WI: Richard III cuts down Henry at Bosworth

RousseauX

Donor
During the battle, Richard III led a desperate charge against Henry Tudor's person when he learned he was deserted and betrayed by Stanley and Northumberland. Apparently he came within sword's reach of Henry himself. What if the charge succeeded and he or one of his retainers actually kills Henry?
 
Is he (Richard) killed anyway?

If both contenders are killed, that's different than if Richard sweeps Henry and his men from the field.
 
So Richard survives, Henry's army is routed/slaughtered, and Richard is left as . . . pretty much unchallenged really, the closest heir of Lancaster is the king of Portugal for instance.

Richard is only 33, he has plenty of time to breed some adult sons.

Now, he might have to deal with future rebellions of various sorts, but no one is in a position to claim the right to the crown.

Of course, Henry was pretty much doing it by right of conquest, but he had to at least profess a legitimate claim.
 

RousseauX

Donor
He -did- OTL get within sword's reach of Henry and cut down his standard-bearer, and this is the Middle Ages, once you cut down the king well....what's the other side fighting for?
 
He -did- OTL get within sword's reach of Henry and cut down his standard-bearer, and this is the Middle Ages, once you cut down the king well....what's the other side fighting for?

There might have been other anti-Richard leaders available, plus "not getting decapitated for treason" strikes me as a good reason to keep going.
 
So Richard survives, Henry's army is routed/slaughtered, and Richard is left as . . . pretty much unchallenged really, the closest heir of Lancaster is the king of Portugal for instance.

Richard is only 33, he has plenty of time to breed some adult sons.

Now, he might have to deal with future rebellions of various sorts, but no one is in a position to claim the right to the crown.

Of course, Henry was pretty much doing it by right of conquest, but he had to at least profess a legitimate claim.

Interestingly Richard was negotiating a marriage with Joana of Portugal in 1485. Maybe we'd get a whole different story supplanting the York/Lancaster reconciliatory success story of the Tudors.

In addition to conquest, Henry was also the Lancastrian heir by proximity of blood - even though his father didn't have Plantagenet blood, he was Henry VI's half-brother and closest living kinsman.

I wonder if Henry Tudor's death in 1485 could see either Margaret Beaufort or King James III of Scots putting forward their own claims as potential Lancastrian heirs?
 

RousseauX

Donor
There might have been other anti-Richard leaders available, plus "not getting decapitated for treason" strikes me as a good reason to keep going.
I don't think losing automatically equals being beheaded, especially if you have the troops/castles to make arresting you very costly, aren't pardons commonly handed out during that era, especially if the alternative is more wars and rebellions?

Yeah there would have being other leaders, but they are fighting to put Henry on the throne, now that he's dead.....now what? Decide who's going to be king in the middle of a battle? Or simply cut their loses until when(if) at least someone else with a sort of convincing claim on the throne arrives.
 
Interestingly Richard was negotiating a marriage with Joana of Portugal in 1485. Maybe we'd get a whole different story supplanting the York/Lancaster reconciliatory success story of the Tudors.

IIRC that nuptial agreement with Portugal also included a marriage between Elizabeth of York and Manuel, Duke of Beja (who IOTL became king after John II died childless).
 
I don't think losing automatically equals being beheaded, especially if you have the troops/castles to make arresting you very costly, aren't pardons commonly handed out during that era, especially if the alternative is more wars and rebellions?

Yeah there would have being other leaders, but they are fighting to put Henry on the throne, now that he's dead.....now what? Decide who's going to be king in the middle of a battle? Or simply cut their loses until when(if) at least someone else with a sort of convincing claim on the throne arrives.
The only prominent English noblemen who'd arrived in Henry's own army were his uncle Jasper, who was Earl of Pembroke (by Lancastrian reckoning, although Edward IV had granted that fief to one of his own loyalists instead) but who had no claim on the throne, and the Earl of Oxford. Both of these had been living in exile in France along with Henry, and if they survive after the battle it's probably only by fleeing overseas again. There was a Welsh leader too, but he might have managed to get a pardon and if he hadn't then he might have been able to take refuge back home in the mountains for at least a while. The rest of that army's main leaders were from the contingent supplied by France.
 
He -did- OTL get within sword's reach of Henry and cut down his standard-bearer, and this is the Middle Ages, once you cut down the king well....what's the other side fighting for?
Vengeance. Not only will many people not even see the king going down and just keep fighting, but other will go, "OMG, you killed my lord, I'm going to kill each and every one of you now." And there's also the preservation of their own lives to fight for, executions were rather common after battles in this war.
 
If they both get cut down, does the throne go to Edward Earl of Warwick or to de la Pole?

Depending on who survives I would imagine de la Pole would be the choice. Crowning Warwick recognizes that Richard wasn't the legitimate heir to Edward IV and i think Richard's supporters like Surrey and Lovell would want to maintain the reputation of their friend. Also a strong leader is needed at this time so the older Earl of Lincoln would be more suitable than Warwick IMO.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Vengeance. Not only will many people not even see the king going down and just keep fighting, but other will go, "OMG, you killed my lord, I'm going to kill each and every one of you now." And there's also the preservation of their own lives to fight for, executions were rather common after battles in this war.
As far as I know medieval combat really didn't work like that, especially when your contingent are composed of mercenaries and turncoats.
 
Depending on who survives I would imagine de la Pole would be the choice. Crowning Warwick recognizes that Richard wasn't the legitimate heir to Edward IV and i think Richard's supporters like Surrey and Lovell would want to maintain the reputation of their friend. Also a strong leader is needed at this time so the older Earl of Lincoln would be more suitable than Warwick IMO.

Would he then marry Elizabeth of York?
 
As far as I know medieval combat really didn't work like that, especially when your contingent are composed of mercenaries and turncoats.

They did in the Wars of the Roses. See the executions of Lancastrian leaders after the Yorkist victory at Tewkesbury (sp?) for a prime example.
 
They did in the Wars of the Roses. See the executions of Lancastrian leaders after the Yorkist victory at Tewkesbury (sp?) for a prime example.
And the Earl of Rutland being shanked while his killer said "Thy father slew mine and so I shall do thee and all thy kin". Not every soldier was in it for the money, some picked their side based on the cause and knights could actually be loyal to their lord and Henry probably had some friends who'd be upset at him being killed while they're winning the battle.
 
Would he then marry Elizabeth of York?

John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln was already married to a member of the FitzAlan's of Arundel. His brother and heir Edmund could possibly be married to Elizabeth to cement the house of york together though.

Not every soldier was in it for the money, some picked their side based on the cause and knights could actually be loyal to their lord and Henry probably had some friends who'd be upset at him being killed while they're winning the battle.

True Henry did have followers who were loyal to him but if he falls presumably the Frenchmen in Oxford's battle would flee, as may the Welshmen. This leaves the Stanleys (if they have declared for Lancaster ITL) and a few loyal Lancastrians against the remainder of Norfolks battle and Northumberland's reserve (Presumably Northumberland would realize that without a Lancastrian pretender the next monarch would be a Yorkist so he may mobilze his force).

In this event I can see the fighting continuing for a brief while before Jasper Tudor, Oxford and the remaining Lancastrians retreat, probably to Wales where Tudor is still popular. This could cause problems to whoever is eventually named King by the Yorkists.
 
Top