WI Both Henry Tudor and Richard III die in battle?
- Thread starter Don_Giorgio
- Start date
Henry Tudor
By this time, the country was very tired of the war. Perhaps compromise candidates for the throne would have been chosen by both sides. On the Yorkist side, the earl of Warwick and his sister are still alive, as well as the daughters of Edward IV. I'm not sure who the Lancastrian claimants were at that point. I can't see a queen Margaret of Beaufort, because she is too old and no longer able to have children.
By this time, the country was very tired of the war. Perhaps compromise candidates for the throne would have been chosen by both sides. On the Yorkist side, the earl of Warwick and his sister are still alive, as well as the daughters of Edward IV. I'm not sure who the Lancastrian claimants were at that point. I can't see a queen Margaret of Beaufort, because she is too old and no longer able to have children.
I don't think that he was at Bosworth, since Henry Tudor declared all those who fought him at Bosworth traitors once he became king. That John de la Pole (the Earl of Lincoln) was able to quickly reconcile with Henry Tudor is why I don't think he was at Bosworth.
I don't know this, and haven't been able to find it out. With Richard III's defeat and death it would appear the the Yorkists leadership was mostly scattered. Few leaders were left in London itself, since most of the loyal men were with Richard III at Bosworth.
So the question is whether John de la Pole and the surviving Yorkist leadership from Bosworth, are going to be able to bring together enough troops to keep London. I think that the way the Yorkists reacted in OTL, reconciling with Henry Tudor or fleeing to the English north to try and raise rebellion, would point to a lack of troops and leadership.
Now the lack of leadership isn't going to be an issue, since Henry Tudor has also died. But the question is whether John de la Pole is going to be able to raise enough troops to counter the Lancaster and their victorious army.
The country may have been tired of war, but the Lancasters had the edge with their victory, and if they can quickly move on London, then they can probably consolidate their win at Bosworth. So what does King Thomas I Grey's new regime look like?
Not so fast!
Thomas Gray became the Lancastrian claimant so fast upthread that I blinked and missed it. What was the Lancastrian 'command structure' at Bosworth immediately after the battle? Who has what personal following and what authority? What is the Stanleys' play, when they find out they doublecrossed one dead guy to make another dead guy king? This is not a challenge to your TL - I just don't know what the situation was, or what combination of 'rightful claim' and force on hand he has to quick nail down effective control of the Lancastrian army and hold it together. Once he does it, I agree that he can probably grab London and the crown at least in the short term.
Not so fast!
My thought was that the Stanleys would probably want to pick a candidate then and there, at Bosworth. The leading Lancaster claimants were all at Bosworth, so it would be relatively easy to come together for a decision. Thomas Grey doesn't really have much of a personal following, but he does have the best claim. So I figured that he would be the compromise candidate among the Lancasters. He is relatively young, and has two healthy sons, so there is long-term security in picking him.
What I basically figured is that the leaders at Bosworth have a stake in a new, Lancaster regime in London.
However, the Yorkists have been shattered. This could end up working against unity at Bosworth Field. The Stanelys know that they can make demands that must be met, and if they're not, then they can walk away and offer to support John de la Pole, or even push their own claim on the English throne.
So will the victory promote unity in the interest of getting a stake in the new regime, or will it promote delusions of granduer in the leaders whose intervention won the victory?
While I believe that the Lancastrians would remain unified and "quickly" (within a week after the battle) select a new leader of the faction (I'll go along with Corvinus and put my support behind Thomas Grey) while sending some troops to London to secure it. I can't help but think of mass chaos coming about.
The Stanleys seeing their opportunity demand the crown for switching sides against Lancastrian supporters who had gone into exile and pressed their claims. The Lancastrians split in Stanley supporters and another candidate's (doesn't have to be Grey necessarily) supporters. A Lancastrian civil war erupts with Yorkist supports badly beaten on the sidelines with John de la Pole thinking its best to wait it out and slowly build up his forces then which ever side loses get those supporters on his side to get revenge.
However, while the Yorkists wait and the Lancastrians fight amongst themselves some others look to get a piece of the English pie. Maybe James III of Scotland with his Beaufort ancestory claims the throne and invades causing the Lancastrian factions and Yorkists to consider either uniting to expel the Scots or continuing fighting amongst themselves regardless. Then perhaps King John II of Portugal or his cousin Manuel (future King Manuel I) of Portugal invades looking for the throne. In all 3 to 5 factions, including perhaps two invading forces from European kingdoms, are all battling it out for the throne of England. Yet this is probably far-far-fetched.
In the end, I think the Portuguese are definitely out of it (one can dream of a personal/dynastic union) all together. James III might have schemed to claim the English throne (no doubt if his son, James IV, had been old enough and king he wouldn't have hesitated), but whether it might have worked depends on his tactics & strategy and the what the support of the Scottish nobles (though one can't discount the desire of revenge against England for the Wars of Independence). And for the Yorkists, for them to recover they need to Lancastrians to split into factions and fight.
But what if if there were two (or more) Lancastrian factions, the Yorkists, the Scots, and the Portuguese battling it out on the fields of England and Wales for the English throne? A relatively, low in succession Englishman of either Lancastrian or Yorkist pedigree unites the English to expel the invaders and gets compared to Alfred the Great in later history? An earlier Stewart/Stuart rule of England under James III or his son James IV and the creation of Great Britain with the capital at York or closer to the border between the two countries? A personal/dynastic union of England & Portugal? All possible if total chaos erupts after Richard III and Henry Tudor die.
The Stanleys seeing their opportunity demand the crown for switching sides against Lancastrian supporters who had gone into exile and pressed their claims. The Lancastrians split in Stanley supporters and another candidate's (doesn't have to be Grey necessarily) supporters. A Lancastrian civil war erupts with Yorkist supports badly beaten on the sidelines with John de la Pole thinking its best to wait it out and slowly build up his forces then which ever side loses get those supporters on his side to get revenge.
However, while the Yorkists wait and the Lancastrians fight amongst themselves some others look to get a piece of the English pie. Maybe James III of Scotland with his Beaufort ancestory claims the throne and invades causing the Lancastrian factions and Yorkists to consider either uniting to expel the Scots or continuing fighting amongst themselves regardless. Then perhaps King John II of Portugal or his cousin Manuel (future King Manuel I) of Portugal invades looking for the throne. In all 3 to 5 factions, including perhaps two invading forces from European kingdoms, are all battling it out for the throne of England. Yet this is probably far-far-fetched.
In the end, I think the Portuguese are definitely out of it (one can dream of a personal/dynastic union) all together. James III might have schemed to claim the English throne (no doubt if his son, James IV, had been old enough and king he wouldn't have hesitated), but whether it might have worked depends on his tactics & strategy and the what the support of the Scottish nobles (though one can't discount the desire of revenge against England for the Wars of Independence). And for the Yorkists, for them to recover they need to Lancastrians to split into factions and fight.
But what if if there were two (or more) Lancastrian factions, the Yorkists, the Scots, and the Portuguese battling it out on the fields of England and Wales for the English throne? A relatively, low in succession Englishman of either Lancastrian or Yorkist pedigree unites the English to expel the invaders and gets compared to Alfred the Great in later history? An earlier Stewart/Stuart rule of England under James III or his son James IV and the creation of Great Britain with the capital at York or closer to the border between the two countries? A personal/dynastic union of England & Portugal? All possible if total chaos erupts after Richard III and Henry Tudor die.
So the Stanleys basically turn on the Lancaster Army at Bosworth, which had perhaps split between supporters of the Stanelys and those who support Thomas Grey?
And John de la Pole has gone into exile presumably- probably to Burgundy where Margaret of York is the Duchess.
If the Stanleys turn on the Lancasters at Bosworth, then isn't it likely that John de la Pole will try and raise the English north in rebellion, possibly with Scottish support, in order to take advantage in the division between Bosworth's victory?
James III was facing massive internal unrest at the time of Bosworth Field (having been captured, overthrown, and escaped in 1482- and killed OTL by a rebel army led by James IV in 1488), and I don't think that he would get involved in the war.
Portugal's John II was involved in murdering the most powerful and disloyal of his nobles. So I think that probably counts out his intervention in the War of the Roses.
I don't think we'll see foreign intervention from either Portugal or Scotland. As for the Stanleys breaking with the Lancasters, that is a definite possibility. If they break with the Lancasters, then they will be pushing their own claim on the English throne. So they are going to be racing the Lancasters to London. The play from the Stanleys point of view is that the Lancasters at Bosworth don't have local support, and the Yorks are divided and soldier-less. This is going to be their one chance to grab London and make themselves leaders of England. Thomas Stanley would base his claim on the throne on his wife Margaret's claim. The problem would then come from the fact that it is Margaret's claim that Stanley claimed the throne on. So his grandson (his son was already dead) Thomas Stanley, would have no blood claim, save the fact that he was related to the King (King-Consort?).
So the Stanleys could do it, but it would be tough. It would probably be easier to just support Thomas Grey. After all, the Stanleys would have the best seat at that particular meeting to decide who the next Lancaster heir is.
Yes, they do. My queasy niggle is that some of them also have a personal stake in being king. All of their claims are presumably weaker than Henry Tudor's was, and his was awfully weak. The biggest factor IMHO would be Grey's force of personality, or someone's. You're trying to convince a bunch of fractious would be kings to make you king, on the premise that they are better off as your subject than trying for the gold hat themselves. The Lancastrian cause could easily fracture.
How far does this go before the English crown becomes 'occupatory,' like a Basileus, and having a drop more Plantagenet blood than the next 500 claimants doesn't count for anything any more?
I just don't see many foreigners getting deeply mixed up in it, because what makes anyone think England is a very governable country? How do you control it without a big standing garrison to keep the lords in line? England would look like a snake pit to stay out of.
The thing is, at this point I see the various lords as looking for an end to the conflict. The war makes it difficult to collect taxes, it makes it hard to hold onto your head and titles as well. And at Bosworth Field the victors can survey a country that is theirs for the taking.
The English crown had been in this 'occupartory' role for some time. But I feel that there is enough difference in social systems that this parallel doesn't really work.
Exactly but that if anything will encourage foreigners to financially back their favored candidate. After all, anything could happen, and who wouldn't want a King in their debt?
I see the English throne as somewhere intermediate - the perfect OTL example being Henry VII's comedy with Liz of York. He had it both ways. On the one hand he claims the throne explicitly by right of conquest, not marriage. On the other hand he plasters the Tudor Rose on every possible surface, as the happily ever after for the whole Wars of the Roses.
We see a couple of generations later how very non-occupatory the English throne has become when a child and two women come to it with only one feeble attempt at usurpation.
Oh, sure, financial backing is another matter - I was taking intervention in the sense of providing troops. Of course the investment only pays off if your king stays king.
My thoughts on possible Scottish or Portuguese invasions for the crown were only mere speculation of total chaos erupting and all the possibilities.
However, I do see James IV getting involved if the Lancastrians splitter into a fight for the crown amongst themselves and the situation hasn't resolved itself once he assends. James IV is a better king (not counting Flodden, which he had to battle because of Auld and didn't want the battle) than his father and is regarded as the most successful Stewart. But like I said that's if the Lancastrians are in a prolonged struggle for a crown amongst themselves.
But I think Thomas Grey through his wife's claim and with two sons, will become the Lancastrians candidate because they can't waste this opportunity.
If the Stanleys do break and try to claim the crown, I don't think they'll get many Lancastrians, especially those that had been in exile in France.
If the Lancastrians do split and fight, I don't think John de la Pole will go to Burgundy, he'll just sit back in Lincoln and see what happens. In TTL, he waited a few years before revolting against Henry VII. If the Lancastrians split and fight, he'll do the same thing and once the time is right he'll launch is revolt.
However, I do see James IV getting involved if the Lancastrians splitter into a fight for the crown amongst themselves and the situation hasn't resolved itself once he assends. James IV is a better king (not counting Flodden, which he had to battle because of Auld and didn't want the battle) than his father and is regarded as the most successful Stewart. But like I said that's if the Lancastrians are in a prolonged struggle for a crown amongst themselves.
But I think Thomas Grey through his wife's claim and with two sons, will become the Lancastrians candidate because they can't waste this opportunity.
If the Stanleys do break and try to claim the crown, I don't think they'll get many Lancastrians, especially those that had been in exile in France.
If the Lancastrians do split and fight, I don't think John de la Pole will go to Burgundy, he'll just sit back in Lincoln and see what happens. In TTL, he waited a few years before revolting against Henry VII. If the Lancastrians split and fight, he'll do the same thing and once the time is right he'll launch is revolt.
Actually, the Earl of Kent was Yorkist, as was his son. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Kent#Earls_of_Kent.2C_eighth_Creation_.281465.29
Edmund participated in Richard III's coronation, and is listed among Richard's supporters in The Battle of Bosworth Field. http://www.chronique.com/Library/Knights/bosworth.htm
While I appreciate meries’ tracking down the precedence of potential heirs, I think this mess would be decided on the battlefield. Also, while the Lancastrians would likely want to skip over foreign claimants, the foreign claimants might use their claim to seek all or part of England, especially since they come before all the English candidates on the list. Nor can they ignore the Yorkist claimants; Henry Tudor had to deal with attempted uprising through 1499, and whoever the Lancastrians back won’t be in as firm of a position.
So lets looks at possible Lancastrian claimants at the battle:
Thomas Grey, Marquess of Dorset – 4th on meries’ list, he’d also probably be favored by the Woodvilles. He’s also a Johnny-come-lately to the Lancastrian side.
George Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury – 5th on the list.
Thomas Stanley, Earl of Derby – 7th on the list. Probably not popular with Yorkists or Lancastrians. After all, whoever he was trying to aid died.
John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford – 8th on the list and commander at Bosworth. Also single, which may be of interest to the Woodvilles.
Jasper Tudor, Henry’s uncle. Also a commander and also single, which may be of interest to the Woodvilles.
I can easily see this bunch falling into internal dissention over which of them should be king.
Then there’s the foreign claimants:
King James III of Scotland has the best claim. He had both allied with and fought the English and he did want to expand his kingdom. In OTL he supported Yorkist claimants. If things are chaotic enough in England, he might try to invade, if nothing else then to distract internal discontent.
John II of Portugal had arranged for his sister Joanna to marry Richard III, though obviously Richard’s death prevented that. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A396029 So in addition to possibly claiming the throne in his own, he might gain some sympathy from remaining Yorkists. Even if he doesn’t get directly involved, he might at least support the Yorkists.
Emperor Maximilian I of Austria might get involved as well. He’s also a recent widower, which may attract the Woodvilles.
For a longshot, while Richard III was king, Elizabeth of York had been engaged to the Duke of Beja. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A396029 If things are chaotic enough in England, the Duke might seek to claim ‘his’ bride and ‘his’ kingdom.
And the Yorkists:
In OTL, the Yorkists had three major claimants. Edward, Earl of Warwick was Richard III’s heir until his wife’s death and is generally thought to have been simple-minded. Still, Henry VIII thought him enough of a threat that he eventually had him executed. His claim is better than all but 2 of the men on meries’ list and since we’re dealing with alternate history, perhaps he was (like Roman Emperor Claudius) playing dumb in order to survive. Also, he may not be captured by the Lancastrians in TTL. People claiming to be Edward of Warwick were supported in 1487 (Lambert Simnel) and 1499 (Thomas Wilford).
Richard of Shrewsbury was the younger of the Princes in the Tower is generally believed to have been killed during Richard III’s reign, but his name could draw support. In 1487, Lambert Simnel made a bid for the throne, at various times claiming to be Edward of Warwick and Richard of Shrewsbury. It seems Richard’s own mother believed the claim, she was deprived of much of her properties and packed off to a nunnery for supporting Simnel against her own daughter and son-in-law. Another person claiming to be Richard of Shrewsbury attempted to gain the English throne in 1491, 1495, 1496, and 1497. This time Sir William Stanley, the man who had betrayed Richard III at Bosworth was executed by Henry VII for refusing to fight a man the thought might be Richard of Shrewsbury.
John de la Pole was Richard’s final heir, and certainly had skill as a military commander. However, in OTL he never made a personal attempt for the throne and he died fighting for Lambert Simnel. His younger brothers inherited the claim and continued to seek support aboard until the last one died in battle in 1523.
And for a longshot, Richard III’s illegitimate son John, Captain of Calais in 1485 and executed in 1499.
Of the Yorkists on meries’ list, Ralph Neville, 3rd Earl of Westmoreland (1st on the list) and Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland (6th on the list) were captured at Bosworth, as was Thomas Howard, the 2nd Duke of Norfolk. Percy is most likely to be blamed for Richard III’s death and was widely unpopular (he was murdered by his own tenants in OTL.) Neville’s a wild card, considering his relatively strong claim (first on meries’ list), the Lancastrians need to either dispose of him or make friends quickly.
Edmund Grey, Earl of Kent and William FitzAlan, Earl of Arundel are other possible Yorkists claimants. And the Earl of Kent is married to a Woodville.
Lastly, there’s the Woodvilles. Technically Yorkist, they certainly married well in OTL – Elizabeth of York to Henry Tudor, her aunt Catherine Neville to Jasper Tudor, and her sister Cecily married Henry’s half-uncle John de Welles. For a wild card, Catherine Neville was mother to Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham.
I agree that there could be dissension. The thing is though, that at this point in the conflict, it is in all of the claimants present interest to agree on a single claimant. Basically they have won a huge victory over the Yorkists. The York cause is now shattered and will have a hard time picking itself back up. The Lancasters have the country for the taking if they can unite around a single claimant.
I am also going to submit that the Lancaster force itself will probably follow the lead of John de Vere, the man who is largely responsible for the victory at Bosworth (Henry Tudor's military commander). While de Vere is a claimant, he is rather low on the list, behind even Stanley. I think that he will back another's claim on the throne, probably Thomas Grey, in return for rewards that only a king can hand out. Stanley is trusted by none of the Lancasters, and is probably incapable of claiming the throne through his own forces. Maybe Stanley convinces de Vere to back his claim, and de Vere's backing of Stanley leads the rest of the Lancasters, none of whom have a large personal following (since all are exiles), to fall in line behind him.
Scotland was a mess, in a state of civil war or near civil war in this period, and I don't think James III would be able to both stay on his throne and invade England at the same time.
Portugal, as I mentioned earlier is not in a position to intervene. The business of murdering nobles is one that demands complete attention and organizing foreign adventures with little chance of success doesn't seem like something that would interest a King so involved.
The Hapsburgs? Really? Ditto for the Duke of Beja.
So we've got a mentally handicapped child, and John de la Pole. de la Pole seems like a good claimant, and I think I dismissed the Hapsburg option entirely too quickly. Margaret of York was a key player in the court of Mary the Rich and her husband Maximilian (future HRE Max I) of Hapsburg, and ended up as the regent of the young Duke Philip. In OTL she backed the imposter Yorkist uprisings. In ATL she would definitely support de la Pole, who I think under the different circumstances of this scenario would actually advance his own claim.
So how does this sound. Thomas Stanley is advanced to the crown, with the support of John de Vere. Stanley, in order to secure his thrown, is forced to quickly pardon all those who had fought against him, and move against none of his potential enemies. Stanley had disaffected many in his route to the throne and dealt with none of them. In 1493 a great rebellion is raised, bankrolled by Margaret of York in Burgundy and lead by John de la Pole. Many go over to de la Pole, hoping to topple the "Traitor-King".
Didnt John de la Pole had a weak claim? Despite being from a senior blood line his ancestor George Duke of Clarence was attainted (sic) and that weakened his claim?
John de la Pole was an adult male claimant for the English throne, he was a proven military commander, and there was no else who had both years and mental capacity going for them.
The attainted thing wouldn't matter much, it didn't seem to stop Richard III from naming him the heir.