War of The Roses Scenario: Richard III doesn't execute Anthony Woodville

What would happen if Richard of Gloucester (the future Richard III) fails to execute Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers (the maternal uncle of the two Princes in the Tower, Edward V and Richard Duke of York). Let's pretend that Richard grants Woodville clemency (not so likely) or perhaps Rivers escapes while Prince Edward is still in Richard's custody.

What do you think will happen? Would Prince Edward succeed as Edward IV intended him to? Or at the very least Richard, Duke of York? Would England be plunged into civil war if Richard of Gloucester still insists that Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville's children are bastards?

Or let's consider another scenario. Say Anthony Woodville lives, but the Princes still disappear and Elizabeth of York still becomes Edward IV's heir. If her most capable, well-known and respected (maternal) uncle is at her side and the Woodville faction is much strengthened, do you think she might become Queen Regnant or rule jointly with someone else (maybe Henry Tudor) similar to Ferdinand and Isabella?

Do you think England would be able to handle Edward IV's female heir ruling in some capacity? I personally don't think she was the doormat as some like to paint her. I'm of the opinion that she exercised any power or influence she had in a quiet diplomatic way and had a capacity to smooth things over which her immediate predecessors lacked. As Queen consort, she enjoyed unprecedented popularity (which is not the default for the majority of Queen of England upto this point - see her predecessors Elizabeth of York and Margaret of Anjou) and had more of a good dose of Edward IV's gracious, warm personality, so I could see her being much more capable than history gives her credit.

I hope you guys enjoy this scenario :) I'm looking forward to your responses!
 
Welcome to AH! In response to your question, I think that if Rivers escapes from custody he most probably tries to get in contact with his nephew Lord Dorset and his brother Edward Woodville to rally some sort of resistance to Richard but I honestly believe this would fail, especially as it is unlikely Richard will have seized the throne by this point. Once he does, Rivers most probably flees to Tudor or goes into exile. If Tudor does succeed I think Rivers to be capable enough to have been of use to Henry and take a place in government.

I don't see a way for Richard to grant 'clemency' as it were but you could get a Rivers stays free scenario with an earlier POD. For example if Rivers doesnt go along with the Elizabeth-Dorset plan of rushing the coronation of Edward V, then Richard doesn't have to/feel the need to(depending on your version of events) gain custody of his nephews quite so quickly. If Rivers was willing to accept the Protectorship I think he would be an active part of the council. He had served with Richard before, was apparently a very capable man and Richard often found a way to use people who had been apart of his brother's regime, especially early on.
 
Thank you CP for your welcome and reply. I think as long as Anthony's nephew or niece was being recognized as Edward IV's heir, (Richard being Lord Protector for Edward V or Henry Tudor ruling with Elizabeth of York as his Queen), I believe Anthony would have been more than willing to take on an active role in Council.

You might be right about a Rebellion against Richard III not succeeding with Anthony Woodville at it's head.

I don't think Elizabeth Woodville or Dorset was necessarily rushing Edward V to London for a coronation. His father the King died, the next step is to crown the boy. Anthony Woodville and Prince Edward made the trip with a small escort, took the long route, made stops along the way. I would not call that with a rush. Considering how matters turned out, I can't fault Elizabeth Woodville for being cautious.
 
I agree with your point that the actual procession was perhaps not rushed but the desire to crown the boy king and avoid a regency was in my opinion a challenge to Richard. Similarly the fact that Hastings had to threaten a withdrawl to Calais to limit the escort again could be seen as threatening. Had Rivers put his foot down and stopped this behaviour earlier it seems plausible that some sort of cooperation may have been possible.

Perhaps Elizabeth was correct in being cautious but I believe that her caution seems more paniced then planned and that was the problem.

However I think this thread idea is an interesting one, with many possible paths. The idea of a stronger Woodville party in the reign of Henry Tudor would be very interesting, especially in the later Yorkist rebellions aginst Henry VII.
 
Hmm, was the desire to crown the boy really an attempt to avoid the regency altogether? I can recall young monarchs being crowned and then Regents continuing to rule through them. Henry III was crowned at 9. 14 year old Edward III comes to mind, he didn't begin to exert power until he was 18. Richard II was similarly crowned at age 10 (less than a month after his grandfather died). Similarly Henry VI was crowned at 8 and I doubt anyone expected him to rule the country at that age. If anything, the past precedent suggests to continue the regency but crown the child (but not an infant) to prevent an Uncle (or someone else) from usurping the throne. A crowned king is considered "god's anointed" monarch and if you depose them that taint will haunt you forever. It's a little bit different if they haven't been crowned, then an uncle has an easier time labeling you as another rival claimant.

Personally, I think Elizabeth and Anthony were trying to crown the boy just in case someone else wanted to declare themselves ruler. George was the precedent in Edward's family. Although Richard had been completely loyal to Edward, one can never really be sure ... Also I don't see a reason why they would put off crowning the child.

The two of us appear to have very different ideas about what led to Richard's actions which is totally fine with me. I think Richard did what did because because he figured he could get away with it. The whole bastardization of Edward IV's children and bypassing George's children in the line of succession IMO was incredibly questionable, convenient and self-serving. I don't think anything the Woodvilles did or did not do could have had any real effect on what Richard was going to do. This doesn't mean that I see Richard as the black-hearted villain of Shakespeare, but a pretty complicated character nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
Good points and well made. However Richard II was crowned in part to avoid a regency by John of Gaunt and to allow him to be guided by a series of councils, so this does suggest a sort of parallel with our case.

I agree that we have different ideas about the 'usurpation' although I will mention that I am nowhere near as strongly Ricardian as I was a few years ago :p

Back on topic as it were, do you think there is any possibility of Rivers coming to terms with Richard in a similar way to Elizabeth (and through her Dorset had he not been captured leaving Tudor), if things progressed in a similar way to how they did in our timeline?
 
I agree with you about the Richard II and John of Gaunt situation, but still think that John of Gaunt wielded enormous power over the affairs of state during Richard II's regency. In a regency situation, I do not think the uncle of the new king, especially the former king's close relation (ie brother) can be excluded...

I think Elizabeth and Dorset came to an agreement with Richard because of futility on the part of the Woodville faction. It's pretty much agreed that Dorset was a man of mediocre ability and was likely incapable of leading a rebellion on behalf of the Princes of the Princesses. Elizabeth is much limited by her sex. I suppose she did not want to go by the Margaret of Anjou or Isabella of France path which is understandable. Instead she plotted. It seems that the younger Woodville brothers were not upto the task. As I understand it, the new Earl Rivers, Richard Woodville didn't do much of anything. Bishop Lionel helped but as much as a Bishop is capable. Edward Woodville, was very young and brave. Later on he would certainly come into his ability to command troops (ie Stoke) but at the time his involvement with the royal navy on behalf of his sister failed. I'm not sure if he had the ability to be a statesmen or to lead a rebellions on behalf of Elizabeth's children.

Anthony Woodville on the other hand, would have been an ideal position person to lead a rebellion on the behalf his nieces and nephews. He had the ability to lead men, capacity for state craft and international positive reputation. He'd helped Edward IV reclaim his crown when he lost it. In all honestly, when you look at his career, it seems his personal interest were generally side-lined to help his sister and her children. He'd no family of his own, he'd been serving his sister at court safe-guarding her interests, Edward's IV's interests and then later he was the Governor of Prince Edward. Anthony Woodville was the constant presence in Prince Edward's life and was probably like a father to him. He was probably the uncle the Elizabeth's girls remembered most of before their brother Edward was born. I don't believe for one minute Anthony Woodville would have stood by and let his nephews and nieces be disinherited.

I see Anthony Woodville leading armies, making alliances and organizing rebellions on his nieces and nephews behalf. I think he was the most genial face of the Woodville faction and would have been far more successful in gaining support and making alliances than any other member of the Woodvile faction. The Woodville faction would have done far better than they did with Anthony on their side. Without him they were understandably crippled. You may be right, perhaps he would not have been particular successful on the part of the Princes.

If the Princes are lost, I see him being the ideal candidate to take the older girls overseas and to make marriage alliances with noblemen of Lancastrian descent. This would remedy the problem of not having an army. That could be Henry Tudor, Archduke Maximilian (an option if Duchess Margaret is onboard which she was likely not) or the heir of Portugal. James IV is another option as Cecily of York was engaged to him and he also had Lancastrian ancestry through the Beauforts. The Henry Tudor option still has its advantages in some ways (him being the child of an English mother so it might not be viewed as a foreign invasion). If they've gone down that route or any other route, and approached Henry Tudor about invading England, the venture would basically be a Woodville venture. You would have Anthony offering Henry Tudor the opportunity to marry his niece Elizabeth, Edward IV's heir in exchange for a joint assault on Richard III. Anthony would have been much more involved in the planning stages of Bosworth, and would have certainly lead men. In reality, as I understood it, the members of the Woodville faction who fought for Henry Tudor were simply along for the ride and some against their will. With Anthony involved, Bosworth would have been more of a joint venture and he would have played a very active rule. If Bosworth was successful, I could see Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York laying down a dual claim to the throne as the solution to the War of the Roses (joining two houses). With the support of her most capable maternal uncle, Elizabeth of York becomes a joint ruler in the vein of Ferdinand and Isabella.

Ultimately whatever role Anthony plays, I see him being a thorn in the side of Richard of Gloucester. I don't see any role for reconciliation if Richard tries to rule instead of Edward IV's children. If Richard could get his hands on him, he would kill Anthony.

I do think Anthony would have been happy to work with any party willing to recognize the rights of his sister's children, that includes Richard of Glouchester if he was part of a council or acting as regent on Edward V's behalf or helping Henry Tudor (either to take the throne or to rule) if he was married to one of his nieces.
 
Top