WI: Richard III kills Henry VII but still gets killed

[GameBawesome]

Richard III is probably one of England's most infamous kings. Having come to power by usurping his own nephew, he was the last Yorkist King to reign. During the decisive Battle of Bosworth Field, in a great gamble, Richard III personally charged, along with 1,000 horsemen, across the battlefield to kill Henry Tudor. It was said Richard III nearly came into sword's length of Henry Tudor, but the Stanley forces intervened, and Richard III was killed with a blow to the head. Afterwards, Henry Tudor became King Henry VII and married Richard III's niece, Elizabeth of York, to unite the Yorkist and Lancastrian claims.

What if Richard had killed Henry Tudor in his last moments, managed to kill Henry Tudor, but still dies like OTL, getting killed by Henry's men in retaliation. How would this effect War of the Roses with the major Lancastrian claimant (Henry VII) and the Yorkist King (Richard III) both dead on the battlefield of Bosworth? Who next in the line of succession for the Yorkists and Lancastrians

 

[mjwebb76]

The death of Henry VII almost certainly ends Lancastrian claims. There were two Yorkists with reasonably strong (albeit problematic) claims. The first of Edward Earl of Warwick (son George Duke of Clarence and thus Edward IV and Richard III's nephews). The "legal" problem was that George had been attained (and executed) from treason and from that perspective Edward's claim was forfeit. From a pragmatic perspective, Edward was 10 years old. The second was John de la Pole Earl of Lincoln. He was the son of the sister of Edward IV and Richard III. Thus, from a legal perspective he had an inferior claim, but he was 25. There is also some evidence that Richard III had named him his heir. In short, there would have been a period of serious instability as various factions pressed their claims.

 

[Avrorrange]

I suspect anyone can if they won and married Elizabeth of York.

 

[Zestinobambino]

I suppose John de la Pole would be the most likely to take the throne. He’s the oldest of the York kings’ nephews, and since George, Duke of Clarence was attainted so his son can’t inherit, the Yorkist claim would have to go through one of the York sisters.
How would the pretenders come about, too? It’s possible that Lambert Simnel and/or Perkin Warbeck could get more support in this timeline than they did IOTL.

 

[Dragonboy]

John de la Pole takes the throne as John II and Marries elizabeth of york! Long live the White Rose!

 

[material_boy]

I'm rather more bullish on Warwick's chances than Lincoln's. Politically-speaking, it's not clear anyone at the time saw Lincoln as heir. Despite modern historians speculating that Lincoln's appointment as lord lieutenant of Ireland was meant to signal that Richard favored him as heir, there's no contemporary evidence that this is the case. The de la Poles were still looked down upon as up-jumped merchants even a century after Richard II created the 1st earl of Suffolk and the 2nd duke of Suffolk found no particular favor at the courts of either of his brothers-in-law.

So, you have basically three factions -- Edwardians, Lancastrians, and Ricardians -- and the latter two have no leaders. That puts Elizabeth of York in the catbird seat, as she is the only figurehead still drawing breath. The Edwardians alone aren't strong enough to impose their will on the other two, so some sort of compromise has to be found. The the last Plantagenet prince is just sitting around -- and he is not associated wit any of the three factions. He seems like the perfect candidate to elect as king, with a regency council divided between the three factions, and then wed to his older cousin when he comes of age.

 

[mjwebb76]

I'm rather more bullish on Warwick's chances than Lincoln's. Politically-speaking, it's not clear anyone at the time saw Lincoln as heir. Despite modern historians speculating that Lincoln's appointment as lord lieutenant of Ireland was meant to signal that Richard favored him as heir, there's no contemporary evidence that this is the case. The de la Poles were still looked down upon as up-jumped merchants even a century after Richard II created the 1st earl of Suffolk and the 2nd duke of Suffolk found no particular favor at the courts of either of his brothers-in-law.

So, you have basically three factions -- Edwardians, Lancastrians, and Ricardians -- and the latter two have no leaders. That puts Elizabeth of York in the catbird seat, as she is the only figurehead still drawing breath. The Edwardians alone aren't strong enough to impose their will on the other two, so some sort of compromise has to be found. The the last Plantagenet prince is just sitting around -- and he is not associated wit any of the three factions. He seems like the perfect candidate to elect as king, with a regency council divided between the three factions, and then wed to his older cousin when he comes of age.

I actually tend to agree with this. However, a further issue is whether Warwick was mentally competent. Certainly by the time of his execution in 1499 he appears to have been mentally incompetent. However, living from the ages of 10-25 in rather severe isolation in the Tower could have rather profound impacts on one's mental stability. There is some thought that he had shown evidence of being disabled even as a child. Would Elizabeth of York marry him to unite the Yorkist claims? If he is incompetent, would she be able to rule and/or act more effectively than Margaret of Anjou did a generation earlier.

It also occurs to me that if Warwick and/or Elizabeth are not effective rulers there was one last Lancastrian in the person of Edward 3rd Duke of Buckingham. His claim was similar to that of Henry Tudor (i.e. extremely weak). In 1485 he was around 7 years old, so too young to effectively press the claim. However, if Warwick is incompetent, one could see him pressing the claim in the late 1490s.

 

[material_boy]

I actually tend to agree with this. However, a further issue is whether Warwick was mentally competent. Certainly by the time of his execution in 1499 he appears to have been mentally incompetent. However, living from the ages of 10-25 in rather severe isolation in the Tower could have rather profound impacts on one's mental stability. There is some thought that he had shown evidence of being disabled even as a child. Would Elizabeth of York marry him to unite the Yorkist claims? If he is incompetent, would she be able to rule and/or act more effectively than Margaret of Anjou did a generation earlier.

I don't think I've ever heard that Edward had mental issues since childhood. I'd always thought he had gone mad as a result of his long imprisonment from a young age. If he has some condition, though, then this sort of compromise can't work -- the disastrous reign of Henry VI is still in living memory.

 

[Zestinobambino]

I don't think I've ever heard that Edward had mental issues since childhood. I'd always thought he had gone mad as a result of his long imprisonment from a young age. If he has some condition, though, then this sort of compromise can't work -- the disastrous reign of Henry VI is still in living memory.

I've read that Edward wasn't mentally ill or mad due to prison, but spending his whole life in prison and relying on others for everything made him far too trusting in people, making him very easy to manipulate. But if he's elected as King Edward VI and released from the Tower before it's too late, he could end up being a semi-decent king, possibly.

 

[Zestinobambino]

Also, aren't our two top claimants - Warwick and Lincoln - both too closely related to Elizabeth of York to marry her? They're both her first cousins, after all. Would they be able to marry her even if they wanted to?
Besides, they're both Yorkist claimants. They'd only need to marry Elizabeth to get Edward IV's old friends on side, but since they're Yorkists anyway, they might have that support regardless of marriage.

 

[BoleynBuff]

both too closely related to Elizabeth of York to marry her? They're both her first cousins, after all. Would they be able to marry her even if they wanted to?

Any dynasty which ruled in Iberia (and the popes which gave them their many dispensations) will tell you that first cousins is practically unrelated.

 

[Zestinobambino]

Any dynasty which ruled in Iberia (and the popes which gave them their many dispensations) will tell you that first cousins is practically unrelated.

Fair enough

 

[Dragonboy]

Any dynasty which ruled in Iberia (and the popes which gave them their many dispensations) will tell you that first cousins is practically unrelated.

Amen to that, Long live John II!

 

[material_boy]

Also, aren't our two top claimants - Warwick and Lincoln - both too closely related to Elizabeth of York to marry her? They're both her first cousins, after all. Would they be able to marry her even if they wanted to?
Besides, they're both Yorkist claimants. They'd only need to marry Elizabeth to get Edward IV's old friends on side, but since they're Yorkists anyway, they might have that support regardless of marriage.

First cousin marriages were much more unusual in England than in other parts of western Europe, but they did occur from time to time. The most notable was the Black Prince and Joan of Kent, who were first cousins, once removed. Some English writers at the time tut-tutted this, though it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow in Iberia or Italy at the time. I think even the most conservative English chronicler would overlook the relation if it brought the civil war to an end.

 

[Ambassador Huntsman]

The death of Henry VII almost certainly ends Lancastrian claims. There were two Yorkists with reasonably strong (albeit problematic) claims. The first of Edward Earl of Warwick (son George Duke of Clarence and thus Edward IV and Richard III's nephews). The "legal" problem was that George had been attained (and executed) from treason and from that perspective Edward's claim was forfeit. From a pragmatic perspective, Edward was 10 years old. The second was John de la Pole Earl of Lincoln. He was the son of the sister of Edward IV and Richard III. Thus, from a legal perspective he had an inferior claim, but he was 25. There is also some evidence that Richard III had named him his heir. In short, there would have been a period of serious instability as various factions pressed their claims.

I could see a scenario where the King of Scotland, James III, at least attempts to take up the Lancastrian claim. His grandmother, Joan Beaufort, is a granddaughter of John of Gaunt so theoretically there is a claim there.

 

[kasumigenx]

I could see a scenario where the King of Scotland, James III, at least attempts to take up the Lancastrian claim. His grandmother, Joan Beaufort, is a granddaughter of John of Gaunt so theoretically there is a claim there.

He can marry EOY.

 

[material_boy]

He can marry EOY.

More likely that she'd marry his son James (not-yet-IV), since they're closer in age and also James III is married.

 

[Tudorfan]

You're all forgetting that EOY could just take the throne for herself. She is Edward's eldest daughter and the people adore her. It's why Henry VII had to agree to marry her - he knew they loved her.
If she so desired to take England and rule it, the people would stand by her. All she has to do is make a move.

 

[Shiva]

There is also the risk that if there is a drawn-out period of infighting that someone will 'miraculously' find one of the 'Princes in the Tower' to be alive and now there is a pretender Richard IV running around.

 

[Lalli]

You're all forgetting that EOY could just take the throne for herself. She is Edward's eldest daughter and the people adore her. It's why Henry VII had to agree to marry her - he knew they loved her.
If she so desired to take England and rule it, the people would stand by her. All she has to do is make a move.

Even if Elizabeth of York is popular, would she still be able to take throne? Woman as reigning queen wasn't what you saw often in Medieval Europe. Possible but some other claimants might still have something saying.

And her should marry someone anyway.