Both Richard III And Henry Tudor Die At Bosworth

Why do Oxford and Pembroke flee? Their army is probably intact and its support may be decisive for one of the other contenders.

They probably support a Regency for Warwick. I wouildn#'t give muvh fopr the boy's life expectancy, but he could serve as a stopgap while they all jockey for position.

Tudor's entire enterprise depended on him surviving. He goes down, the army routs (especially the French and Welsh contingents, hich means their army probably is not still intact) The Yorkists may have been divided but without their pretender in Tudor they will have no love for Lancastrians. There is too much support for other candidates for Jasper Tudor to get anywhere near the throne.

There is some confusion over where Lincoln was at the time of Bosworth but if he is in the North with the other Yorkist heirs, he is in by far the strongest place as President of the Council of the North to capitalise on the immobilised supporters of Richard in the area and to control Elizabeth and Warwick.

The main issue with this WI is that this all depends on how the battle goes down. If for instance Tudor and Richard are killed in the melee after Stanleys betrayal, it depends on what Surrey (now Duke of Norfolk) and Northumberland do. I personally believe Surrey would either flee to fight another day (against the stanleys) or if he gained Northumberlands support would take on the Stanleys
 
Here's how it happens: The Yorkists kill Henry Tudor at Bosworth but are routed nonetheless with Richard being killed. So, it's Bosworth as OTL except Henry Tudor dies.
 
If both Henry and Richard die at Bosworth then the Lancaster line is over and Elizabeth of York will have the strongest claim to the throne and the next king will likely be her husband.
If Jasper Tudor marry her he will likely become king of England jure uxorio and the same for John de la Pole and with the Lancaster line destroyed and married with the most senior Yorkist heiress (and ruling in her name) can be secure enough of his crown and maybe use Elizabeth's sisters for cementing alliances.
 
There were other potential Lancastrian heirs around: John Grey, 1st Baron Grey of Powis (grandson of Antigone, legitimized daughter of Humphrey son of Henry IV), Margaret Beaufort, Lady Stanley, Charles Somerset (legitimized son of the last Beaufort Duke of Somerset, the last male-line descendant of John of Gaunt), Catherine Spencer (the next legitimate descendant of John of Gaunt after Margaret, wife of the mighty Earl of Northumberland, who also had Lancastrian blood) and of course King James of Scots, whose son Prince James had been engaged to Cecily of York as early as 1471 (why not transfer him to the elder sister instead?).

Still, the idea of Jasper allying himself with the Dowager and marrying Elizabeth of York is especially appetizing.
 
There were other potential Lancastrian heirs around: John Grey, 1st Baron Grey of Powis (grandson of Antigone, legitimized daughter of Humphrey son of Henry IV), Margaret Beaufort, Lady Stanley, Charles Somerset (legitimized son of the last Beaufort Duke of Somerset, the last male-line descendant of John of Gaunt), Catherine Spencer (the next legitimate descendant of John of Gaunt after Margaret, wife of the mighty Earl of Northumberland, who also had Lancastrian blood) and of course King James of Scots, whose son Prince James had been engaged to Cecily of York as early as 1471 (why not transfer him to the elder sister instead?).


FTM why not Lord Stanley himself? As husband of Margaret Beaufort, he would have a jure uxoris claim, and the less theoretical advantage of being on the spot with an army.
 
Could things settle down for a while? Both sides Would be trying to see who had the best claim and England could see a north/south devide. Maybe both sides have more to lose than gain if they want to have a go at each other within the next few months. Within 6-7 weeks the normal campain season would be over, and a few weeks after Bosworth the harvest needed to come in. Both sides are sick of war, get the Pope sort it out?
 
Tudor's entire enterprise depended on him surviving. He goes down, the army routs (especially the French and Welsh contingents, hich means their army probably is not still intact)


Why should it rout? By all the accounts I've read, it was winning up to the point of Henry's death, and it has an ally in Lord Stanley.

The French troops are professional soldiers, and know perfectly well that they are in far more danger running away. Their best chance of survival is to "form square" or whatever was its 15C equivalent, and negotiate terms. As for the Welsh, they are hundreds of miles from home, in a country where many of them don't even speak the language, so have little hope of getting away. They might as well stand with the French.

If Oxford and Pembroke have their wits about them, they'll offer to recognise Stanley as King (in right of his wife, Margaret Beaufort) and place themselves under his command. Their combined strength should be enough to finish off Richard's army, and deter Northumberland from any thoughts he may have of intervening.
 
John de la Pole never actually claimed the throne and there is no evidence he was named Richard's heir.
Most use his appointments and the favour shown him by Richard III as evidence he was the favoured heir but Richard would have expected to remarry and produce and heir of his own.
His high profile was largely due to the fact that he was Richard's only close adult male relative.

He was married to a Fitzalan in 1485 (who was also Elizabeth Woodville's niece).

Richard could hardly name Warwick as his heir given that his (and his sister's) claim was stronger than Richard's.

With Tudor dead then the Lancastrian line is pretty thin and almost non-existant - all of the claimants are pretty far removed with the exception of Margaret Beaufort whose claim was strong - but as a woman who is now childless there will be no point in supporting her.
The next Beaufort heir is Eleanor (dau of the 2nd Duke of Somerset) - who is still living and her daughters Margaret (who is around 13) and Catherine (who is around 8)

The main candidates if you can call them that will be the ten year old Warwick and who controls him and the daughters of Edward IV - an obvious solution would be to marry Warwick to one of his cousins (Anne or Catherine of York are nearest in age to Warwick but Elizabeth is only 9 years older).

I suspect Elizabeth Woodville's son Dorset (left behind in France by Henry VII who didn't trust him) will high tail it home rather quickly and given his wealth will be a key player (Lincoln was relatively poor in comparison to other peers).

If Dorset can bring the support of the disaffected supporters and household of Edward IV (many of whom had lost position and influence following Richard III's accession) and if Lincoln can bring the remains of Richard's support then it wouldn't have been too difficult to reeastablish power.
 
Harold likewise had no better claim than being Edward's brother-in-law.
Family trees of the Royal Family that were in print back when I was in school showed his mother as descended from Alfred the Great through an English princess who had married a Norse [IIRC] king or prince or jarl a few generations earlier, but I've been told that that lineage is now disputed. There have also been some historians who suggested that Harold's father was descended from one of Alfred's elder brothers & predecessors as King of Wessex, who definitely did have sons (who were set aside as too young to lead Wessex against the viking invaders when their father died), although I gather that that argument is now considered even less likely to be correct.

There were other potential Lancastrian heirs around: John Grey, 1st Baron Grey of Powis (grandson of Antigone, legitimized daughter of Humphrey son of Henry IV), Margaret Beaufort, Lady Stanley, Charles Somerset (legitimized son of the last Beaufort Duke of Somerset, the last male-line descendant of John of Gaunt), Catherine Spencer (the next legitimate descendant of John of Gaunt after Margaret, wife of the mighty Earl of Northumberland, who also had Lancastrian blood) and of course King James of Scots, whose son Prince James had been engaged to Cecily of York as early as 1471 (why not transfer him to the elder sister instead?).
Legitimising bastards was not automatically accepted as placing them [and any descendants whom they might have] in the line of succession: In the case of the first-generation Beauforts, for example, there is documentary evidence that their own half-brother King Henry IV rejected that idea. The best claimants by right of descent were actually in the Castilan and Portuguese royal families, but those would probably have been rejected as too foreign.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't Edward, earl of Warwick, son of George, duke of Clarence (who was a brother of king Edward IV and Richard III) have the best claim to the throne? Since he would be (correct me if I'm wrong) representing the at that point most senior Plantagenet line.

At the time of the battle Edward was only 10 years old and his reputation for being a halfwit seemed to have been caused by him being imprisoned for many years by OTL Henry VII Tudor and thus happened after this POD. It doesn't mean Edward would have been brilliant otherwise, but this imprisonment did seem to have had quite an impact on him IOTL.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't Edward, earl of Warwick, son of George, duke of Clarence (who was a brother of king Edward IV and Richard III) have the best claim to the throne? Since he would be (correct me if I'm wrong) representing the at that point most senior Plantagenet line.

At the time of the battle Edward was only 10 years old and his reputation for being a halfwit seemed to have been caused by him being imprisoned for many years by OTL Henry VII Tudor and thus happened after this POD. It doesn't mean Edward would have been brilliant otherwise, but this imprisonment did seem to have had quite an impact on him IOTL.
His father had been attainted for treason "with corruption of blood", meaning that Edward and his sister (and any descendants whom either of them might have) were legally excluded from the succession. Reversing that point would have required an Act of Parliament, but technically speaking Parliament couldn't pass legally-valid Acts without an acknowledged monarch (or a legally-acknowledged regent for one, at least) already in place to give them the Royal Assent.
 
Hard to say but it's notable Richard sidelined him as heir. The Courtenays were raised in the Tower and were perfectly healthy despite it.
I assume you mean Edward Courtenay, who was an only child. Courtenay was imprisoned at age 12 with the rest of his family, separated from his mother after he became a teenager, clearly given an education, and released a free man after 15 years. Edward of Warwick was imprisoned when he was 10, separated from his only surviving family member, “out of all company of men and sight of beasts”, and executed after his 15 years of imprisonment. I have no doubt that if Edward Courtenay had been treated like Edward of Warwick, he wouldn’t have been translating works from Latin, either.

I’ve seen speculation that Richard III picked Edward of Warwick and/or the Earl of Lincoln as his heir. This seems unlikely for reasons having nothing to do with Warwick’s mental capacity. After his wife Anne’s death, Richard had arranged to marry Joanna of Portugal. Designating anyone else as heir would be raising a rival claim. In addition, Edward of Warwick had been barred from the throne in the Titulus Regius. So long as the Titulus Regius was in force, Edward of Warwick could not inherit the throne. Repealing the Titulus Regius would not make Edward of Warwick Richard III’s heir, it would mean Warwick had a better claim to the throne than Richard.
 
Bosworth

Elizabeth of York will be up for grabs. Perhaps Lord Stanley will attempt to marry her off to one of his sons.
 
Top