what POD would be needed for Perkin Warbeck, the pretended Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, to over throw King Henry VII (ether in 1495 or 1497) and make himself King under the name Richard IV (or III maybe) would this fake Richard be able to last and if not who over throws him?
Perkin Warbeck, King Richard IV of England
- Thread starter black angel
- Start date
It would have helped a bit if John of Lincoln hadn't already rebelled earlier, for the 'Lambert Simnel' claimnant, and been killed. There probably weren't enough prominent Yorkists left in England to give Warbeck (whom some Ricardians think might have been, if not actually whom he claimed to be, at least an illegitimate half-brother of that prince) enough of a chance.
He'd have had to convince them he was the real thing. Sir William Stanley, the crucial figure at Bosworth, got executed for saying he would not fight against a real Richard of York.
This was crucial because it would have given him a foothold in Kent, a traditionally rebellious area which members of Edward IV's former household had raised against Richard III as early as 1483 .But as long as these men saw Henry VII as Edward's heir (even if only by marriage) they would stay loyal, and Henry's opponents would be marginalised to places like Cornwall or the North, as the Lancastrians had been a generation earlier.
Sounds a bit silly now, could Henry married him off to Margaret just to be one the safe side. If nothing else he could keep an eye on him.
Wasn't he already married to a Scottish Princess or Lady or something?
Lady Catherine Gordon - cousin to the king of Scots. And if one watches the docu-drama "The Princes in the Tower" then basically the only person he doesn't convince is Lady Margaret Beaufort - and that is because she shows him two mute madmen chained up as the real princes that she discovered shortly after Henry's coronation.
I think if Warbeck creates enough doubt - but no one can prove he is the son of Jehan Warbeck of Tournai, nor can they prove he is not the duke of York - he might be able to get further. He already had Burgundy, the Empire, Ireland and Scotland who believed he was Richard of Shrewsbury, perhaps they could do more than simply give him verbal support and hand him an army instead.
He's still going to want support within England; Burgundy or whoever might lend him money for mercenaries, but that's not going to be enough troops. It's worth remembering that all of the successful WOTR cross-channel invasions (the Readeption of Henry VI, Edward IV strikes back, and of course Henry Tudor) were supported by significant forces raised within England. I'm just not sure there are enough unreconciled Yorkists left in positions of power post-Stoke Field.
Scotland might be able to provide an army, but the performance of Scottish armies in the Wars of the Roses was not exactly stellar.
Henry VII may not have been the most inspirational war leader, but he had perfectly competent generals like Oxford under him, and was willing to allow them to go about their business.
Scotland might be able to provide an army, but the performance of Scottish armies in the Wars of the Roses was not exactly stellar.
Henry VII may not have been the most inspirational war leader, but he had perfectly competent generals like Oxford under him, and was willing to allow them to go about their business.
Where did the idea of mute madmen come from?
And yeah, I think Warbeck really had a chance to succeed.
It would definitely help Warbeck's cause if Lambert Simnel hadn't been running around and calling himself Richard (and then Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick) beforehand and exhausting a lot of the support a Yorkist pretender could have had. Maybe having something happen to Simnel or having Warbeck getting his story out sooner would help?
Maybe they just threw in the two raving madmen to spice up the docu-drama? There's certainly more evidence to me that they died young (those small skeletons found in 1647), whether from murder or sickness, than anything else. Still, not the most egregious dramitization of history I've seen in a 'docu-drama.'
Maybe they just threw in the two raving madmen to spice up the docu-drama? There's certainly more evidence to me that they died young (those small skeletons found in 1647), whether from murder or sickness, than anything else. Still, not the most egregious dramitization of history I've seen in a 'docu-drama.'