Richard IV

With Richmond dead and with the Lancastrians without a heir... why killing Richard? If he dies, the crown goes to John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, another Yorkist claimants.

With Richmond gone, who may claim the crown for the Lancasters? Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester (c. 1460–1526) perhaps?

Also, the blow of seeing their leader fallen at the hands of their enemy, the courage of the Lancastrian soldiers would sink. End of the battle.
 
Why not? Richard was separated from his main army, and embedded in the midst of Richmond's men. Who can stop Stanley intervening if he chooses to?

Yeah, but what would the Stanleys endgame be?- their step-son/step-nephew is dead, they've got no one else to chuck on the throne. I s'pose it could be simple self-preservation- "Richard's gonna be pissed we didn't join the royal army, let's kill him while we have the chance"- but even then they'd still face potential punishment from Richard's Yorkist heirs (assuming said heirs can consolidate things).

With Richmond dead and with the Lancastrians without a heir... why killing Richard? If he dies, the crown goes to John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, another Yorkist claimants.

There's some uncertainty as to whether Lincoln or Warwick was Richard's intended heir- some see Lincoln not claiming the throne outright in 1486-7 as evidence that it was Warwick- but, as an apparently competent adult John would probably get the throne. Especially if he was present at the battle, in which case Richard's surviving followers might rally around him (the Howards, Lovell, the Stafford brothers?).

With Richmond gone, who may claim the crown for the Lancasters? Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester (c. 1460–1526) perhaps?

He was a bit of a nonentity at the time though- he only became prominent in the reign of his Tudor cousins. Then again, if he lacks a powerbase of his own then he'll be more reliant on the Stanleys, which they'd like. The bastardy might be a problem (I know it wasn't really for Henry, but here Charles himself is a bastard and not just of a (legitimised) bastard line). Do we even know where Somerset was in August 1485? Was he with Henry?
 
Last edited:
I've found this

-He was doubtless an exile in Flanders, for he was knighted by the Archduke Philip, then himself a child, before the Battle of Bosworth. He was carefully looked after by Henry VII. Among the accounts for the coronation there is an entry of three yards of cloth of gold 'for the bastard Somerset.'

If by 1485 he was still called "the bastard Somerset" we can forget about giving him a crown.
 
Let me ask you all again.

In my opinion, John de la Pole or even Warwick look more "kingable" :D than a not legitimized bastard.

Why Stanley is going to try to kill Richard if there's no one to replace him for the Lancastrian side and one or two possible candidates? To throw the country into chaos and see what happens?
 
With Richmond dead and with the Lancastrians without a heir... why killing Richard? If he dies, the crown goes to John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, another Yorkist claimants.

With Richmond gone, who may claim the crown for the Lancasters? Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester (c. 1460–1526) perhaps?

Also, the blow of seeing their leader fallen at the hands of their enemy, the courage of the Lancastrian soldiers would sink. End of the battle.



Why should it be the end of the battle? Norfolk's death suggests Richard's side is losing at this point, and the Lancastrian commanders - Oxford and Jasper Tudor - aren't going to just lay down their arms and take their chances on Richard's mercy. Given the past history of WotR battles they'd be crazy if they did. Far better to decapitate the other side by killing Richard while they can, finish off his army, then get in touch with the other forces on the spot - Stanley and Northumberland - to try and agree on whom to support for the throne before they all march on London.

Incidentally, when Stanley gave the order to attack Richard, did he know for certain that Henry was still alive? Iirc, Richard had succeeded in killing Henry's standard-bearer, William Brandon, so Stanley can see a melee going on, and has seen Henry's standard fall. Does he know that only the standard-bearer has been killed, or does he think that Henry is also dead - or at least that he may well be so be before help can arrive. Seems to me he may well have made his decision uncertain whether Henry still existed.
 
Let me ask you all again.

In my opinion, John de la Pole or even Warwick look more "kingable" :D than a not legitimized bastard.

Why Stanley is going to try to kill Richard if there's no one to replace him for the Lancastrian side and one or two possible candidates? To throw the country into chaos and see what happens?

To get rid of a king with whom he has already "burned his bridges" to the extent that said king has demanded Stanley's son as a hostage. A last-minute jump on to Richard's side is not going to patch that up, and whoever emerges from the death of both leaders can only be an improvement from Stanley's pov.

BTW the Stanleys were Yorkists for most of the WotR, not Lancastrians. So the lack of a convincing Lancastrian candidate won't be likely to bother them unduly.
 
You certainly have a point.

The Stanleys were survivors, as we can see in the case of Thomas Stanley, that supported Edward IV and then Warwick against him in 1470. He was lucky not to loose his head for that treason.

Going back to the battle. As we can see in some examples of medieval battles, the death of the commander ends up in his army routed. I don't think the French mercenaries would feel obliged to keep fighting, They may even change sides, not a surprising feat neither for Medieval mercenaries nor for Lancastrians soldiers, as it happened at Blore Heath after Audley was killed.

When, on the fist Battle of St. Albans, Henry VI was wounded and taken prisoner and Somerset killed, the royal army didn''t last too long fighting.
 
Why should it be the end of the battle? Norfolk's death suggests Richard's side is losing at this point, and the Lancastrian commanders - Oxford and Jasper Tudor - aren't going to just lay down their arms and take their chances on Richard's mercy. Given the past history of WotR battles they'd be crazy if they did. Far better to decapitate the other side by killing Richard while they can, finish off his army, then get in touch with the other forces on the spot - Stanley and Northumberland - to try and agree on whom to support for the throne before they all march on London.

In this ATL, it could be a blessing. Richard and Henry are dead, Richard of Shrewsbury alive and kicking in Burgundy. He's asking to be called. So, not a bad idea at all.
 
Top