Pax Eboraca: Richard III Wins at Bosworth

Except most of Simnel and Warbeck's support in OTL came from Richard III's relatives and allies.

Well, as the young lady said "They would, wouldn't they?

Richard III's adherants were the "outs" after 1485 so they were the ones who needed a pretender. Had Richard won at Bosworth, some other faction would have needed (and found) one.


Whether you think Richard murdered the boys or not he can easily people of the time did not know and Richard can easily come up with a credible story which would defuse rumors and point to his numerous other not-dead nieces and nephews as counter-examples.

All that we do know is that within months of Richard's accession, everyone who mattered was behaving as though the Princes didn't exist any more. The rebels of 1483 declared for Henry Tudor, not for the ex-King Edward V, though many of the risings were in traditionally pro-York areas like Kent. And at Christmas 1483 Henry publicly committed himself to marrying EoY - a totally pointless gesture if her brothers were still alive. By then he was clearly confident that Richard wouldn't (or more likely couldn't) shoot him down in flames by producing any live Princes.

The reactions a decade later when Perkin Warbeck showed up would indeed suggest that the boys' fate was uncertain, but actions at the time plainly indicate what most people thought was the "default assumption" .
 
Last edited:
Actually the only legitimate descendents of John of Gaunt by that time were the members of the Portuguese royal house, who had a claim through Philippa of Lancaster, John's eldest daughter with Blanche of Lancaster. But of course, never the Lancaster would ask a foreign monarch to be their legitimate candidate for the English throne, but their possible claim was probably one of the reasons why Richard III decided to make such marriage agreements with the Portuguese royal house.


They might not ask a foreign monarch, but if nothing better was available they might support his younger son of brother. Any port(uguese) in a storm.<g>

Incidentally the Portuguese were not the only ones. The Austrian, Burgundian, and Castilian Imperial/royal/ducal houses were all descended from John of Gaunt's first and second marriages, while the Kings of Scotland were descended from a Beaufort.
 
Last edited:
Plus anyone else, royal or not, who could rally enough support to seize the throne and then graft himself onto the House of York by marrying Elizabeth. Thus even the most specious, "Lambert Simnel" type of pretender would do, just so long as he was marriageable.

If Elizabeth has been married off into relative obscurity in Portugal, that's a bit difficult. Granted, she does have sisters...
 
Edward and Richard werent already declared bastards by the Titulus Regius? Doesnt this made them a lesser threat if Richard III survives and Titulus Regius isnt repealed?


How does Titulus Regius make the slightest difference?

It was just a piece of paper, rubber-stamping a regime change which had already been a fait accompli for over a year. Ditto, of course for Henry VII's similar Act of 1486. If it declared the Princes to be bastards, a new act, after the next coup d'etat, could just as easily undeclare this - as iirc the 1486 one did.

Being a "legitimate monarch" just means you and your family have held the throne long enough for people to have got used to you, so that you seem normal and anything/one else seems abnormal. The Lancastrians almost managed this (look how long it took to get rid of Henry VI) while the Tudors did manage it (look at what happened in 1553). The Yorkists flunked.
 
If Elizabeth has been married off into relative obscurity in Portugal, that's a bit difficult. Granted, she does have sisters...


Would her Portuguese husband be any more "obscure" than Henry Tudor? He would, after all, probably be a King's brother - and the king of an old ally at that. No doubt some would grumble at the idea of a foreigner at the throne, but it was only since about 1400 that KIngs of England had normally spoken English, so it's not likely to be a fatal obstacle.
 
Would her Portuguese husband be any more "obscure" than Henry Tudor? He would, after all, probably be a King's brother - and the king of an old ally at that. No doubt some would grumble at the idea of a foreigner at the throne, but it was only since about 1400 that KIngs of England had normally spoken English, so it's not likely to be a fatal obstacle.

I believe the Portuguese noble in question was of illegitimate descent (posts earlier in the thread). This sounds pretty desperate as a front man for any revolt. Also, if this cements an alliance between England and Portugal/Iberia, he's unlikely to have much support from his own court in any planned adventures. If diplomatic relations take a turn for the worse though, Richard could have made a rather big mistake.
 
I believe the Portuguese noble in question was of illegitimate descent (posts earlier in the thread). This sounds pretty desperate as a front man for any revolt. Also, if this cements an alliance between England and Portugal/Iberia, he's unlikely to have much support from his own court in any planned adventures. If diplomatic relations take a turn for the worse though, Richard could have made a rather big mistake.


Not sure what "illegitimate descent" means in this case. Duque Manoel do Beja was cetrtainly descended from a bastard, but so was the entire Portuguese royal family, ever since a bastard seized the throne in 1385 because the legitimate hieress was married to the King of Castile.

A hundred years on, Beja was legitimate enough to become King Manoel I in 1495, after the death (natural as far as I know) of his young nephew.

Even had he been a bastard, it wouldn't necessarily have mattered to those looking for an alternative to Richard. If he was married to Elizabeth of York, that was legitimacy enough.
 
Fiver, I must express my disappointment that you imagine a little thing like being a mere 105 years old would be sufficient reason to go easy on Richard.:(



Richard not only had nothing to do with the execution of George of Clarence but was the only one to speak out for him at the trial, as even his worst slanderers admit. When you consider that Richard did this when Edward IV was personally presiding at a trial aimed at killing one brother already...




On the princes in the tower it is peculiar that Yorkists and others thought that one of the pretenders might actually be one of Edward IV's sons, as it gives an impression that even people close to Richard thought that one or both were still alive after Richard's own death.

There is also the fact that Henry maintained an eerie silence on the fate of the princes until well into his reign despite the obvious benefits to him in accusing Richard, both in terms of his bride being the next in line to the throne and in terms of what accusations of murdering his two young nephews would do to Richard's reputation, especially if Richard could not produce the boys alive.

There is another reason that Henry, in charge of London and the Tower after Bosworth, might have been so certain that he could commit to marrying Elizabeth without fear of her brothers ever reappearing...


More practically, Elizabeth Woodville not only made her peace with Richard but allowed her daughters to return to Richard's court. Unless she was a monster utterly beyond the pale is it plausible that she would do this if she had reason to believe Richard had murdered her sons?
 
More practically, Elizabeth Woodville not only made her peace with Richard but allowed her daughters to return to Richard's court. Unless she was a monster utterly beyond the pale is it plausible that she would do this if she had reason to believe Richard had murdered her sons?


But she definitely knew that he had killed her son Richard Grey and her brother Lord Rivers in 1483. Those are not in dispute.

If she could swallow that, why not the Princes too? Or do only offspring of her second marriage matter?
 
Not sure what "illegitimate descent" means in this case. Duque Manoel do Beja was cetrtainly descended from a bastard, but so was the entire Portuguese royal family, ever since a bastard seized the throne in 1385 because the legitimate hieress was married to the King of Castile.

A hundred years on, Beja was legitimate enough to become King Manoel I in 1495, after the death (natural as far as I know) of his young nephew.

Even had he been a bastard, it wouldn't necessarily have mattered to those looking for an alternative to Richard. If he was married to Elizabeth of York, that was legitimacy enough.
A lesson learned for me. I didn't research the claims others had made on the thread, and quite possibly misinterpreted them too. Consider that point withdrawn, However:

Also, if this cements an alliance between England and Portugal/Iberia, he's unlikely to have much support from his own court in any planned adventures. If diplomatic relations take a turn for the worse though, Richard could have made a rather big mistake.
This could halt any immediate problems from Portugal. If things do go pear-shaped 10 or 20 years down the line, then that could make an interesting struggle, whoever ends up the eventual winner.
 
Mikestone8, not only is there a difference between grown relatives who were certainly not innocent and boys who were not but this reconciliation included giving Richard clear access to Edward's daughters, which seems beyond plausible if Elizabeth believed Richard had killed her sons...or puts the moral failings of Elizabeth Woodville on a whole new level.
 
Mikestone8, not only is there a difference between grown relatives who were certainly not innocent and boys who were not but this reconciliation included giving Richard clear access to Edward's daughters, which seems beyond plausible if Elizabeth believed Richard had killed her sons...or puts the moral failings of Elizabeth Woodville on a whole new level.


It's perfectly plausible if she had hopes that Richard would marry the eldest. That would put the Woodvilles back at the centre of power - which is no doubt what a lot of those who screamed their heads off about "incest" really objected to.

Note that a bit later on Anne Boleyn's relatives were perfectly happy to marry her cousin, Katherine Howard, to Henry VIII despite what he'd done to Anne. It was a very unsentimental age. EW herself was ready enough to marry Edward IV, despite her first husband having been killed fighting against him.
 
That the distant kin of Anne Boleyn could have cared less about her fate is hardly surprising given her own father's behavior but claiming such behavior on Elizabeth Woodville's part in return for a mere hope needs to be presented as more than a possibility, ignoring the obvious problem that any marriage between Richard III and his brother's eldest daughter would be highly problematical.

Does the Catholic Church approve of marriage between two people that closely related under any circumstances?
 
Does the Catholic Church approve of marriage between two people that closely related under any circumstances?

Well, in the next century they allowed Habsburgs to do this on several occasions. Philip II's fourth wife (Philip III's mother) was also his niece, while his first wife (Don Carlos' mother) was his "double first cousin" ie a first cousin on both his father's and mother's side. The practice was repeated in subsequent generations, and within a century the royal line had narrowed down to a sterile halfwit.

If 16C Popes would ok it, I don't see any reason why 15C ones wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
Top