Although Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, eventually won the throne of England by right of conquest in the Battle of Bosworth Field in August of 1485, the seeds for the overthrow of Richard III had been sown much earlier. In October of 1483, a series of uprisings took place against Richard throughout England and Wales, of which Tudor was nominal figurehead. The primary muscle behind them was Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, formerly the trusted lieutenant of the King. His reasons for defecting remain obscure and there is some speculation that one of the eminence grises behind the rebellion, Lady Margaret Beaufort (Tudor's mother), might have somehow conned Buckingham into believing that he would be placed upon the throne should the rebellions succeed. Buckingham, after all, arguably had a better claim to the English throne than Henry Tudor. He was descended two different ways from John of Gaunt (through the Beaufort line) and was also descended through an unquestionably legitimate line from Edward III's youngest son Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester.
Nevertheless, through a combination of bad timing and uncooperative weather the rebellions were unsuccessful. Many of the ringleaders (including Buckingham) were imprisoned or executed; those who escaped fled to Brittany and Henry Tudor's "court-in-exile". These included the Earl of Oxford, whose martial prowess would prove critical to Tudor's victory in battle against the warrior King Richard. But what if the rebellions were successful, and after a decisive and climactic battle somewhere in the English countryside, Richard III was slain and Henry Tudor was acknowledged as the King of England, all in November of 1483?
---
Before we begin, I propose we should take as a given that the Princes in the Tower are dead by October of 1483. Whether or not you think Richard III was responsible, Buckingham (as Constable of England) certainly knew of their fate (if he did not have some direct hand in it himself) and the fact that he did not rebel in their name would seem to indicate that he knew they were dead by then.
A few points worth discussing:
The Yorkists
If Richard III dies in November of 1483 he leaves his widow, Anne Neville, and his son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, both of whom died shortly thereafter IOTL. Yorkists will of course rally round Edward (proclaiming him either Edward V or Edward VI, depending on how their views of the OTL Edward V will emerge). The problem is that Edward is sickly and likely will not reach adulthood, assuming he is not captured by Lancastrian forces. If he is, of course, he dies in the Tower like his cousin, with Henry Tudor (or Buckingham) probably accused of murdering him - and possibly believed to have done so even by historians centuries after the fact. If he isn't, he is spirited away by Yorkists and taken to exile - possibly to the protection of his Aunt Margaret, the Dowager Duchess of Burgundy. Given his fragile state, he may well die on the voyage there.
Anne Neville, on the other hand, becomes a widow. Her OTL death in March of 1485 from tuberculosis might be butterflied. She seems a prime candidate to be married off to Henry's uncle Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke (who IOTL married another high-placed widow, Catherine Woodville, Dowager Duchess of Buckingham, who is unavailable ITTL). She's still of childbearing age (37 in 1483), although I doubt any children would be born of their union.
Who will inherit the Yorkist mantle ITTL once Edward of Middleham dies is another question. IOTL the Yorkists were initially united behind John de la Pole, the Earl of Lincoln and nephew to Richard III (by his sister Elizabeth). This might not happen without the implicit acknowledgement of such by Richard himself in the final year of his reign. Edward, Earl of Warwick (eight years old in 1483) is the agnatic heir (and, with the death of Richard III, the last remaining legitimate male-line Plantagenet).
Fickle Buckingham
Assuming Buckingham is present at Henry Tudor's ultimate victory of Richard III at *Bosworth, he is naturally going to want to resume his position as the King's foremost lieutenant, and he won't be as easy to brush aside as Henry Tudor's OTL Bosworth allies ultimately were. He is the only Duke in England outside of the Royal Family (assuming that Norfolk is killed and/or attainted) and has a substantial power base of his own. So Henry VII is going to face the challenge of keeping him onside. One wonders what this would take. Being named the Heir Presumptive after his descendants? Marriage links between their children? What positions would Henry give him? What role would he play on the Council? Does he have any particular interests, foreign or domestic? Buckingham was a youthful 29 when he died - just three years older than Henry VII himself. He'll likely be a dominant force throughout the King's reign. Given his own treachery and that of his son against Tudor's son Henry VIII IOTL (it's telling that even Henry VIII's staunchest critics have conceded that he was onto something when he executed the 3rd Duke of Buckingham), it's not hard to imagine him defecting fairly early on, although one suspects he'd cut out the middleman of a figurehead and just promote himself as a claimant to the throne, butterflying "lost Princes" such as Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. Buckingham could very well change the entire character of Henry's reign.
Brittany Fidelis
IOTL, 1484 saw Brittany betraying Henry Tudor to Richard III on the order of Pierre Landais, chief minister to Duke Francis II. Landais was deposed in 1485 in part due to this betrayal, which indebted Henry not to his longtime Breton custodians but to his newfound French sponsors in helping him to win the throne of England. As a result (along with, to be fair, his continued domestic struggles to hold onto his newly-won throne) England was far less willing to help defend Brittany from French aggression in the later 1480s than it might have been otherwise. Yes, Henry Tudor was a famously mercenary man whose only loyalty (if he had any at all) was to his family. Still, Francis II had been his guarantor for half his life. If Henry VII wins the throne of England in 1483 and is able to consolidate his hold on the throne by the time the Mad War begins in earnest, Brittany's continued independence could be in the cards. Anne of Brittany is at an awkward age to marry any sons of Henry (she'd have close to eight years on the eldest) and is too young to marry Jasper (only six in 1483). Amusingly, Buckingham's son is just the right age. Francis II himself died a classically preventable accidental death (a fall from his horse) in 1488 IOTL, and so may live longer ITTL - although probably not much longer, as he was 55 when he died.
The Marriage Sweepstakes
Henry Tudor hadn't pledged to marry Elizabeth of York yet at the time of the rebellion (this came afterwards, in December of 1483) but she is a very logical strategic choice for his bride. Dowager Queen Elizabeth and Lady Margaret Beaufort were already in communication by this time and having the Woodvilles onside couldn't hurt any. As we all know, the marriage (improbably enough) turned out to be a love match. Elizabeth was 17 years old in late 1483, turning 18 in February of 1484. She's old enough to be child-bearing and they might produce their first child before the year is out. IOTL, their first child was a son named Arthur. I see no reason why that shouldn't be the case ITTL. But one difference is that this Arthur could very well be spared the Tudor "curse" of dying mysteriously in his mid-teens, as many male Tudors did (the OTL Arthur, Edward VI, and even Henry FitzRoy). And of course Henry and Elizabeth marrying two years earlier means we have time for one or even two more full pregnancies, one (or both!) of which may produce a living child, even a son.
This Arthur Tudor is two years the senior of his OTL brother of the same name. Obviously a match to one of the daughters of the Catholic monarchs would provide a valuable boost to the prestige of the new dynasty. Of course, Arthur's OTL bride Catherine, the youngest of Ferdinand and Isabella's children, had not yet been born in 1484. The next-youngest was Maria, born in June of 1482. Unlike her two elder sisters, she was not betrothed to anyone during her youth - there was some talk of her marrying James IV of Scotland (especially once the betrothal between Catherine and Arthur went ahead - there was some hope of them keeping the peace between their husbands), but these went nowhere. But if we betrothe her to Arthur instead - and make sure to send her over to England before her eldest sister Isabella dies (if indeed she does) - then she becomes Princess of Wales. Worth noting: she gave birth to ten live children IOTL, eight of whom survived, in the span of fifteen years. Six of those eight were male. Even if we hit half of them with the Tudor curse, that's still three sons who reach adulthood. Even if we hit two-thirds, that's still two sons who escape unscathed!
Historiography
Although 1483 will be remembered as the "Year of Four Kings", the question is whether the Lancastrians - or the Yorkists - will acknowledge all four of the Kings to have actually reigned:
So my thought is Henry VII, assuming he wins the throne in 1483, will probably have a much more fraught early reign - with Buckingham a constant thorn in his side and the House of York remaining a more potent threat with an obvious and immediate heir to Richard - albeit one who probably does not live very long. On the other hand, in the longer term, the House of Tudor might find its prospects much more promising - Henry VII might produce more living sons as might his own sons, particularly the eldest. Brittany stands a much better chance of remaining outside the French orbit, at least for the medium-term, with England potentially a more steadfast ally. In other words, the House of Tudor might be facing short-term loss for longer-term gain. At least that's my analysis.
Does anyone else have any thoughts? Did I miss out on any important considerations? Am I barking up one too many wrong trees? Please let me know what you all think! And thanks for reading.
Nevertheless, through a combination of bad timing and uncooperative weather the rebellions were unsuccessful. Many of the ringleaders (including Buckingham) were imprisoned or executed; those who escaped fled to Brittany and Henry Tudor's "court-in-exile". These included the Earl of Oxford, whose martial prowess would prove critical to Tudor's victory in battle against the warrior King Richard. But what if the rebellions were successful, and after a decisive and climactic battle somewhere in the English countryside, Richard III was slain and Henry Tudor was acknowledged as the King of England, all in November of 1483?
---
Before we begin, I propose we should take as a given that the Princes in the Tower are dead by October of 1483. Whether or not you think Richard III was responsible, Buckingham (as Constable of England) certainly knew of their fate (if he did not have some direct hand in it himself) and the fact that he did not rebel in their name would seem to indicate that he knew they were dead by then.
A few points worth discussing:
The Yorkists
If Richard III dies in November of 1483 he leaves his widow, Anne Neville, and his son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, both of whom died shortly thereafter IOTL. Yorkists will of course rally round Edward (proclaiming him either Edward V or Edward VI, depending on how their views of the OTL Edward V will emerge). The problem is that Edward is sickly and likely will not reach adulthood, assuming he is not captured by Lancastrian forces. If he is, of course, he dies in the Tower like his cousin, with Henry Tudor (or Buckingham) probably accused of murdering him - and possibly believed to have done so even by historians centuries after the fact. If he isn't, he is spirited away by Yorkists and taken to exile - possibly to the protection of his Aunt Margaret, the Dowager Duchess of Burgundy. Given his fragile state, he may well die on the voyage there.
Anne Neville, on the other hand, becomes a widow. Her OTL death in March of 1485 from tuberculosis might be butterflied. She seems a prime candidate to be married off to Henry's uncle Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke (who IOTL married another high-placed widow, Catherine Woodville, Dowager Duchess of Buckingham, who is unavailable ITTL). She's still of childbearing age (37 in 1483), although I doubt any children would be born of their union.
Who will inherit the Yorkist mantle ITTL once Edward of Middleham dies is another question. IOTL the Yorkists were initially united behind John de la Pole, the Earl of Lincoln and nephew to Richard III (by his sister Elizabeth). This might not happen without the implicit acknowledgement of such by Richard himself in the final year of his reign. Edward, Earl of Warwick (eight years old in 1483) is the agnatic heir (and, with the death of Richard III, the last remaining legitimate male-line Plantagenet).
Fickle Buckingham
Assuming Buckingham is present at Henry Tudor's ultimate victory of Richard III at *Bosworth, he is naturally going to want to resume his position as the King's foremost lieutenant, and he won't be as easy to brush aside as Henry Tudor's OTL Bosworth allies ultimately were. He is the only Duke in England outside of the Royal Family (assuming that Norfolk is killed and/or attainted) and has a substantial power base of his own. So Henry VII is going to face the challenge of keeping him onside. One wonders what this would take. Being named the Heir Presumptive after his descendants? Marriage links between their children? What positions would Henry give him? What role would he play on the Council? Does he have any particular interests, foreign or domestic? Buckingham was a youthful 29 when he died - just three years older than Henry VII himself. He'll likely be a dominant force throughout the King's reign. Given his own treachery and that of his son against Tudor's son Henry VIII IOTL (it's telling that even Henry VIII's staunchest critics have conceded that he was onto something when he executed the 3rd Duke of Buckingham), it's not hard to imagine him defecting fairly early on, although one suspects he'd cut out the middleman of a figurehead and just promote himself as a claimant to the throne, butterflying "lost Princes" such as Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. Buckingham could very well change the entire character of Henry's reign.
Brittany Fidelis
IOTL, 1484 saw Brittany betraying Henry Tudor to Richard III on the order of Pierre Landais, chief minister to Duke Francis II. Landais was deposed in 1485 in part due to this betrayal, which indebted Henry not to his longtime Breton custodians but to his newfound French sponsors in helping him to win the throne of England. As a result (along with, to be fair, his continued domestic struggles to hold onto his newly-won throne) England was far less willing to help defend Brittany from French aggression in the later 1480s than it might have been otherwise. Yes, Henry Tudor was a famously mercenary man whose only loyalty (if he had any at all) was to his family. Still, Francis II had been his guarantor for half his life. If Henry VII wins the throne of England in 1483 and is able to consolidate his hold on the throne by the time the Mad War begins in earnest, Brittany's continued independence could be in the cards. Anne of Brittany is at an awkward age to marry any sons of Henry (she'd have close to eight years on the eldest) and is too young to marry Jasper (only six in 1483). Amusingly, Buckingham's son is just the right age. Francis II himself died a classically preventable accidental death (a fall from his horse) in 1488 IOTL, and so may live longer ITTL - although probably not much longer, as he was 55 when he died.
The Marriage Sweepstakes
Henry Tudor hadn't pledged to marry Elizabeth of York yet at the time of the rebellion (this came afterwards, in December of 1483) but she is a very logical strategic choice for his bride. Dowager Queen Elizabeth and Lady Margaret Beaufort were already in communication by this time and having the Woodvilles onside couldn't hurt any. As we all know, the marriage (improbably enough) turned out to be a love match. Elizabeth was 17 years old in late 1483, turning 18 in February of 1484. She's old enough to be child-bearing and they might produce their first child before the year is out. IOTL, their first child was a son named Arthur. I see no reason why that shouldn't be the case ITTL. But one difference is that this Arthur could very well be spared the Tudor "curse" of dying mysteriously in his mid-teens, as many male Tudors did (the OTL Arthur, Edward VI, and even Henry FitzRoy). And of course Henry and Elizabeth marrying two years earlier means we have time for one or even two more full pregnancies, one (or both!) of which may produce a living child, even a son.
This Arthur Tudor is two years the senior of his OTL brother of the same name. Obviously a match to one of the daughters of the Catholic monarchs would provide a valuable boost to the prestige of the new dynasty. Of course, Arthur's OTL bride Catherine, the youngest of Ferdinand and Isabella's children, had not yet been born in 1484. The next-youngest was Maria, born in June of 1482. Unlike her two elder sisters, she was not betrothed to anyone during her youth - there was some talk of her marrying James IV of Scotland (especially once the betrothal between Catherine and Arthur went ahead - there was some hope of them keeping the peace between their husbands), but these went nowhere. But if we betrothe her to Arthur instead - and make sure to send her over to England before her eldest sister Isabella dies (if indeed she does) - then she becomes Princess of Wales. Worth noting: she gave birth to ten live children IOTL, eight of whom survived, in the span of fifteen years. Six of those eight were male. Even if we hit half of them with the Tudor curse, that's still three sons who reach adulthood. Even if we hit two-thirds, that's still two sons who escape unscathed!
Historiography
Although 1483 will be remembered as the "Year of Four Kings", the question is whether the Lancastrians - or the Yorkists - will acknowledge all four of the Kings to have actually reigned:
- Edward IV will be accepted as King by everyone, even Lancastrians, after Henry VII promotes his narrative of unifying the two sides into his own dynasty.
- Edward V might be dismissed by Yorkists (or at least Ricardian Yorkists) as never truly having been King. Which creates an interesting situation since the Pretender Yorkist King after Richard's death is also named Edward - so we'll have two boys known as "Edward V", neither of whom ever effectively reigned.
- Richard III didn't reign for two years ITTL - he barely lasted for four months. And who knows how long Edward was alive during his reign? So Edward, in the Tower, was the true and rightful King all along - Henry will make sure Parliament whips up a piece of legislation saying so - but Richard killed him right before he lost his battle with Henry VII. And of course Henry VII was retroactively King the day before the battle. So that creates a legal fiction that Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was never King at all. I like something like this emerging because it's a very English solution to the problem of not wanting to acknowledge Richard as King. Which means there have only been two Kings named Richard. I suspect that, as IOTL, the Tudors will avoid the use of the name Richard and the creation of the title "Duke of Gloucester" so as to avoid evoking his memory.
- Henry VII Tudor will reign from probably November of 1483. Assuming he lives until 1509 as he did IOTL, and is never deposed, that is a 26-year reign. Of course marking milestone anniversaries wasn't a thing monarchs did back then, and even if it was, there's no way Henry VII is going to empty his coffers for anything like that!
So my thought is Henry VII, assuming he wins the throne in 1483, will probably have a much more fraught early reign - with Buckingham a constant thorn in his side and the House of York remaining a more potent threat with an obvious and immediate heir to Richard - albeit one who probably does not live very long. On the other hand, in the longer term, the House of Tudor might find its prospects much more promising - Henry VII might produce more living sons as might his own sons, particularly the eldest. Brittany stands a much better chance of remaining outside the French orbit, at least for the medium-term, with England potentially a more steadfast ally. In other words, the House of Tudor might be facing short-term loss for longer-term gain. At least that's my analysis.
Does anyone else have any thoughts? Did I miss out on any important considerations? Am I barking up one too many wrong trees? Please let me know what you all think! And thanks for reading.
Last edited: