WI Richard III wins at Bosworth but dies in battle?

WI Richard III beats Henry Tudor but he is killed in Bosworth?
I guess that the throne would pass to the Earl of Warwick as Edward VI but without the protection of his uncle he would have to fight hard possible usurpers...
WHat then?
Could his "intimely" death lead to another War of the Roses?
 
WI Richard III beats Henry Tudor but he is killed in Bosworth?
I guess that the throne would pass to the Earl of Warwick as Edward VI but without the protection of his uncle he would have to fight hard possible usurpers...
WHat then?
Could his "intimely" death lead to another War of the Roses?

Richard's acknowledged heir was John de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk (eldest son of his sister).

I guess it depends on what happens on the battlefield. Someone will be in charge of it, and if its a victory for Richard's forces, one assumes that Henry's will flee, Stanley perhaps never committed in the first place, and the field is held by who ? Norfolk ? It could ironically end up under Northumberland's control if Norfolk is also dead, ironic since Northumberland sat in the rear and watched.

IMHO it would then become a contest between whether Suffolk (where is he at this time ?) or those who try to make a king of Warwick can get enough support, or simply seize London and carry out a coronation.

Burgundy might be important in this

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
maybe this could lead in a schism... King Edward VI in north-west England and King John II in south-east...
Who would prevail then?? Or perhaps we see a 3rd rival? Henry tudor proclaims himself King Henry VII and invades again hoping that he has more success due to the huge turmoil in the country...
 
maybe this could lead in a schism... King Edward VI in north-west England and King John II in south-east...
Who would prevail then?? Or perhaps we see a 3rd rival? Henry tudor proclaims himself King Henry VII and invades again hoping that he has more success due to the huge turmoil in the country...

Well, if Henry Tudor had lost Bosworth he would be dead - that's the only way that Richard's forces could have won, especially if the king is killed in battle. Anything else, and its Tudor's victory, even if by default.

I don't see a two kings situation lasting for very long. Like with Jane Grey and Mary Tudor both might claim the throne but only one would get sufficient support to take possession of it. The loser might, if he is lucky, do as per Henry VI's supporters after 1461 and hole up in some fortresses in places like Bamburgh and Harlech. The losing candidate would either be held captive, murdered, or if he was really lucky run away to...well, probably to France by this time

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Two rival Kings (Edward VI and John II) exhausting each other couldnt lead to a rebellion and put some imposteur (like Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck) to the Throne?
 
Two rival Kings (Edward VI and John II) exhausting each other couldnt lead to a rebellion and put some imposteur (like Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck) to the Throne?

The thing with the imposters was that they were pretending to be someone else - IIRC Simnel was pretending to be Warwick, so if Warwick is one of the kings it wouldn't work. However, its not a bad idea :) A sort of English 'Time of Troubles' where a third party (perhaps France in this case, or Burgundy) backs an imposter, the 'False Richard' he might be - Perkin Warbeck pretending to be Richard, Duke of York, one of the Princes in the Tower.

In Russia, in 1612 the matter of all these rival claimants and false kings was eventually solved by the nobility getting together in a great council and deciding who they wanted as Tsar. One might see something similar here, perhaps going for an outside candidate (as the cardinals did to end the Papal schism earlier in the century). Off the top of my head, I can't think who they would go for though ! Did Buckingham have a son ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Henry Stafford 2nd Duke of Buckingham had a son Edward Stafford 3rd Duke of Buckingham who had a son also... Henry Stafford 1st Baron Stafford... who recovered under Henry VII some of the forfeited lands of his grandfather in the OTL...
 
Henry Stafford 2nd Duke of Buckingham had a son Edward Stafford 3rd Duke of Buckingham who had a son also... Henry Stafford 1st Baron Stafford... who recovered under Henry VII some of the forfeited lands of his grandfather in the OTL...

The Staffords are descended through the female line from Edward III's youngest son, which is why it is believed by half of the historians that in 1484 Buckingham's rebellion and his proclamation were made in his own name and not in Henry Tudor's. Thus a Stafford could be elected as a compromise king, supported by the nobility who hope they could rule through him.

One wonders what would become of Edward IV's daughters in this situation. IIRC Elizabeth is still in sanctuary at Westminster Abbey with her mother, so no one SHOULD be able to seize control of her person. But if one of the rivals has control of London and makes an agreement with the Queen Dowager (of Edward IV, ie Elizabeth Woodville as was) she might let her daughter out to marry them. It would be quite a coup, for John de la Pole especially since he is of age. It would be a bit less useful for Edward of Warwick, though a formal marriage could not be undone.

The other daughters I can't remember where Richard III packed them off to, probably a series of convents. They might thus be seized, or 'encouraged' to leave by ambitious nobles looking to marry them and raise a minor stake in the crown for themselves.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
proclaiming Buckingham as King Edward VI would only cause troubles and introduce another claimant to the throne... it would make the situation far more complexed...
 
proclaiming Buckingham as King Edward VI would only cause troubles and introduce another claimant to the throne... it would make the situation far more complexed...

Ah, but if like with the Papal analogy what happens is that the nobles move away from the other claimants to come together in an assembly whereby they will abide by their own decision, then the two other claimants would be left without supporters. I think this is the method adopted by the Russian council of nobles during the Time of Troubles in the 1610s

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
True... but some hardliners might try to impose their own candidate by attempting to assasinate some of the claimants... this would cause way much turmoil... like it happened with Pope Alexander V who was poisoned by Cardinal Cossa who succeded him as antipope John XXIII...
 
True... but some hardliners might try to impose their own candidate by attempting to assasinate some of the claimants... this would cause way much turmoil... like it happened with Pope Alexander V who was poisoned by Cardinal Cossa who succeded him as antipope John XXIII...

Well, if the English can't settle the civil war themselves someone will do it for them :) This will either be France, or Burgundy or maybe even James III's Scotland, which might prevent the events leading to his untimely death

My bets would be on France, though you never know what Maximilian Habsburg might decide to do if given the chance...

You may well see a full-scale invasion 'in support' of someone, but in essence to impose a foreign nation's interests upon England

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
my thought if richard dies at bosworth but his army wins !

I belive if richard did win at bosworth john dela pole would become king john II.and would most likly of fight against the stanlys and nothumberland. northumberland probbably dispised de la pole because richard made him constable of the north. and of course stanly might of back the stafford but johns father john dela pole duke of suffolk didnt like politics and stay in his estates rather then mingle with the royal courts but im suure he would of backed his son raised and army and help john become king. lets say john dies wen he normaly dies at stoke perhaps defending his crown hes succeded by his brother edward dela pole edward V even though he took holy orders he would of taken the crown lets say he dies without an heir his next brother edmund becomes edmund I because the kings dont count pre conquest kings. edmund dies and his brother william becomes william III he marries but has no children in real time so let suppose the same. hes succeded by richard dela pole as richard IV. richard has no children is unmarried and worries of cival war. he removes the attainder from his cousin edward of clarence and he becomes earl of warrick earl of salsbury and duke of clarence. richard declares him his heir. in real time richard delapole dies at the battle of pavia in 1525 so lets say richard IV dies in battle the same year. edward plantagenet son of clarence becomes king edward VI at the age of 50. No children unmarried. but very religious hates herraasy and destroys any chance of england becoming protostant his sister is his next kin. in are time shes known as margerat countess of salsbury. in this time line she would not of marries sir richard pole. then who ? i think john de la polewould of married her to james IV of scotland ? then when edawrd of clarence becomes king his next male kin is james V son of margerat and james IV making james V of scotland also james I of england !
 
I belive if richard did win at bosworth john dela pole would become king john II.and would most likly of fight against the stanlys and nothumberland. northumberland probbably dispised de la pole because richard made him constable of the north. and of course stanly might of back the stafford but johns father john dela pole duke of suffolk didnt like politics and stay in his estates rather then mingle with the royal courts but im suure he would of backed his son raised and army and help john become king. lets say john dies wen he normaly dies at stoke perhaps defending his crown hes succeded by his brother edward dela pole edward V even though he took holy orders he would of taken the crown lets say he dies without an heir his next brother edmund becomes edmund I because the kings dont count pre conquest kings. edmund dies and his brother william becomes william III he marries but has no children in real time so let suppose the same. hes succeded by richard dela pole as richard IV. richard has no children is unmarried and worries of cival war. he removes the attainder from his cousin edward of clarence and he becomes earl of warrick earl of salsbury and duke of clarence. richard declares him his heir. in real time richard delapole dies at the battle of pavia in 1525 so lets say richard IV dies in battle the same year. edward plantagenet son of clarence becomes king edward VI at the age of 50. No children unmarried. but very religious hates herraasy and destroys any chance of england becoming protostant his sister is his next kin. in are time shes known as margerat countess of salsbury. in this time line she would not of marries sir richard pole. then who ? i think john de la polewould of married her to james IV of scotland ? then when edawrd of clarence becomes king his next male kin is james V son of margerat and james IV making james V of scotland also james I of england !

Welcome to the Alternate History Discussion Board.

Please don't revive threads that have been dead for over six months. If you'd like to talk about Richard III winning at Bosworth, then please start a new thread.
 
Welcome to the Alternate History Discussion Board.

Please don't revive threads that have been dead for over six months. If you'd like to talk about Richard III winning at Bosworth, then please start a new thread.
That's the official word from one of the moderators.

Unofficial advice
1) when you start a new thread, providing links to old threads on the topic is helpful. Otherwise people start yelling 'use the search function'. (Sigh!)
2) punctuation and spacing, especially paragraph spacing help immensely with legibility. Most people presented with a barely legible wall of text simply ignore the post.
 
Sentences are great

Spacing is wonderful

But I'd say he raised some new issues we should have remembered

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top