The Person of Perkin Warbeck

What if Yorkist pretender, Perkin Warbeck, really was who he said he was? He seemed to have enough people convinced that he was Richard of Shrewsbury - including Elizabeth Wydeville IIRC. Sure, most of them had a beef with Harri Tudor, but what if he wasn't merely some ploy cooked up by Margaret of York?
 
Uh, not clear where you are going with this :confused:

Without some PoD, whether he is what he says, or isn't he still goes dead as OTL.
 
What if Yorkist pretender, Perkin Warbeck, really was who he said he was? He seemed to have enough people convinced that he was Richard of Shrewsbury - including Elizabeth Wydeville IIRC. Sure, most of them had a beef with Harri Tudor, but what if he wasn't merely some ploy cooked up by Margaret of York?

Would it really matter one way or the other? Lets say he is Richard of Shrewsbury, how did he escape the Tower? WHY didn't someone proclaim him king in exile, like in say Burgundy? Why did so few people rally to his side? Even IF he was the Duke of York, it wouldn't matter. He had little support, nearly all the major Yorkist lords were dead or had lost their lands, no foreign monarch that recognized him gave any real aid. He was up the creek without a paddle. This isn't like the Jacobites or the exiled Bourbons, who every knew were the real deal. This would be impossible to prove one way or the other. So nothing would change.
 
As long as they get support it wouldn't matter look at the first Puesdo Dimitri of the time of troubles he actually became Tsar and had a fair deal of support, and probably could have kept the throne. If Perkin Warbeck was successful had a good deal off and didn't piss off the nobles, it wouldn't matter that much, but that's a whole another story.
 
As long as they get support it wouldn't matter look at the first Puesdo Dimitri of the time of troubles he actually became Tsar and had a fair deal of support, and probably could have kept the throne. If Perkin Warbeck was successful had a good deal off and didn't piss off the nobles, it wouldn't matter that much, but that's a whole another story.

So, for a POD say Henry's army loses at Stoke, or Perkin doesn't flee when he hears the royal army's coming.
 
Alternative POD, Richard's sister Elizabeth manages to visit 'Perkin Warbeck' while he's a captive, and publicly acknowledges him as her long-lost brother...
Take that, Henry! :cool:
 
Alternative POD, Richard's sister Elizabeth manages to visit 'Perkin Warbeck' while he's a captive, and publicly acknowledges him as her long-lost brother...
Take that, Henry! :cool:

I like that:D
Didn't Elizabeth Wydeville recognize Perkin as her son, too? I would imagine she would've needed to see him to do that.
 
So, for a POD say Henry's army loses at Stoke, or Perkin doesn't flee when he hears the royal army's coming.
Stoke was Lambert Simnel, not Perkin Warbeck. But either way, if he seizes power successfully, he's "legitimate". If Henry VII escapes (ideally with his family) he could try to raise another army or flee to exile and organize a counter-invasion, but if Simnel or Warbeck manages to win and capture the Lancastrian royal family, they're effectively out of heirs.

EDIT: Elizabeth Woodville and Elizabeth of York would have no reason to acknowledge him unless he'd already won; by this point their fates are too tied to the Tudor regime to benefit from his claims (especially since Warbeck will presumably have his own cronies). The only way I see them acknowledging it is if he's already won and they're trying to save their lives/power. Margaret of York (the sister of Edward IV and thus his putative aunt) had acknowledged him, but she was a) a diehard Yorkist and b) safely in Burgundy. Even then, she provided little support, and her claim was generally discounted.
 
Last edited:
Had John of Lincoln won at Stoke then i have no doubt - Lambert would have been replaced by the real Earl of Warwick with Lincoln as the power behind the throne.

As to Perkin he did bear a resemblance physically to Edward IV but given the number of affairs he had it was quite possible he was an illegitimate son of Edward's.

Richard of Shrewsbury was a dangerous card for his supporters to play given that unlike his brother Edward V he had largely been brought up with his sisters most of whom were still alive in the 1490s and whilst a superficial resemblance might have convinced others it wouldn't necessarily convince a close sibling even if they hadn't seen him for a decade.

Elizabeth of York has absolutely no reason to acknowledge either claimant - seeing as both would seriously hamper her son Arthur's claim to the throne.

Lambert Simmnnel claimed to be the Earl of Warwick and was a child at the time of Stoke and was pardoned afterwards.

Elizabeth Woodville was never directly linked to the Simnel revolt and it is extremely unlikely she would have opted to support someone who was claiming to be Clarence's son.

She died within a year or so of Perkin Warbeck first appearing at the Burgundian court and claiming to be Richard of Shrewsbury and certainly did not acknowledge him.

Margaret of York Duchess of Burgundy had never even met her brother's children and was probably a willing dupe in both cases.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Would it really matter one way or the other? Lets say he is Richard of Shrewsbury, how did he escape the Tower? WHY didn't someone proclaim him king in exile, like in say Burgundy? Why did so few people rally to his side? Even IF he was the Duke of York, it wouldn't matter. He had little support, nearly all the major Yorkist lords were dead or had lost their lands, no foreign monarch that recognized him gave any real aid. He was up the creek without a paddle. This isn't like the Jacobites or the exiled Bourbons, who every knew were the real deal. This would be impossible to prove one way or the other. So nothing would change.
The same can be said of the exiled Lancastrians for a long while after 1471 or 1461, or the exiled Edward IV after his overthrown by Warwick until Warwick made a move against Burgundy.

The key difference seems to be just how tired everyone is of the endless succession struggle by 1485, and that Tudor did not make any major political blunders or alienate/execute key allies like Edward IV and Richard III did.
 
Last edited:
I find myself coming back to this idea after 2 years, after reading this - especially since, I don't know if this is mere authorial license or not, but it seems that he did have support from the continent, most notably from Maximilian I, James IV and the French court.
 
I find myself coming back to this idea after 2 years, after reading this - especially since, I don't know if this is mere authorial license or not, but it seems that he did have support from the continent, most notably from Maximilian I, James IV and the French court.
Note that while he had limited support (mostly in the sense of "sure, we'll give you a place to stay and a small retainer as a bargaining chip against the English) from each, it wasn't simultaneous; he bounced around from one court to another depending on their relationship with the Tudor monarchy (since Henry VII obviously made "don't harbor my enemies" a key demand for any alliance). When England was aligned with the Habsburgs against the French, he was welcome in France; when England made peace with the French, he went to Burgundy (where Margaret of York was willing to support anyone who would bother the Tudors) and eventually (after a failed rising in Ireland) to Scotland (which also had a history of feuding with the English and wanted a bargaining vhip).

The linked blog massively overstates the case, by the way (for example, while it's true Henry VII used Warbeck as an excuse to get Parliament to approve taxes, he then kept those taxes and used them for domestic development when the threat passed, which was not the first time he pulled that trick, and one reason he was one of the few English monarchs to leave the government in sound fiscal shape when he died). There's no evidence anyone actually believed him to be Richard, Duke of York, rather than a convenient tool to threaten the English government; note that his various conspiracies got significantly less support than the blatantly fraudulent Lambert Simnel (admittedly, that's partially because the remaining discontent Yorkists had mostly shot their wad at Stoke, but it's worth noting that none of his foreign backers was willing to spring for a few thousand mercenaries for Warbeck).

More broadly, it doesn't matter who he is, it matters whether he can convince anyone (which mainly depends on whether he can win the throne, which seems increasingly unlikely by the time he shows up, as Henry VII has had enough time to solidify his rule).
 
Would it really matter one way or the other? Lets say he is Richard of Shrewsbury, how did he escape the Tower? WHY didn't someone proclaim him king in exile, like in say Burgundy? Why did so few people rally to his side? Even IF he was the Duke of York, it wouldn't matter. He had little support, nearly all the major Yorkist lords were dead or had lost their lands, no foreign monarch that recognized him gave any real aid. He was up the creek without a paddle. This isn't like the Jacobites or the exiled Bourbons, who every knew were the real deal. This would be impossible to prove one way or the other. So nothing would change.

'Escape the Tower' is a misconception, though an understandable one.

The Tower was, until the Tudors, a royal residence rather than a royal prison. The reputation it gained as the last stop on the way to not needing hats was gained entirely under the Tudor regime. The 'Traitor's Gate', for example, was never called such until the Tudor regime. The Princes being in the Tower did not equate to being imprisoned.

I do agree that it makes no material difference whether or not PW was RoS, except to historians. That said, it would help explain why Richard III did not use the single benefit of thei deaths to his advantage.
 
Note that while he had limited support (mostly in the sense of "sure, we'll give you a place to stay and a small retainer as a bargaining chip against the English) from each, it wasn't simultaneous; he bounced around from one court to another depending on their relationship with the Tudor monarchy (since Henry VII obviously made "don't harbor my enemies" a key demand for any alliance). When England was aligned with the Habsburgs against the French, he was welcome in France; when England made peace with the French, he went to Burgundy (where Margaret of York was willing to support anyone who would bother the Tudors) and eventually (after a failed rising in Ireland) to Scotland (which also had a history of feuding with the English and wanted a bargaining vhip).

The linked blog massively overstates the case, by the way (for example, while it's true Henry VII used Warbeck as an excuse to get Parliament to approve taxes, he then kept those taxes and used them for domestic development when the threat passed, which was not the first time he pulled that trick, and one reason he was one of the few English monarchs to leave the government in sound fiscal shape when he died). There's no evidence anyone actually believed him to be Richard, Duke of York, rather than a convenient tool to threaten the English government; note that his various conspiracies got significantly less support than the blatantly fraudulent Lambert Simnel (admittedly, that's partially because the remaining discontent Yorkists had mostly shot their wad at Stoke, but it's worth noting that none of his foreign backers was willing to spring for a few thousand mercenaries for Warbeck).

More broadly, it doesn't matter who he is, it matters whether he can convince anyone (which mainly depends on whether he can win the throne, which seems increasingly unlikely by the time he shows up, as Henry VII has had enough time to solidify his rule).

One of the posters on the blog, pointed out that Elizabeth of York had no contact with Perkin, and that if she had, she could've probably cleared everything up. However, they interpret it as Lizzie's loyalty being to her own kids ahead of Perkin, since if she had said Perkin was "Richard IV" then she would be signing her own children's death warrants. Is this a reading of lack of evidence as evidence (admittedly, it's very likely her children would've been regarded as a threat to Perkin), or is there some method in the madness? And why was she never brought to identify Perkin? Fear that she would turn on Henry VII? And again, not sure if authorial license or not, but apparently Henry was scared Perkin was the real deal, and even in his will he tried to atone for it (in case he had been wrong), so why was Henry more scared of Warbeck than he was of Simnel and Wulford, even if his uprising was smaller than theirs?
 
'Escape the Tower' is a misconception, though an understandable one.

The Tower was, until the Tudors, a royal residence rather than a royal prison. The reputation it gained as the last stop on the way to not needing hats was gained entirely under the Tudor regime.


It was used as a prison long before that, one notable inmate being Sir Roger Mortimer, lover of Edward II's Queen, who became one of the few to escape from it. FTM didn't Henry VI come to a sticky end there?
 
It was used as a prison long before that, one notable inmate being Sir Roger Mortimer, lover of Edward II's Queen, who became one of the few to escape from it. FTM didn't Henry VI come to a sticky end there?

It had a prison in it, that's different...all castles of any description had some kind of prison. And the Tower's prison was, by the scale of the complex...which is pretty large...a very small prison too, until the Tudors expanded it (or more accurately reassigned prior non-prison sections for the purpose of imprisonment).

It was primarily used as the royal residence in London; all monarchs spent the night before coronation there, for example. The Princes were in the residence, not at all the prison.

Henry VI was almost certainly murdered there, but the very fact that his murder was passed off as natural causes ('ie melancholia') goes to show that the tower had not yet acquired the bloody reputation the subsequent regime would give it. Some say he was killed at prayer in the Royal Chapel, for example...probably apocryphal, but illustrative of how un-prison-like (?) the Tower was at the time.
 
One of the posters on the blog, pointed out that Elizabeth of York had no contact with Perkin, and that if she had, she could've probably cleared everything up. However, they interpret it as Lizzie's loyalty being to her own kids ahead of Perkin, since if she had said Perkin was "Richard IV" then she would be signing her own children's death warrants. Is this a reading of lack of evidence as evidence (admittedly, it's very likely her children would've been regarded as a threat to Perkin), or is there some method in the madness? And why was she never brought to identify Perkin? Fear that she would turn on Henry VII? And again, not sure if authorial license or not, but apparently Henry was scared Perkin was the real deal, and even in his will he tried to atone for it (in case he had been wrong), so why was Henry more scared of Warbeck than he was of Simnel and Wulford, even if his uprising was smaller than theirs?
Well, everyone knew Simnel was a fraud no matter what, since he was claiming to be Warwick, who Henry still had alive in the Tower (and brought out to prove it), which pretty much made the discrediting obvious (and you'll note he eventually did have the real Warwick executed at the same time as Warbeck, allegedly because they tried to escape together). Simnel seems to have been content to live as a servant, while Warbeck had made attempts at escape even before the one used as a pretext.

As to why Elizabeth had no contact with Warbeck, it's not clear why she would have; it's not like queens regularly visited with prisoners.
 
What if Scotland-France (a la Auld Alliance) were to agree to support Perkin simultaneously, or Burgundy/HRE and Spain (since Fernando and Isabel reportedly refused to even consider sending their youngest daughter to England while Perkin/Warwick breathed)? I mean Maximilian seems to have shown an interest in him, even beyond using him as a stick to hit England with.
 
Top