had his marriage annulled, he considered Mary's claim to the throne to be absolutely and unquestionably removed. Having been a royal Princess for 17 years seen as legitimate gave her no extra claim and she didn't become Queen because she thought that she deserved it for being a legitimate child for 17 years. She gained the throne by passing an act of Parliament which confirmed Catherine as a virgin from her first marriage, thus Henry's betrothal was true to God. If she hadn't been given a perfect opportunity to seize the throne, she would never have had the chance to pass that act of Parliament, and as injust and false as she believed it, she would have had to accept that England and Europe saw her as illegitimate.
Pax Eboraca: Richard III Wins at Bosworth
- Thread starter Nekromans
- Start date
Remember that legitimacy is a matter of doing right in the eyes of God, not the reigning King. Yes, there had been a long marriage and a long "legitimacy" for Edward IV's children, but the argument that the marriage was invalid, if proved so, overrides that completely and totally. The idea is that your marriage must be correct and perfect in the eyes of God. If you have been priorly married and this makes your second marriage bigamous, then this is deemed as a travesty to God, and therefore your marriage is null and void. God's law and authority totally overrides the authority of Kings, thus if your marriage is invalid "in the eyes of God" then it doesn't matter who you are or how long you've been married, you can't be legitimate unless you can prove your legitimacy to God. A good illustration for this is Mary I, daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. Mary was roughly 17 when she was declared illegitimate, and Catherine's marriage to Henry lasted 24 years, but as soon as Henry had his marriage annulled, he considered Mary's claim to the throne to be absolutely and unquestionably removed. Having been a royal Princess for 17 years seen as legitimate gave her no extra claim and she didn't become Queen because she thought that she deserved it for being a legitimate child for 17 years. She gained the throne by passing an act of Parliament which confirmed Catherine as a virgin from her first marriage, thus Henry's betrothal was true to God. If she hadn't been given a perfect opportunity to seize the throne, she would never have had the chance to pass that act of Parliament, and as injust and false as she believed it, she would have had to accept that England and Europe saw her as illegitimate.
I agree with your points although Mary I isn't the best example: her right to the throne in 1553 did not depend on her legitimacy it depended on the last Henrician Act of Succession and the will of Henry VIII which both named Mary and then Elizabeth in default of Edward VI's issue..neither the Act nor the will restored their legitimacy though. Mary for whom the matter personally mattered so much to her did chose to repeal the legislation that had bastardised her in the first place, her sister in the same positition in 1558 chose to let sleeping dogs lie.
The issue in 1483 is slightly different - it was not uncommon for rebels to question the legitimacy of a monarch or find some similar impediment that would question his or her right to rule under God. Richard III's usurpation was initially based on his claim that his brother's marriage had been invalid - his evidence for it was extremely poor and largely based on the popular understanding of Edward IV's character and the secretive nature of his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. The evidence might have been enough to persuade Richard III's closest supporters but a large number of individuals certainly doubted it - partly because if Edward IV had knowingly allowed a woman not legally his wife to have been crowned and annointed as his Queen he would himself have committed a grave sin and secondly because no church court appears to have examined the issue. And the question of the validity or invalidity of a marriage belonged in the Church's remit not the King's or Parliaments.
A foreign Prince with say the Pope's ear and one of Edward's daughters as his wife or in time his mother may well have been able to get a church court to rule the marriage of Edward IV to have been valid which would have caused significant issues.
The issue in 1483 is slightly different - it was not uncommon for rebels to question the legitimacy of a monarch or find some similar impediment that would question his or her right to rule under God. Richard III's usurpation was initially based on his claim that his brother's marriage had been invalid - his evidence for it was extremely poor and largely based on the popular understanding of Edward IV's character and the secretive nature of his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. The evidence might have been enough to persuade Richard III's closest supporters but a large number of individuals certainly doubted it - partly because if Edward IV had knowingly allowed a woman not legally his wife to have been crowned and annointed as his Queen he would himself have committed a grave sin and secondly because no church court appears to have examined the issue. And the question of the validity or invalidity of a marriage belonged in the Church's remit not the King's or Parliaments.
A foreign Prince with say the Pope's ear and one of Edward's daughters as his wife or in time his mother may well have been able to get a church court to rule the marriage of Edward IV to have been valid which would have caused significant issues.
There is little evidence for Edward of Warwick's mental instability - the suggestion is that his long often solitary confinement under Henry VII in the 1490's was a major contributing factor rather than it being in evidence prior to 1485.
As to Edward Stafford - he is about 7 in 1485 - and a lot will depend on whose household he is placed in and who is allowed to assume his guardianship - his mother Catherine Woodville is the former Queen's sister and still a young woman (early thirties at the oldest age given for her). The biggest problem is that at this point there are numerous other claimants (Yorkist and Lancastrian ) ahead of him - his Lancastrian descent through his grandmother (Margaret Beaufort) and great grandmother (Anne Neville) is soley through the illegitimate Beaufort line, his legitimate claim is through the youngest son of Edward III but through a female line.
As to Edward Stafford - he is about 7 in 1485 - and a lot will depend on whose household he is placed in and who is allowed to assume his guardianship - his mother Catherine Woodville is the former Queen's sister and still a young woman (early thirties at the oldest age given for her). The biggest problem is that at this point there are numerous other claimants (Yorkist and Lancastrian ) ahead of him - his Lancastrian descent through his grandmother (Margaret Beaufort) and great grandmother (Anne Neville) is soley through the illegitimate Beaufort line, his legitimate claim is through the youngest son of Edward III but through a female line.
If this is true then I would say Warwick's father's treachery was probably the bigger contributing factor to him being taken out of the line of succession. As I pointed out before, despite Warwick being the royal heir, his late father's titles were not restored to him. Warwick would probably end up gettin executed in Richard III's England- he is closest to the throne after Richard's own children, combined with his myriad reasons to hate Richard III and his line (Richard III can be held at least partially responsible for Edward's father's death, and Richard III removed Warwick from the succession).
Henry Tudor's candidacy was based on the Beaufort claim as well. The Lancasters at this point had run out of candidates from John of Gaunt's born-legitimate descendents. All other possible Lancaster candidates also claimed the throne through the Beauforts. Also- the Beaufort line was NOT illegitimate- they were born bastards but legitimized by an Act of Parliament.
The de la Pole candidacy was based on their mother's line. I agree there were Yorkists who stood closer to the throne in terms of blood (the de la Pole boys and Edward of Warwick for instance), but with Henry Tudor gone Stafford would become the next Lancaster claimant.
Edward Stafford's father (who had exactly the same claim as his son) was supported by quite a few noblemen in his bid for the throne in 1483- survivors of that bid supported Henry Tudor. Edward Stafford was a logical next choice, as he was the next Buckingham. Indeed his mother's relative youth could serve her well, similar to how OTL Henry Tudor's mother's marriage probably brought his stepfather and stepuncle in on his side at Bosworth Field.
Actually the only legitimate descendents of John of Gaunt by that time were the members of the Portuguese royal house, who had a claim through Philippa of Lancaster, John's eldest daughter with Blanche of Lancaster. But of course, never the Lancaster would ask a foreign monarch to be their legitimate candidate for the English throne, but their possible claim was probably one of the reasons why Richard III decided to make such marriage agreements with the Portuguese royal house.
Henry VII thought Edward of Warwick was enough of a threat imprison him immediately after Bosworth (the boy was 10) and then execute him when he tried to escape at 24.
It's hard to say. Richard's wife Anne certainly seemed to have a soft spot for her niece and nephew, who were only 12 and 10 at Bosworth and he didn't imprison the boy. OTOH, removing the attainder would make Edward a target for kingmakers, he certainly was during Henry VII's reign.
And Margaret and her decendants didn't seem fully reconciled to the Tudors. They survived Henry VII and then were generally killed or had to flee under Henry VIII. Margaret was basically butchered at the executioner's block at age 67, becuase she did not submit calmly to her death.
An excellent point. That does favor Buckingham as a focus for discontent.
OTOH, if Jasper Tudor or the Earl of Oxford survived Bosworth, they're both adults and experienced military leaders, which I'd expect the Lancastrians to prefer to an inexperienced boy.
The evidence was more substantial than that. It was provided by Robert Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, former Lord Chancellor and Keeper of the Privy Seal during the reign of Edward IV. The Titulus Regius, declaring Edward IV children illegitimate was passed by both houses of Parliment in early 1484.
It is the specific reason given in the Titulus Regius.
Well, Richard did confirm that Edward of Warwick was removed from the succession, but that attainder occurred during the reign of Edward IV. Nor was Richard III in any way responsible for George of Clarence's death - George chose on his own to take up arms against Edward IV twice, then to take the king's justice into his own hands after being forgiven.
In between all the vague rumors in More's History of Richard III, he does say that Richard 'resisted openly' the idea of executing George. Dominic Mancini claimed that Richard '... was so overcome with grief for his brother... that he was overheard to say he would one day avenge his brother's death.' And Richard's own wife took Edward of Warwick in after his father was executed.
With the greatest respect and not meaning to offend - no it wasn't - no evidence was ever presented to a church court that has survived and marriage validity fell directly within the remit of church courts. Some historians have suggested that a likely source for the allegation was Robert Stillington (but there is little contemporary evidence to suggest him I think only the French writer de Commines names him as the man behind the suggestion of a pre contract Eleanor Butler) because he was close to George Duke of Clarence and spent a very short period as a royal prisoner during Edward IV's reign, which begs the question why Edward IV didn't get rid of him if he knew such damaging information. He wasn't particular in Richard III's favour and fell out of favour with Henry VII (which is another reason why he is sometimes suspected as the source of the pre contract suggestion).
The Act was passed by both Houses of Parliament after Richard had already been proclaimed and crowned - if offered no "evidence" simply stated the facts - he was de facto King already so Parliament was simply recognising the fact and justifying Richard's actions.
The Act was passed by both Houses of Parliament after Richard had already been proclaimed and crowned - if offered no "evidence" simply stated the facts - he was de facto King already so Parliament was simply recognising the fact and justifying Richard's actions.
In spite of all the above I would say that it is important to accept in any alt that Richard III even if he defeats Henry VII faces severe dynastic problems.
Ricardians and traditionalists tend to overlook the number of people who resented both the Usurpation of 1483 and the accession of Henry VII in 1485. With a Richard victory in 1485 he has still failed to address those who opposed his usurpation - despite the removal of some of the key figures opposed to his rule.
He remains vulnerable to pretenders in the name of his nephews (he's going to face increased pressure to explain them vanishing from view - and if he acknowledges their death he will never escape some guilt over the issue), pretenders in the name of his nephew Warwick and his sister, and pretenders in the names of his nieces.
Just because an allegation (however forcefully) is made - illegitimacy,attainder etc - it doesn't mean it is going to widely believed - Richard III would have been consistantly vulnerable
Ricardians and traditionalists tend to overlook the number of people who resented both the Usurpation of 1483 and the accession of Henry VII in 1485. With a Richard victory in 1485 he has still failed to address those who opposed his usurpation - despite the removal of some of the key figures opposed to his rule.
He remains vulnerable to pretenders in the name of his nephews (he's going to face increased pressure to explain them vanishing from view - and if he acknowledges their death he will never escape some guilt over the issue), pretenders in the name of his nephew Warwick and his sister, and pretenders in the names of his nieces.
Just because an allegation (however forcefully) is made - illegitimacy,attainder etc - it doesn't mean it is going to widely believed - Richard III would have been consistantly vulnerable
I agree, however, I think Nekromans is committed to keeping Richard III and his line on the throne.
Jasper was Henry's surrogate father and has no claim on the English throne and the Earl of Oxford was Henry's battlefield commander, who has a very, VERY weak claim English throne. If either Jasper or Oxford survive Bosworth I would bet they would be more willing to rally to Buckingham than try to advance their own causes.
The Lancasters can take a few years to regroup after Bosworth- Richard III will be facing opposition from the pretenders Lambert Samuel and Perkin Warbeck, both of whom could probably gain enough support to force Richard III into another battle.
Nekromans- I really don't think Richard III can end his life dying naturually as the King of England. He definitely can't make it out of the 15th century. With Edward of Warwick and de la Poles on one side and Edward Stafford on the other, I just don't see how Richard III, the man who murdered his nephews to gain the throne and hasn't known more than a year of peace since, can possibly start a lasting dynasty.
Henry VII won his throne on the battlefield, killed off the leading adult Yorkist, and married the Edward IV's oldest daughter. That is how one ends a dynastic civil war. I just don't see Richard III's end game for the War of the Roses. The fact that Henry Tudor was able to rally support demonstrates the level of discontent with Richard III and I don't see that discontent going away. He can't guarantee stability because his rule is not viewed as legitimate by large sections of the population and nobility.
Unless Richard is able to kill every last possible Lancaster claimant (and its a long list) and probably most of the potential Yorkists I don't see how this ends well for him.
Okay, I'm convinced. I'm willing to allow the English Succession Wars to continue, and I'm willing to concede the possibility that it may not be feasible to keep the Yorkists on the throne. However, I intend on keeping Richard on the throne until at least 1490.
Back to the drawing board...
Back to the drawing board...
I think you've got a chance to keep him on the throne in the short term - partially because of the youth of some of the main Yorkist claimants.
Although from the defeat of Henry Earl of Richmond in 1485 - this is no longer a War of The Roses - more like the War of the Single Rose! As his most likely opposition is now his own family, the surviving members of the Yorkist clan.
I suspect in the short term his biggest danger is his nephew Edward of Warwick (though at this point in the King's control confined with Edward IV's younger daughters at Sherrif Hutton in Yorkshire.)
Although from the defeat of Henry Earl of Richmond in 1485 - this is no longer a War of The Roses - more like the War of the Single Rose! As his most likely opposition is now his own family, the surviving members of the Yorkist clan.
I suspect in the short term his biggest danger is his nephew Edward of Warwick (though at this point in the King's control confined with Edward IV's younger daughters at Sherrif Hutton in Yorkshire.)
Except most of Simnel and Warbeck's support in OTL came from Richard III's relatives and allies.
To repeat - William Stanley, the man that betrayed Richard III at Bosworth was executed in 1495 by the (rather ungrateful) Henry VII for refusing to fight Perkin Warbeck because he might be Richard of Shrewsbury. Whether you think Richard murdered the boys or not he can easily people of the time did not know and Richard can easily come up with a credible story which would defuse rumors and point to his numerous other not-dead nieces and nephews as counter-examples.
Edward Stafford and Edward of Warwick are children. The first won't be a teenager until 1493, the second till 1488. (And Warwick is attainted, has reasons to like Richard, and will be raised by whoever Richard choses.)
The de la Poles were loyal to Richard during his reign and John is Richard's heir.
Except the Battle of Bosworth did not end the dynastic civil war. Henry VII faced armed opposition for the next 12 years and the last Yorkist pretender died 16 years after Henry did.
At Bosworth neither Richard nor Henry had heavy support. Numbers are notably less on both sides than in most other battles of the War of the Roses, including the Battle of Stoke Field which took place 2 years after Bosworth. Much of Henry's force was mercenaries. And the Stanleys were rather aggressively neutral until they saw which way the battle was going.
It is correct that the first 2 years of Richard's reign did not see peace, but the same is true of Henry VII and he was able to pass the kingdom on to his son. (There was the Stafford and Lovell rebellion in 1486, the Battle of Stoke Field in 1487, Warbeck/Shrewsbury's landing in Ireland in 1490, in Kent in 1495, attempted invasion from Ireland in 1495, attempted invasion from Scotland in 1496, and the Cornish Rising of 1497. Edmund de la Pole's attempts at recognition from 1501 though his capture in 1506 and execution in 1513.)
What long list of Lancastrian claimants? Henry Tudor had a pretty tenous claim and you have already dismissed the claims of Jasper Tudor and the Earl of Oxford. I suppose there's always Margaret Beaufort
Why would you accept William Stanley's excuse at face value? The man refused to commit before Bosworth Field in order to make sure that he was on the winning team. As the battle of Stoke Field approached he tried to do the same thing, wait for a clear outcome and then support the winner. Unfortunately for him, Henry VII decided to execute him for a lack of loyalty.
His late brother's children were declared illegitimate, the two young sons of his late brother disappeared, and then he became King Richard III. One could see how Richard's contemporaries might get the feeling he offed his nephews. England had been fighting the War of the Roses for generations at this point, and I don't think that anyone at this time held any illusions about the good intentions of those involved in the game of thrones.
The de la Poles were adults, and t
Henry VII killed Richard III in 1485, and then John de la Pole in 1487. With their deaths (combined with Henry's marriage to Elizabeth of York) the Yorkist cause was effectively dead. With the death of John de la Pole in 1487 subsquent uprisings didn't represent major threats to Henry's throne. The armed attempts on Henry actually gave him an opportunity to eliminate threats to his regime, for example the execution of Stanley.
These are the adults, in 1485, in order, who have the blood to become the Lancaster claimants:
Ralph Neville, 3rd Earl of Westmoreland
Edmund Grey, Earl of Kent
William FitzAlan, Ear of Arundel (husband of Joan Neville, father of Thomas FitzAlan) OR Thomas FitzAlan
Thomas Grey, Marquess of Dorset (husband of Cicely Bonville, father of Thomas Grey) or his son Thomas Grey
George Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury (his descent and through his wife Anne Hastings)
Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland
Thomas Stanley, Earl of Derby (through is wife Eleanor and his son George, Lord Strange)
John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford (through his wife Margaret Neville and commander at Bosworth)
George, Lord Abergavenny
Richard, Lord Latimer
But short of producing the boys alive and well, nothing is going to keep suspicion from hanging on Richard - because everyone takes for granted the fate of ex-kings. What happened to Richard II? Henry VI? I don't know what happened to the boys, but their absence is heavy baggage for Richard and easy propaganda for his enemies.
Margaret Plantagenet had quite a good life under the Tudor's - she was married off to a connection of Margaret Beaufort's. She was appointed very early to Catherine of Aragon's household and was present at Ludlow with Catherine when Arthur Prince of Wales died. She was restored to the Earldom of Salisbury in her own right and those lands still in the King's possession in 1513 and was governess to the Princess Mary. Her fall from favour reflected her devotion to the Queen Catherine and to the Princess Mary, the marriage of her daughter Ursula to the heir to the Duke of Buckingham and Henry VIII's increasing insecurity due to his failure to produce a male heir. Her death was largely the responsibility of her son Cardinal Reginald Pole - initially a favourite of Henry VIII he was an outspoken critic of the divorce and remarriage of the King - he was one of the few to argue at the time that it was not motivated by religious doubt but by the King's lust for Anne Boleyn - the King was furious and it festered Cardinal Pole was in exile and an outspoken critic of the English Reformation - eventually the King ordered the arrests of all his relatives still in England on charges of treason even Cromwell at the time concluded their only treason was that they were related to the Cardinal - in the end Margaret went to the scaffold as did her eldest son Henry Pole.
i just wanna say that u think that the de la poles were a threat to richard is insane john de la pole earl of lincoln was richards most loyal supporter he was in charge of northen england and he was richards hier ! for lambert simmenel and perkin werbeck they were yorkist tools used against henry tudor used by old ricardian loyalist who loved richard so they wernt going to be a problem to richard. warrick could be trouble to richard but he was keept
at sherrif hutton castle in north yorkshire so no one was gunna use him. as for edward iv children if elizabeth was sent to portugal she would be save and richard would hhave to lock her sisters in aconvent under guard. That leaves the young edward stafford who was on the run apparantly dressed as a girl if richards enemys got him used him he would bea threat. The stanlys would only support stafford if he could gain enough support but i tink if richard won bosworth ( that if stanly diddnt attack cos if he did and richard won stanly was a dead man) he would have compplete control oof the country he would have taken stafford and locked him away. leaving the rest to are imagination. house of york survives onlly determining if richard has children if he doesnt john de la pole becomes john II !
Plus anyone else, royal or not, who could rally enough support to seize the throne and then graft himself onto the House of York by marrying Elizabeth. Thus even the most specious, "Lambert Simnel" type of pretender would do, just so long as he was marriageable.