WI: Henry VII Is Killed at Stoke?

Let's say Henry VII falls early in the Battle of Stoke, and his army is routed in the confusion. Would another pro-Tudor army have been raised? What would be the attitude of the mass of English nobility? Would old Yorkist partisans flock to the pretender's banner? Would Prince Arthur be proclaimed Arthur II, or would he be spirited to safety on the Continent? What would happen if the real Warwick is produced? Would John de la Pole seek to become the power behind the throne, ala Warwick, or try do do away with Simnel and ascend to the crown in his own right?
 
Last edited:
Let's say Henry VII falls early in the Battle of Stoke, and his army is routed in the confusion. Would another pro-Tudor army have been raised? What would be the attitude of the mass of English nobility? Would old Yorkist partisans flock to the pretender's banner? Would Prince Arthur be proclaimed Arthur II, or would he be spirited to safety on the Continent? What would Queen Elizabeth's attitude be to a triumphant impostor of her dead brother seizing her husband's kingdom? Would John de la Pole seek to become the power behind the throne, ala Warwick, or try do do away with Simnel and ascend to the crown in his own right?

Arthur would be Arthur I, since regnal number was done from the Conquest. We could potentially see even more division over the Yorkists.
 
Let's say Henry VII falls early in the Battle of Stoke, and his army is routed in the confusion. Would another pro-Tudor army have been raised? What would be the attitude of the mass of English nobility? Would old Yorkist partisans flock to the pretender's banner? Would Prince Arthur be proclaimed Arthur II, or would he be spirited to safety on the Continent? What would Queen Elizabeth's attitude be to a triumphant impostor of her dead brother seizing her husband's kingdom? Would John de la Pole seek to become the power behind the throne, ala Warwick, or try do do away with Simnel and ascend to the crown in his own right?

Didn't Simnel claim to be Warwick? Warbeck claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury. So then the problem shows up of what happens to the real/fake Warwick when de la Pole has the other one crowned
 
He was proclaimed as Earl of Warwick - who had escaped England for the continent somehow - simple choice - De La Pole puts the real Earl of Warwick on the throne as Edward VI with him as the power behind the throne - Elizabeth of York and her sisters end up in sanctuary again until someone else rises against the new regime in the name of Arthur as son of Henry Tudor and grandson of Edward IV. That is of course assuming that Tudor's supporters don't manage to regroup and hold onto London in which case it will be armies chasing each other until someone loses.
 
He was proclaimed as Earl of Warwick - who had escaped England for the continent somehow - simple choice - De La Pole puts the real Earl of Warwick on the throne as Edward VI with him as the power behind the throne - Elizabeth of York and her sisters end up in sanctuary again until someone else rises against the new regime in the name of Arthur as son of Henry Tudor and grandson of Edward IV. That is of course assuming that Tudor's supporters don't manage to regroup and hold onto London in which case it will be armies chasing each other until someone loses.

What about Liz, her kids and Cecily (plus her kids) fleeing to France (or Burgundy, whicever) and Simnel gets married to Anne or Katherine of York? If Art still dies on schedule in 1501, and Cecily's daughters still die young or aren't born, then those girls are the heiress (saving Margaret Tudor, of course). Although, I could be confusing real history, but in the docudrama The Princes in the Tower, EoY seemed half to resent her husband while she thought Perkin Warbeck was her brother. Does she do the same in this situation?
 
Last edited:
Didn't Simnel claim to be Warwick? Warbeck claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury. So then the problem shows up of what happens to the real/fake Warwick when de la Pole has the other one crowned
How did I forget about this? RedFace.png fixed.
 
I can't imagine the Tudors raising another army in time to intervene; their leadership is in disarray if Henry dies (and key supporters like Oxford were at Stoke, and thus also in danger). Arthur is a kid, and there really isn't time to arrange a regency and put together a cohesive front before the Yorkists take London. More likely they flee to the continent (France and Tudor England haven't fallen out yet, so he could find shelter there, especially as the Yorkists are Burgundian-aligned at this point) along with whatever supporters accompany him, unless Yorkists can intercept them. It's not too dissimilar to the Yorkist situation after Bosworth Field; with the king dead and his supporters scattered, it's hard to rally any meaningful resistance.
 
I can't imagine the Tudors raising another army in time to intervene; their leadership is in disarray if Henry dies (and key supporters like Oxford were at Stoke, and thus also in danger). Arthur is a kid, and there really isn't time to arrange a regency and put together a cohesive front before the Yorkists take London. More likely they flee to the continent (France and Tudor England haven't fallen out yet, so he could find shelter there, especially as the Yorkists are Burgundian-aligned at this point) along with whatever supporters accompany him, unless Yorkists can intercept them. It's not too dissimilar to the Yorkist situation after Bosworth Field; with the king dead and his supporters scattered, it's hard to rally any meaningful resistance.

Marg Beaufort will still be formidable, but I can't imagine she can do much given Arthur is like 9-months old.

Does Elizabeth Woodville have anything left in her, or will she be content if one of her younger daughters marries Warwick/Edward VI?
 
Marg Beaufort will still be formidable, but I can't imagine she can do much given Arthur is like 9-months old.

Does Elizabeth Woodville have anything left in her, or will she be content if one of her younger daughters marries Warwick/Edward VI?

Considering that the reason for her "retirement" to St. Saviour at Bermondsey was really just Henry VII/Maggie B wanting to remove her from court following Perkin Warbeck's revolt (since they viewed her as a threat) and considering that Elizabeth Wydeville had survived every regime change in the past, I'd say that she would plot and scheme - particularly if "evidence" is produced that someone murdered her sons at Tudor/Beaufort initiative - to come out on top. This isn't "fortune's fanciful flourish" or "the painted queen" of Shakespeare's Marguerite d'Anjou's description. Elizabeth has survived two husbands, the murder of three sons, and if she was willing to offer her daughter to Richard III and Henry VII before, I see no reason she won't do so now.
 
Actually that is an interesting debate - there is little evidence to tie Elizabeth directly with Lincoln's rebellion and most theories tend to ignore that she would in effect replace her daughter and grandson on the throne with the son of Clarence which hardly seems believable.
Her retirement to Bermondsey may have other reasons - it was strongly associated with the House of York, it was not uncommon for widow's of royalty to withdraw from court and enter a religious institution, her health might have begun to fail for example.
Elizabeth was fully restored to her dower rights by Henry VII but unlike other English Kings he also had a wife to dower who technically beyond her claim to the throne brought nothing to the crown. At the same time Elizabeth surrendered her lands to the King in return for a cash pension (whether that was her decision or his we simply don't know) that deprived her of patronage but also gave her freedom from administering them we do know that most of what she gave up was regranted to her daughter. Given that she continued to appear at court on major occasions I don't think her retirement to Bermondsey can be read as a punishment of removing her as a political threat.
People tend to assign political interests and actions to her that I don't think with a close scrutiny of her life really stands up very well.
Henry was naturally distrustful of those with connections to the previous regime (both Richard III's and Edward IVs) even when he knew that their ties meant they would likely be loyal - people such as the Queen's son Dorset for example.
 
Top