[Wars of the Rose AH] - Henry Tudor & Richard III die at Bosworth Field?

See above. Suppose somehow both royal claimants die in the battle, which is some inconclusive yet bloody draw of sorts. Obviously, the war doesn't just end with two dead claimants, so who else is still around on the Lancasterian or Yorkist factions that could mount a claim or a following?
 
See above. Suppose somehow both royal claimants die in the battle, which is some inconclusive yet bloody draw of sorts. Obviously, the war doesn't just end with two dead claimants, so who else is still around on the Lancasterian or Yorkist factions that could mount a claim or a following?

Lancastrian: nobody legitimate or male-line
Yorkist: expect a spate of pretenders claiming to be Edward V/Richard of Shrewsbury, but the most likely option is the earl of Warwick (excluding his dad's attainder, he's male line, legitimate and most importantly, male) as opposed to the earl of Lincoln who is both male and legitimate, but through a woman
 
Considering the fact that Lincoln IOTL died fighting for the throne for false Warwick, not for himself, I suppose he'll support true Warwick ITTL and would not claim the throne.
 
Lancastrian: nobody legitimate or male-line
Yorkist: expect a spate of pretenders claiming to be Edward V/Richard of Shrewsbury, but the most likely option is the earl of Warwick (excluding his dad's attainder, he's male line, legitimate and most importantly, male) as opposed to the earl of Lincoln who is both male and legitimate, but through a woman
So either Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick (and his sister Margaret) or John de la Pole, 1st Earl of Lincoln for the House of York (plus his younger brothers)?

Given that Edward Plantagenet was only 10 years old at the time while John de la Pole was already recieving the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, I can imagine John would be acclaimed by the Yorkists. Given his lack of children, perhaps John might try and put his FitzAlan wife aside in favor of Elizabeth of York or any of her sisters...

You said that there was nobody legitimate or male-line for the House of Lancaster? Given that Edward is a child at this point and John descending through his mother as a claimant, what would the non-legitimate or female-line claims be for Lancaster? And yes of course, there's still all the pretenders lying about...

Other present nobles would include the currently unmarried Anne St Leger (niece of King Richard III through his sister Anne and her husband Duke Holland of Exeter).

The Portuguese monarchy had a claim to the English throne via Afonso V, King of Portugal, who was a grand-son of Henry IV's sister Philippa.
 
Last edited:
Lincoln is Richard III's acknowledged heir. Warwick is under attainder. Elizabeth is a woman and her brothers are already dead. I don't think Lincoln would need to create any smokescreen around that.
 
Some other potential claimants I've researched:

Other claimants in the English nobility were available through Henry IV's second sister Elizabeth, including a grandson in Ser Edmund Grey, 1st Earl of Kent and a great-grandson in Thomas Fiennes, 8th Baron Dacre.

The Castille monarchy had a claim to the English throne via Joanna la Beltraneja (disputed daughter of King Henry IV of Castile, and great-granddaughter of of Henry IV's sister Catherine) and Isabella I, Queen of Castile (sister of King Henry IV of Castile and granddaughter of Henry IV's sister Catherine). Joanna married her uncle King Afonso V of Portugal, which unites two of the Lancasterian maternal lines. Isabella sort of had terrible luck in arranging for heirs to Aragon, Leon and Castille, so she might well be out of the running in general.

The Beaufort siblings have Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby, grand-niece of Henry IV, King of England via his half-brother John Beaufort. Her only child was Henry Tudor, dead in this scenario. They also have:
  • Margaret's cousin Eleanor Beaufort had two daughters named Margaret Spencer and Catherine Spencer, whose children aren't born yet.
  • Margaret's cousin Henry Beaufort had a bastard named Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester, who is the last of the male-line Lancasters at this point albeit a Beaufort Lancaster and is also an adult.
  • Margaret's cousin Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Stafford had two grandsons named Edward Stafford and Henry Stafford at this point, both children at this time.
Margaret also had second cousins via her grandfather's sister Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland. But we're not gonna comb through those because that woman had a lot of children and grandchildren. Instead, we'll go to Margaret's Scottish cousins, that is to say: James III, King of Scotland. The grandson of Margaret's aunt Joan Beaufort (different from her grand-aunt Joan Beaufort mentioned above), he'd be a very credible candidate. Joan's also has a too-young-to-be-candidate great-grandson in John, Duke of Albany. Joan's maternal heirs would include the King of France, Duke of Britanny and Archduke of Austria, to say a few names.
 
Joan's maternal heirs would include the King of France, Duke of Britanny and Archduke of Austria, to say a few names.

Margaret of Scots had no kids by Louis XI. So the king of France has no stake.
Isabella of Scots had two daughters by her Breton husband. The elder died without heirs, so the duke of Brittany has no claim. The younger married the vicomte de Rohan, Comte de Porhoët, and they had a couple kids. Not sure what sort of player Porhoët was in France or in European politics in general.
Eleanor of Scots married the Archduke of Further Austria. They had no kids. So there's no Habsburg stake.
 
A bloody draw of sorts would mean that the Yorkists win. The Tudor Army was in enemy country, with a force mostly made up of French and Breton convicts and mercenaries, and while Wales had risen a bit for Henry, he had no real amount of English support until Thomas Stanley joined the battle.

The army would likely melt away or be driven back into Wales, where it would be contained. The Tudors HAD to win at Bosworth and win decisively, otherwise they would lose the campaign.

Now, this does bring up an interesting question, though. Who succeeds Richard? Its likely I think that Edward Warwick, son of George Plantagenet, is crowned King. The possibility of Yorkist pretenders certainly exists, and you probably see a continuation of the Rivers-Plantagenet feud.

However, if this draw is super bloody, it probably means that the best and strongest force remaining on the field was that of the Stanleys. The core of Henry's army, his foreign mercenaries and adventurers, are beaten to a pulp, as are Richard's men. But Stanley did not even attack with his entire force. That also means, however, that Richard's left flank, which also did not engage much, led by Henry Percy, is also intact. Perhaps what this leads up to is a Stanley-Percy battle to see who can become King by conquest, as neither of these factions were particularly all that loyal to the Tudors and Yorkists respectively and were trying to hedge their bets.

It is possible however that Stanley did not truly want the crown, and he would have rather tried to place his wife, Margaret Beaufort, on the throne, as Henry ultimately was basing his claim partially on her lineage from John of Gaunt (illegitimate though it may have been) and partially on being the half-nephew of Henry VI. This would be a weak claim, undoubtedly, but at that point, did it really matter? Nobody was going to take the throne without having to fight for it.

Really, this timeline needs more specifics on what happens at Bosworth (did the Stanley's commit their forces? Did Thomas Stanley survive? Did Henry Percy engage rather than avoiding battle? What happened to Jasper Tudor?) , as ultimately, who becomes King is going to depend on force of arms.
 
Last edited:
Really, this timeline needs more specifics on what happens at Bosworth (did the Stanley's commit their forces? Did Thomas Stanley survive? Did Henry Percy engage rather than avoiding battle? What happened to Jasper Tudor?) , as ultimately, who becomes King is going to depend on force of arms.

I don't really want to offer too much in specifics, because I'm curious about how more knoweldgable people might contruct their own results with specific PODs they might favor regarding the battle. The War of the Roses is a big blank as far as I'm concerned, barring the tail-end at Bosworth with Henry winning the crown.
 
Lincoln is Richard III's acknowledged heir. Warwick is under attainder. Elizabeth is a woman and her brothers are already dead. I don't think Lincoln would need to create any smokescreen around that.

Richard is now just a hunk of rotting meat, so it no longer matters who he did or didn't acknowledge. It's now a question of whether Oxford, Northumberland and the Stanleys can agree on a successor. If not there will have to be another battle.
 
Other present nobles would include the currently unmarried Anne St Leger (niece of King Richard III through his sister Anne and her husband Duke Holland of Exeter).

Anne St. Leger was the daughter of Anne of York and her second husband Thomas St Leger (who was executed by Richard III following Buckingham's rebellion). Anne of York and Henry Holland Duke of Exeter did have a daughter (who was also named Anne) who was briefly married to Thomas Grey, but she was dead by this point.



Was Lincoln present at Bosworth? Because if he was then there's the possibility of some quick discussions with the nobles present (Surrey if he's not wounded and captured, Northumberland, Norfolk if he survives ITTL, Lovell) to figure out what to do next, and allow him to angle for/be thrust onto the throne. If he manages to hold some of the army together (by getting Northumberland onside?) he might even be able to deal with the Stanleys and what's left of Tudor's army from a position of relative strength.

If he wasn't then you've got three armies milling about with no obvious claimant between them, and things will be very confused.


Regarding the POD, isn't the simplest one just to have Richard's charge be a little bit more successful and bring down Tudor? In which case the most important figures are Northumberland with his unengaged troops, and the Stanleys who have charged down to help Tudor only to find him dead (well, I think William charged down whilst Thomas stayed unengaged).
 
Would never happen.Portugal is too far away.Most likely,if there’s any serious support for someone Portuguese to take the throne,Portugal will just send a younger prince over.

Would make sense for Joao II to try and get rid of Manoel (or any Viseu relative) like that
 
An interesting and unexpected consequence would be the imposition of a form of male-line succession in England. If Warwick survives into adulthood and manages to get rid of the previous kingmakers (no pun intended), his best shot at legitimacy is male-line succession. After all, he is the male heir, while there are some other female-line ones. Best secure his sons' rule by promoting a new succession rule, something semi-salic.
 
Istr reading somewhere that he was at Sheriff Hutton, along with Warwick, Elizabeth of York an her sisters, and maybe others. I've never seen any suggestion of his being at Bosworth.

If he is, then he is king, because he controls his only real rival.
 
Top