In 1485, not long after Henry Tudor landed in England and won the Battle of Bosworth Field, the first bout of a sickness called "the sweats" broke out and ravaged the country. No one is sure where it came from, though some theories suggest that it could have been Tudor's own army that brought the contagion with them as they crossed the Channel. It was a deadly pandemic that saw thousands dead, and would seemingly burn out only to flare back up on-and-off going into the Sixteenth Century. Notably, Arthur Tudor, firstborn son and heir to Henry VII, might have very well died to this disease, among other possibilities such as tuberculosis and the flu.
So the POD is that, perhaps as God's punishment upon the Welshman for striking down Richard III, Henry Tudor himself catches the Sweating Sickness during its first outbreak from September to October, 1485, and dies shortly thereafter. He had already proclaimed himself King by right of conquest, BUT had not been crowned at Westminster yet, nor had he yet honoured his pledge to unite the warring lines of Lancaster and York by marrying Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV. All of which would assuredly lead to a hailstorm of the worst possible proportions, especially as from all looks and purposes Tudor literally got smite by divine retribution.
So, who would be King? The Yorkist cause had been utterly smashed at Bosworth, but they do have a plethora of claimants lying around, including John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, and of course Elizabeth of York herself. The Lancastrians, by contrast, have unquestioned military supremacy, but a dearth of suitable claimants now that Henry had bitten the dust. My own thoughts currently revolve around Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford (and yes, I know he does not have even the slightest claim to the throne in his own right) fulfilling his nephew's pledge to wed EoY, possibly Charles Somerset, Earl of Worcester (who would be perfect...if he was not a bastard from a bastard line) doing the same, or maybe even one of the Stafford boys? I believe the Stanleys do not have any eligible sons to marry EoY either, otherwise they could be in the running as well.
I am skeptical of any foreign candidates ala Maximilian of Austria claiming the throne, with so many native options available to the English.
There's also the question of if anyone can hold the throne even should they successfully claim it for themselves. In 1486 there will be the...hapless Stafford and Lovell Rebellion which went nowhere OTL, and in 1487 Lambert Simnel will be propped up by various Yorkists as a Hail Mary. Not to mention Perkin Warbeck showing up in the 1490's for his own shot at power. All of these desperate rebellions were shut down pretty effectively by Henry VII, but in his absence, and in the ensuing chaos following his death, might any of these attempts be more successful? As a hypothetical example, if Jasper were to become King by marrying EoY, he would be dead by the time Warbeck seriously attempted to mount an invasion; the conspiracy surrounding "Richard IV" would have a much better chance to evade detection and arrest if the Tudor on the throne is elderly and failing rather than a energetic man in his prime.
Much of the reforms made by Henry VII will not happen as well, and England's finances would most likely be in a far worse spot than OTL going into the 1500's. On the plus side, no Henry VIII and no Great Matter either.
So, what do y'all think? What happens if Henry Tudor dies in 1485 of a sickness he himself brought to England, uncrowned and unwed?
So the POD is that, perhaps as God's punishment upon the Welshman for striking down Richard III, Henry Tudor himself catches the Sweating Sickness during its first outbreak from September to October, 1485, and dies shortly thereafter. He had already proclaimed himself King by right of conquest, BUT had not been crowned at Westminster yet, nor had he yet honoured his pledge to unite the warring lines of Lancaster and York by marrying Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV. All of which would assuredly lead to a hailstorm of the worst possible proportions, especially as from all looks and purposes Tudor literally got smite by divine retribution.
So, who would be King? The Yorkist cause had been utterly smashed at Bosworth, but they do have a plethora of claimants lying around, including John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, and of course Elizabeth of York herself. The Lancastrians, by contrast, have unquestioned military supremacy, but a dearth of suitable claimants now that Henry had bitten the dust. My own thoughts currently revolve around Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford (and yes, I know he does not have even the slightest claim to the throne in his own right) fulfilling his nephew's pledge to wed EoY, possibly Charles Somerset, Earl of Worcester (who would be perfect...if he was not a bastard from a bastard line) doing the same, or maybe even one of the Stafford boys? I believe the Stanleys do not have any eligible sons to marry EoY either, otherwise they could be in the running as well.
I am skeptical of any foreign candidates ala Maximilian of Austria claiming the throne, with so many native options available to the English.
There's also the question of if anyone can hold the throne even should they successfully claim it for themselves. In 1486 there will be the...hapless Stafford and Lovell Rebellion which went nowhere OTL, and in 1487 Lambert Simnel will be propped up by various Yorkists as a Hail Mary. Not to mention Perkin Warbeck showing up in the 1490's for his own shot at power. All of these desperate rebellions were shut down pretty effectively by Henry VII, but in his absence, and in the ensuing chaos following his death, might any of these attempts be more successful? As a hypothetical example, if Jasper were to become King by marrying EoY, he would be dead by the time Warbeck seriously attempted to mount an invasion; the conspiracy surrounding "Richard IV" would have a much better chance to evade detection and arrest if the Tudor on the throne is elderly and failing rather than a energetic man in his prime.
Much of the reforms made by Henry VII will not happen as well, and England's finances would most likely be in a far worse spot than OTL going into the 1500's. On the plus side, no Henry VIII and no Great Matter either.
So, what do y'all think? What happens if Henry Tudor dies in 1485 of a sickness he himself brought to England, uncrowned and unwed?