Alternate battle of Bosworth: no Tudors?

Ok this might be interesting, what if Richard III won the battle of Bosworth, Henry Tudor is killed along with most of the remaining house of Lancaster? How will history be changed? Could Richard III and his successors be stronger then the Tudors? How will this effect Europe and the rise of the British empire? Your thoughts please!
 
If Richard won at Bosworth then he is certainly more secure - the House of Lancaster was almost extinct to be quite honest - with Tudor dead one assumes it would end any hope of a Lancastrian restoration.

Richard will still have some issues with the surviving Yorkist nobility who still resent his accession.

The succession is his main concern and he needs to ensure direct issue quite speedily (the Portugeuse alliance being the most usual one) - otherwise after his death all hell will break lose - the claims of his nieces (daughter's of Edward IV), the children of George Duke of Clarence (with a far better claim than Richard himself) and the descendants of Richard's sisters (Anne St Leger and the de la Pole's) and the more distant claims of the various female line descendants of Edward III and his sons - the strongest being Buckingham's infant heir.

Richard was keen on legal reform and many of his fans laud him for that - but he is still essentially a northern magnate and will need to start making friends in the midlands and the south - one of the biggest complaints about his reign was his reliance of his affinity in the north and their acquisition of a prominant place in his household and court.

Much of Henry VII's innovations had their origins in the rule of Edward IV - so one would expect a continuation of Yorkist policy etc.

A Ricardian England would not be much different to an early Tudor England.
 
Expect a southern rebellion led by the displaced gentry, even after Bosworth Richard will remain unpopular in the South. Actually I have the brief outline of a TL with this POD which sees Richard deal with the remaining Lancastrian commanders before facing a real threat in 'Edward V' a pretender similar to Perkin Warbeck/Lambert Simnel from OTL, supported by the remaining Woodville faction and those 'Edwardian Yorkists'.

As for the effect on history, I read a book of the Battle of Stoke recently where the author states that had the house of York won, it is still likely for the smaller monastries to be dissolved (the larger ones could survive without a Henry VIII type figure) and suggests that the 'Middle Ages' or the period of baronial authority would have lasted longer, as Henry VII was successful in limiting the power of his nobility through bonds, restrictions and fines.
 
Expect a southern rebellion led by the displaced gentry, even after Bosworth Richard will remain unpopular in the South.

What if he instigated a COuncil of the South and / or a Council of the Midlands. This would improve the lot for the poorer peopleof the realm.

I also think that once Richard could stop having to relie on the loyalty of his barons (i.e. once they had no Lancastrians to run too) he would have taken a route similar to Henry VII.
 
There is some suggestion that he was making inroads - the key props of Edward IV's regime were gone by enlarge and the ousted former Queen Mother's son the Marquess of Dorset appears to have been contemplating a return from the continent - so much so that Henry Tudor took pains to try and keep him there rather than bring him to England to fight for the crown.

Richard has a decade at most to shore things up before his nieces and nephews come of full age and look like being able to mount a challenge.

He has had his brother's daughters declared illegitimate by Parliament (as part of his claim to the throne) but certainly still regarded as having a claim by many which makes them hard to marry off to all but the most loyal of Richard's supporters, his nephew the Earl of Warwick and his sister Lady Margaret Plantagenet have a strong claim (their father's attainder did no bar them the throne) in fact their claim is far stronger than Richard's own, his niece Anne St Leger would have been a great heiress with a strong marriage prospect (she was to inherit a portion of the Holland estate that had been granted to her mother by Edward IV and was until Richard's accession expected to marry Dorset's heir). that left the rather poor profusion of de la Pole's - Richard relied strongly on his eldest adult male nephew John Earl of Lincoln who appears to have been loyal but for how long if there's a chance of being John II.
 
I agree that Richard was making inroads, and without a pretender as such the resentment in the south wouldnt be such a threat but there were still alot of the southern gentry who felt threatened by Richard's method of reign. Also while I think Richard would reduce the power of the nobility I doubt he would do it to such an extent as Henry Tudor. A council of the South is an interesting idea IMO. I had considered the Marquess of Dorset, as yes he brings his family into line but he and Richard have never really seen eye to eye and I doubt his loyalty lasts long beyond the first Yorkist pretender. As for Richard's nieces could Richard marry one to his illegitimate son John? If he married say Elizabeth/Margaret/Anne St ledger to John he removes a threat and he was close to John so could he become a Beaufort like supporter of his father?
 
The reason for the Council of the North is its distance from London and proximity to the Scots. This makes it illogical to create a Council of the South. The king and court will spend most of their time there anyway, even with a Northern heritage and Northern retainers.

Don't forget also that much of the South already tried rebellion once, with Buckingham, so will hardly want to have another go so soon after that debacle.

Victory at Bosworth would cement Richard's reign. We tend to look at it as precarious because we know how and when it ended. But at the time, rebellions were not that unusual, and their crushing reaffirmed the right of the king to sit on the throne.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The reason for the Council of the North is its distance from London and proximity to the Scots. This makes it illogical to create a Council of the South. The king and court will spend most of their time there anyway, even with a Northern heritage and Northern retainers.

Don't forget also that much of the South already tried rebellion once, with Buckingham, so will hardly want to have another go so soon after that debacle.

Victory at Bosworth would cement Richard's reign. We tend to look at it as precarious because we know how and when it ended. But at the time, rebellions were not that unusual, and their crushing reaffirmed the right of the king to sit on the throne.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Good points, especially on the council of the south. I still think that the Yorkists are divided enough to result in another couple of rebellions and the south remains the most likely place for this discontent IMO.
 
Ireland was pro-Yorkist, which didn't help it after our Bosworth.

Reformation apart, I think a non-Tudor, and even more a non-Stuart, England would probably be better for Ireland. That's not saying much, mind.
 
Top