WI: Richard III survives the battle of Bosworth Field?

Not that likely. If Richard III is not dead the English nobility will rally to him as they were sick of the never ending civil war .


What "never ending civil war"?

The last major bout was twelve years in the past, and the bout now going on was a direct result of Richard's seizure of the crown, so not much of an argument for rallying round him.
 
London was largely pro Yorkist throughout the period.
If Richard III is still alive the chances of the pretender Henry Tudor getting into London are very slim and even if he does controlling the capital not likely. Think of the readaption of Henry VI or Warwick's rebellion, government needs the king to function.
I think 18 months top before Henry Tudor is kicked out or dies heroically (where's the classic rolls eyes emoticon when you need it) in battle.
Richard would have made a good king if his governance of the North is a blueprint. The huge issue is succession of the throne after he dies. The usual suspects trotted out Richard de la Pole etc are pretty diluted royals.
London was pro-Yorkist under Edward IV; Richard was much less popular in the South (as he'd basically spent much of his brother's reign in the north, and the circumstances of his usurpation meant that he basically relied on a few trusted lieutenants, mainly northerners, to enforce his rule). If Richard is clearly defeated and has no army currently in the field, then London is in no position to resist, even if they wanted to. As you said, the government needs a king to function, and if Richard is defeated and fled, he's de facto not acting as king any more. Richard was never any good at propaganda (pro-tip: when you have to publicly deny having murdered your wife to marry your niece, you've already lost, especially when most people already believe you killed your nephews to usurp the throne).

Meanwhile, Henry VII was one of the most competent monarchs England has ever experienced, perfectly capable of organizing the defense of the country, and a demonstrated expert at propaganda. He's proven himself capable of defeating Richard in battle, and as the controller of London and present resident of the crown, he can rely on plenty of goodwill from the start. Some Yorkists and opportunists will make trouble, but assuming he "dies heroically in battle" seems unlikely; he has excellent generals (e.g. Oxford), and was more than happy to listen to them. As evidence, he was perfectly capable of seeing off the challenge at Stoke without even having to use most of his army (only the vanguard was engaged).
 
And someone seems to have swallowed that Tudor propaganda hook, line and sinker
He locked up a child, Edward of Warwick straight after Bosworth murdering him in 1499
Faced rebellions in 1486, 1487, 1490, 1491, 1495, 1495, 1496 and 1497
Henry was detested by his death 18 years post Bosworth
 
Last edited:
Given that IIRC the forces at Stoke came mainly from Ireland, helped by Burgundy, then by that logic Richard has to flee to Ireland, raise these armies and get Burgundian support (money and mercs) and then when he lands back in England in a year or two its not a claimant coming but someone that the North would see as a legitimate king.
 
If the Yorkists lose, Percy's army isn't going anywhere; Henry's priorities will be to secure the king, and he certainly has the troops to defeat Percy before he can meet up with reinforcements. Most likely at this point, if Percy has Richard, he turns him over to Henry in exchange for being forgiven for opposing him. If he doesn't have Richard, he still makes whatever peace he can; he's not in a good position to continue resistance, and he's just seen Richard's main army be routed. The Tudors will absolutely pursue Percy's forces if they continue to resist; their commanders are certainly capable enough for that, and if Percy finds himself outnumbered and surrounded, he has little choice.

Certainly Burgundy, Ireland, etc. can raise additional troops if given time, but Richard needs them now if he's to avoid becoming a hunted fugitive.


Defeated armies in the Wars of the Roses rarely retreated in good order; if Richard is truly defeated (which I take to be the POD), he's not reforming his army anytime soon. OTL, quite a few escaped due to Richard's death-or-glory charge leaving them behind; if he loses but still survives, the POD essentially requires him not to launch said charge, in which case his army is going to have a much more difficult time disengaging safely. If nothing else, Henry's surviving army is (by assumption, given that he won ITTL) significantly larger than what's left of Richard's, and with a significant victory under his wing, is likely to attract more supporters who see the way the wind is shifting, while Richard's army will be severely demoralized. Henry already has the most significant nobles either on his side (the Stanleys) or dead/defeated (Percy, Howard); Richard needs time to build an army to replace the one he mostly lost. At best, he escapes to the north with Percy and whatever troops he can salvage, but doing so essentially concedes the more populous south, and automatically confers significant legitimacy to Henry.

As for the question of whether he's a pretender or not, that's mostly semantics, but if he's been badly defeated and driven away from London, he's certainly not the uncontested symbol of legitimacy.

Look at the dispositions; the terrain that (apparently) prevented Percy from joining in also offers him ample room to organize an ordered retreat, and the local terrain is royalist. I really don't see why he'd suddenly turn on Richard and hand him over; assuming he was there to fight for him, he'd already chosen sides. There are several species of defeat, and I think you're assuming the most extreme; even then I'm not sure of your conclusions.

Defeated armies in the w.o.t.r. rarely retreated from a defeat in good order because defeat almost always meant the leaders were dead or captured (which also usually meant dead, soon). But that's not the case here,visor I don't see the need to assume a loss of c. & c.
 
So another significant factor is Northumberland: if he was a traitor as some maintain, that lessens Richard's immediate pool, but if as he maintained he was hemmed off by geography, he can withdraw in good order and almost immediately give York a viable core for his army around which to gather his northern forces.

How do the southern counties react?

Will a Northern Army led by Richard III get any friendlier a reception than that earlier one led by Margaret of Anjou?
 
And someone seems to have swallowed that Tudor propaganda hook, line and sinker
He locked up a child, Edward of Warwick straight after Bosworth murdering him in 1499
Faced rebellions in 1486, 1487, 1490, 1491, 1495, 1495, 1496 and 1497
Henry was detested by his death 18 years post Bosworth
Um, no he wasn't. And rebellions were common in that period. Many were just arguments over tax and didn't actually result in any fighting. The Lovell Rebellion of 1486 for example collapsed after Henry pardoned everyone involved. And Medival kings did many unpleasant things by modern standards. It wasn't just Henry VII.
 
Um, no he wasn't. And rebellions were common in that period. Many were just arguments over tax and didn't actually result in any fighting. The Lovell Rebellion of 1486 for example collapsed after Henry pardoned everyone involved. And Medival kings did many unpleasant things by modern standards. It wasn't just Henry VII.

And does the King's personal popularity matter that much?

Edward IV was far more popular than Henry VII, yet his dynasty collapsed because he didn't live long enough for his son to come of age. Henry VII did, albeit by a slender margin, so his dynasty survived.
 
Look at the dispositions; the terrain that (apparently) prevented Percy from joining in also offers him ample room to organize an ordered retreat, and the local terrain is royalist. I really don't see why he'd suddenly turn on Richard and hand him over; assuming he was there to fight for him, he'd already chosen sides. There are several species of defeat, and I think you're assuming the most extreme; even then I'm not sure of your conclusions.

Defeated armies in the w.o.t.r. rarely retreated from a defeat in good order because defeat almost always meant the leaders were dead or captured (which also usually meant dead, soon). But that's not the case here,visor I don't see the need to assume a loss of c. & c.
Percy is severely outnumbered; while he was apparently unable to join in, he's not so far away that he can't be pursued by the victorious army. If Percy does try and stick with Richard, he can be pursed and brought down fairly quickly. Henry's forces at this point are both beyond the point of no return (no way Richard would easily forgive them at this point) and have just won a major victory; they'll hold together fairly well. On the other hand, Percy (and whatever forces Richard manages to keep intact) is outnumbered and has just seen their forces defeated; morale will be low and desertion will be a major problem. Percy is far away from his strongholds, and is unlikely to be able to keep his army intact enough to get back there in the face of any sort of pursuit; his later history doesn't exactly paint him as a brilliant diplomat. His choice is essentially either flee with Richard (and almost certainly lose his lands and titles) or cut a deal with Henry Tudor (and ITTL he's in a much better bargaining position). Henry OTL was quite willing to pardon his enemies (people point to the execution of Warwick, but note that that took places 14 years after he was imprisoned, and only after Ferdinand made it a precondition for the marriage to Catherine of Aragon, while plenty of former Yorkists like Percy were soon pardoned and restored to their estates; compare to Richard's treatment of people like Hastings or the Woodvilles); he'd certainly be willing to make a deal with Percy ITTL. Only a truly fanatical Ricardian is going to make the decision to stick with Richard ITTL, and there's certainly no evidence that Percy (who came from a traditionally Lancastrian family) was that.

There's no evidence the local area is particularly pro-Richard; once Henry wins, there will be plenty of people willing to guide his army for decent pay, and plenty of lords flocking to his banner with their retinues. Everyone wants to back a winner, and ITTL Henry looks like the winner. Even if the battle was a draw, he'd look like a winner (for holding off the force sent to stop his rebellion); with a clear victory (however that's defined), he's in great shape.

And someone seems to have swallowed that Tudor propaganda hook, line and sinker
He locked up a child, Edward of Warwick straight after Bosworth murdering him in 1499
Faced rebellions in 1486, 1487, 1490, 1491, 1495, 1495, 1496 and 1497
Henry was detested by his death 18 years post Bosworth
Leaving aside the other objections that have been raised, you do realize that literally every one of these objections equally applies Richard, right?
 
Percy is severely outnumbered; while he was apparently unable to join in, he's not so far away that he can't be pursued by the victorious army. If Percy does try and stick with Richard, he can be pursed and brought down fairly quickly. Henry's forces at this point are both beyond the point of no return (no way Richard would easily forgive them at this point) and have just won a major victory; they'll hold together fairly well. On the other hand, Percy (and whatever forces Richard manages to keep intact) is outnumbered and has just seen their forces defeated; morale will be low and desertion will be a major problem. Percy is far away from his strongholds, and is unlikely to be able to keep his army intact enough to get back there in the face of any sort of pursuit; his later history doesn't exactly paint him as a brilliant diplomat. His choice is essentially either flee with Richard (and almost certainly lose his lands and titles) or cut a deal with Henry Tudor (and ITTL he's in a much better bargaining position). Henry OTL was quite willing to pardon his enemies (people point to the execution of Warwick, but note that that took places 14 years after he was imprisoned, and only after Ferdinand made it a precondition for the marriage to Catherine of Aragon, while plenty of former Yorkists like Percy were soon pardoned and restored to their estates; compare to Richard's treatment of people like Hastings or the Woodvilles); he'd certainly be willing to make a deal with Percy ITTL. Only a truly fanatical Ricardian is going to make the decision to stick with Richard ITTL, and there's certainly no evidence that Percy (who came from a traditionally Lancastrian family) was that.

There's no evidence the local area is particularly pro-Richard; once Henry wins, there will be plenty of people willing to guide his army for decent pay, and plenty of lords flocking to his banner with their retinues. Everyone wants to back a winner, and ITTL Henry looks like the winner. Even if the battle was a draw, he'd look like a winner (for holding off the force sent to stop his rebellion); with a clear victory (however that's defined), he's in great shape.


Leaving aside the other objections that have been raised, you do realize that literally every one of these objections equally applies Richard, right?

Percy, from what little I know about him, was prepared to get behind Henry VII to the point he was murdered when collecting unpopular taxes. So cutting a deal might be a good plan of action for Percy. And with the north now against him, then the only option for Richard is to escape abroad, and attempt to do what Lincoln and Lambel Simbert did in 1486, to regain his Kingdom.
 
Would this destroy the marriage prospects for Henry's children?
Not necessarily. By the time his children are ready to marry, Richard has likely been dealt with one way or another. If Richard can't retake the throne in 17 years, he's much less of a threat (and considering the general lifespan of Plantagenet kings, possibly dead; his brother Edward died in his 40s of natural causes, after all).

And even without Richard being dead, England (especially one that has undergone something resembling Henry's OTL governmental reforms, which saw power much more centralized and revenue significantly increased) is still an attractive ally in the conflicts between France and her neighbors that OTL basically dominated European affairs throughout his reign and beyond, while Henry will want to marry well enough to discourage any of his neighbors from getting support a Ricardian restoration. Henry, while not a particularly warlike monarch, will as OTL have the traditional English interest in retaking France (an idea that, despite the end of the HYW, would still animate English policy throughout the Tudor era, as it had the Yorkists before them) and opposing French control of Brittany (which OTL sparked Henry's most notable foreign war), which will also complicate things.
 
Top