"If" Richard III had won at Bosworth? | Historical Debates | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
"If" Richard III had won at Bosworth?
November 16, 2010
1:35 pm
Avatar
Hus
Waltheofshire
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 5
Member Since:
November 16, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If the ultimate victory of the Wars of the Roses at the infamous Battle of Bosworth in 1485 had gone to the experienced and previously loyal Prince Richard (III), what would have become of England?

Henry Bolingbroke was amongst the last Lancastrian hopes of winning (due to the exhaustive and brutal wars and summary executions) and, had he failed, the Yorkists would have ultimately won- probably no Henry VIII; Elizabeth; Edward VI or Mary…?

No Shakespeare (or De Vere?)- or would there have been a totally different re-write of history by the same writer, or indeed a pro-Yorkist Sir Thomas More?

Would another Lancastrian opponent (or Yorkist Hastings line revolt?) in time have raised foreign armies against King Richard, as did Henry (VIII) in 1485? What chance of success against a proven warrior-king?

What future would have developed with Henry VIII? No dissolution of the monasteries? A Catholic England and thus no Spanish Armada?…

Would there have ever been an Anglo-Scottish union ?

November 16, 2010
11:03 pm
Avatar
Impish_Impulse
US Midwest
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 595
Member Since:
August 12, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I love 'what-if's. I read a book that was explaining how any of a dozen seemingly small things could have lost us our War of Independence. I was delighted that one of them was the outcome of the Battle of Cowpens. It's not a well-known battle, but one in which my great-great-great-great grandfather fought. The victory helped to keep the Southern states in the war, without which the Northern states could not have continued to fight.

So, I firmly believe English, and indeed world, history would have been enormously different had there been a different outcome to the Battle of Bosworth.

                        survivor ribbon                             

               "Don't knock at death's door. 

          Ring the bell and run. He hates that."    

November 22, 2010
6:17 pm
Avatar
Boleynfan
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 503
Member Since:
August 2, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I completely agree. A different outcome to the Battle of Bosworth would change everything!! No Henry? Mary? ELIZABETH??? Wow…it would change everything I repeat…

"Grumble all you like, this is how it's going to be"

June 3, 2013
9:17 am
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

i think that had Richard won at Bosworth – or merely had Henry Tudor been killed by a rearing horse or chance arrow – Richard would probably have been reasonably secure for the immediate future. he would have built up an admirable record of putting down rebellions, making such adventures very unattractive propositions, and the number of serious contenders for the throne would have been pretty slim: after the death of Henry Tudor there were no Lancastrian candidates left, and the only Yorkists were Richard himself, John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, and Edward, Earl of Warwick.

probably worth pointing out at this point that in 1485 mere geneology did not make you a serious contender for the throne – Geneology, being male, of fighting age, having an Army and deep pockets, or being supported by someone with an Army and deep pockets, made you a serious contender for the throne. the number of such people was limited in the extreme…

how it would effect history is difficult to gauge – the betting money appears to be on Richard marrying a Spanish or Portugese princess, as happened with Arthur Tudor and Henry VIII, the big question being the cut with Rome and the reformation: the reformation didn’t just happen because Henry VIII had an itch in his crotch, it was a continent wide process, and to some degree there’s certainly an element of inevitability in it happening. obviously there would be differences in timing, nature, process etc.. but its important to recognise that for Kings, protestantism/anti-Romanism meant not being subservient to another King (who was called a Pope), and having greater temporal power in their own kingdom. that makes it very attractive, regardless of the personal feelings of those involved.

a post-Bosworth Richard does however have one big problem – the other Yorkists: at Bosworth John de la Pole, as Richards nephew, was almost certainly Richards heir apparent, that would therefore keep him ‘in the fold’. however, if Richard then re-married and had children, John would lose his status as heir apparent (as would Edward, Earl of Warwick – another nephew), which might well put them in the ‘potential replacement’ camp. similarly he has a problem with Edward IV’s daughters – if he married them off to senior nobility with Royal blood (pretty much all of them..) he is creating rival ‘royal families’ of the likes of Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, if he didn’t marry them off he makes them targets for adventurers like Henry Tudor who are waaaaaaay down the list, but who give it a go anyway.

that said, none of these problems are worse than being dead in Leicestershire.

June 7, 2013
2:04 pm
Avatar
lybertyne
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3
Member Since:
May 28, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I often wonder about the religion of England had Richard III won at Bosworth. I have a lot of Huguenots in my ancestry who came to England as refugees after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. If England was a devoutly Catholic nation then they wouldn’t have come here and I wouldn’t exist.

June 27, 2013
8:02 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I’ve just finished The Kingmaker’s daughter by S.W.M.N.B.N. It’s the usually fantasy that one has come to expect from her, but she does raise some very intriquing points in it.
Did Anne (Richard’s wife) order the deaths of the Princes.?
Was Richard having a sexual affair with Elizabeth of York?
Did Richard intend to marry Elizabeth if he had won Bosworth?
or
Was it as S.W.M.N.B.N puts it that Richard had intened to give the impression that Elizabeth was his lover dishonouring her in the eyes of Henry Tulip, who had pledged himself to her. Had Richard hoped that by keeping Elizabeth by his side whether she was his lover or not, that he hoped, that the followers of the House of York would stay true to him, because of their love for Elizabeth.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

June 28, 2013
10:03 am
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

if my memory is working i think Richard was in initial negotiations to marry a Portugese Princess. a match with Elizabeth of York was, even for the times, a bit ‘euwww’ for someone looking to unite the House of York – it also posed a very large problem: in order to marry Elizabeth, Richard would have to have her ‘de-bastardised’ – and if she were ‘de-bastardised’, so would her brothers be, and that might lead to awkward questions about where they were…

i rather doubt that anyone would kill off a pair of Royal Princes – and thats what they were – on the say so of a Queen Consort, a mere woman. its a reasonable view, that with the Princes alive Edward of Middleham and indeed Richard III would never really be secure and always vunerable to a rebellion in the Princes names – but given the attitudes of the time, i just don’t see anyone doing it without being resonably sure that it was Richards policy as well. its a possibility of course, as are any number of other culprits in an age of instability, family/dinastic loyalty and not a little desperation, but the risks are significant.

i think that Richard had enough problems on his plate without stirring up the ‘euww’ factor of pretending to shag his niece. marrying her off to friendly power was a much easier way to put her out of Henry Tudors reach. that said, his wife and son have died within the last 18 months, he faces rebellion and discontent, some of the people he really counted on to support his regime rebelled against him, the old certainty of the House of York standing united against Lancaster has fallen away, both his brothers are dead and he finds himself in the top chair in a way thats not been the case before. in that position, all manner of previously silly ideas might start to look sensible or even desirable. Elizabeth of York is accounted by all as very, very attractive, and its is claimed in some of the source material that they were personally close (as neice and uncle). her father is dead, her brothers are dead/missing, and her mother is trying to flog her off to some welsh/french nobody – Richard is claimed to be personally affable, faithfull to his (now dead) wife, solicitous to his own children and those of his brothers (apart, obviously, from the ones who’ve disappeared..), a capable soldier, trusted brother, a ‘good lord’ to the north and a fair judge and decent administrator. people in very desperate/odd situations feel emotions we probably don’t understand and make decisions they otherwise wouldn’t make…

am about to read Josephine Wilkinson’s Richard III – we’ll see what she has to say.

June 28, 2013
5:21 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Did Anne order the death of the princes? You have got to be kidding me!
No, Richard was not going to marry Elizabeth of York. No again to the affair.
What is it with PG and these historical women? She goes from one era to another trashing the women.

June 28, 2013
7:09 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yes he was the idea was that there was to be a double allience between England and Portugal, in the sence of that Richard would marry Joanna, and Elizabeth would marry Manuel 1, however these plans were scuppered come the death of Richard at Bosworth.
It wasn’t uncommon for a man to marry his niece back then, or indeed a Nephew marrying his Aunt. Although today we view the whole thing as sickening and incestious. The Hapsburg family for instance interbred for years and as a result nearly all the children had some sort of genetic defect. the most common feature of this would be what was called the Hapsburg Jaw. This inbreeding did eventually finish off the Hapsburg line of kings in the end.
All that would be needed to make these marriages legal would have been a dispensation from the Pope.
This marriage would have been called an Avunculate marriage.
To state a few examples of where a niece and an uncle married, or a Nephew and Aunt have married
Leonidas, King of Sparta and his half-niece, Gorgo[4]
Roman Emperor Claudius and his fourth wife and niece, Agrippina the Younger
Vietnamese Prince Tran Hung Dao and his consort and paternal aunt, Princess Thien Thanh
Joanna of Naples and her nephew, King Ferdinand II of Naples (1496)
Philip II of Spain and his niece, Anna of Austria (fourth wife) (1570)
Ferdinand II, Archduke of Austria, and his niece, Anne Juliana Gonzaga (1582)
Chiefess Kapohauola and her nephew, Chief Kakaʻe
Philip IV of Spain and his niece, Mariana of Austria (second wife) (1646)
Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet), lived in concubinage with his niece, Marie Louise Mignot Denis.[5]
Prince Augustus Ferdinand of Prussia and his niece Margravine Elisabeth Louise of Brandenburg-Schwedt (1755)
Pedro III of Portugal and his niece Maria I of Portugal (1760)
Infanta Benedita and her nephew, José, Prince of Brazil (1777)
King Kamehameha the Great of Hawaiʻi and his niece, Queen Keōpūolani (c.1796)
Sir John Acton, 6th Baronet, Prime Minister of Naples and his niece Marianna Acton (1799)
Francis IV, Duke of Modena, and his niece, Maria Beatrice of Savoy (titular queen of England and Scotland according to the Jacobite succession) (1812)
Infante Carlos, Count of Molina, and his niece, Infanta Maria Francisca of Portugal (1816), and later his niece, Maria Teresa of Portugal (1838)
Kamehameha II and his half-niece Kalani Pauahi
Ferdinand VII of Spain and his niece Maria Isabel of Portugal (1816), and later his niece Maria Christina of the Two Sicilies (1829)
Infante Francisco de Paula of Spain and his niece Princess Luisa Carlotta of Naples and Sicily (1819)
James Mayer de Rothschild, founder of the French branch of the Rothschild banking family, and his niece Betty Salomon von Rothschild (c.1825).
Richard von Metternich (son of the famous Austrian Chancellor) and his niece, Pauline von Metternich (1856).
Amadeo I of Spain and his niece, Maria Letizia Bonaparte (second wife) (1888)
Porfirio Díaz, president of Mexico (1876–80, 1884–1911), and his niece Delfina Ortega Diaz[citation needed]
Henryk Sienkiewicz, Polish novelist, and his niece, Maria Babska.[6] (1904)
Klara Hitler, daughter of Johann Pölzl and Johanna Hiedler and Adolf Hitler’s mother. Either her grandfather Johann Nepomuk Hiedler or his brother was likely her husband Alois Hitler’s biological father. Moreover, Johann was her future husband’s step-uncle. Even after they were married, Klara still called her husband “uncle”.

And bear in mind that Egyptian sociaty hadn’t got a problem with marrying brother and sister. King Tut married his half sister, Cleopatra married her brother. and to make things even worse the Khufu (The great pyramid fame) Actually married 2 of his own daughters, and is said to have fathered children with them.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

June 28, 2013
7:25 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sharon said

Did Anne order the death of the princes? You have got to be kidding me!
No, Richard was not going to marry Elizabeth of York. No again to the affair.
What is it with PG and these historical women? She goes from one era to another trashing the women.

Yep you are right there Sharon. It’s not enough that she portrays both Anne and Elizabeth as 2 sex crazed murdering nyphomaniacs. Made me laugh when she said in one of her interviews “But I like Anne truly I do but she was probably almost certainly guilty of adultery against Henry.” BAH HUMBUG. Bloody woman lives in cloud cuckoo land.
It’s a wonder she hasn’t come out with Queen Victoria was really a man called Neville, and he fathered 9 children with Prince Albert who was really a woman called Gladys. Shut your trap Boleyn don’t want to be giving S.W.M.N.B.N any ideas now do we.. LOL

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

June 28, 2013
11:37 pm
Avatar
Steve Callaghan
UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 146
Member Since:
May 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Whenever I see her on tv, I always get the impression that PG is in love with herself.

June 29, 2013
11:33 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

SteveJ said

Whenever I see her on tv, I always get the impression that PG is in love with herself.

She is. Steve, she only needs a a bowl of water in front of her to be like Narcissus, he fell in love with his reflection from a lake.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

July 17, 2013
1:59 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

I’ve just finished The Kingmaker’s daughter by S.W.M.N.B.N. It’s the usually fantasy that one has come to expect from her, but she does raise some very intriquing points in it.
Did Anne (Richard’s wife) order the deaths of the Princes.?
Was Richard having a sexual affair with Elizabeth of York?
Did Richard intend to marry Elizabeth if he had won Bosworth?

I do not remember Anne Neville ordering the Prince’s death in that book? Gregory has always firmly accused Margaret Beaufort and the Tudors of engineering the Prince’s murders and plays that out in the Red Queen.
As for his plans to marry his niece, his peers heard of it and forced him to withdraw it, according to the Croyland Chronicle. Also apparently a letter of Elizabeth’s was discovered which proves she was willing to marry her uncle, I haven’t really read enough on it to draw any conclusions, but there is contemporary evidence the rumour existed in any case, and Richard was forced to make a public denial. Whether the chronicle is 100% accurate is another matter.
As for the sexual relationship, it makes for drama. Obviously it didn’t happen. It makes sense continuity-wise, a relationship between the two anyway, as I’ve just finished White Princess and see where she went with it. I still don’t like it.

July 17, 2013
3:23 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I suppose what I should of said was that S.W.M.N.B.N implied that Anne Neville was to blame for the Princes deaths? There was a conversation between her and the Keeper of the Tower, in which the keeper asked her what she thought he should do with the Princes, I think it was him that made the suggestion that they should be got rid of to safeguard Richard’s throne and that she nodded in agreement which was taken by the keeper that she agreed with him. I can’t have taken a lot of notice as I was probably starting to drift off into a coma, from reading it.

I agree with you about the Red Queen S.W.M.N.B.N did lay the blame squarely at Margaret Beaufort’s Hand, and I will agree that she had as much to gain by their deaths as Richard did, perhaps more so, but I cannot accept that she was responsible for their deaths, any more than Richard was.
I still feel that Buckingham was the mastermind behind the mystery of the missing Princes, I don’t know why it’s just my gut reaction.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

July 17, 2013
7:43 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I hope this is okay. I took this from a Q&A on another page. Susan Higginbotham’s answer about the rumor of Richard and Elizabeth.

There were rumors after the death of Richard III’s wife that Richard planned to marry Elizabeth of York. Richard had to publicly deny the rumors.

The story that Elizabeth of York was in love with her uncle comes from George Buck, who claimed in 1619 to have seen a letter from Elizabeth of York to the Duke of Norfolk in which she asked Norfolk “to be a mediator for her in the cause of [the marriage] to the king who (as she wrote) was her only joy and her maker in the world, and that she was his hart, in thoughts, and in all, and then she intimated that the better half of Feb was past, and that she feared the queen would never [die].” The original letter itself doesn’t survive, so we have no way of knowing how accurately Buck was recalling it. To make matters worse, Buck’s damaged manuscript was corrupted by the editorial efforts of his great-nephew. The letter can be interpreted to mean that Elizabeth was asking Norfolk to help promote her marriage to the not-yet-widowed king, or it can be interpreted to mean that Elizabeth was asking that Norfolk help in her efforts to get Richard to arrange her marriage to someone else.

There is evidence that Richard was negotiating for Portuguese marriages for both himself and for Elizabeth after the death of Richard’s wife.

July 17, 2013
8:17 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Was it possible Sharon that she was more than willing to marry Henry Tulip, and her letter to Norfolk was to get him to help her to get Richard to agree to her marriage to Henry Tulip. Richard as we know from the minute he had claimed the throne was determined to get rid of Henry Tulip once and for all, and perhaps the reason to why he had Elizabeth constantly with him is to prevent her from escaping from England and marrying Henry Tulip without Royal permission. Richard I believe felt that he was the better man in the battle stakes line and indeed he was he was literely cut his teeth in the heat of battle. Henry so I have heard when he landed at Milford Haven was viewed with suspision and people were reluctant to follow him. I can understand that after all to the locals this man (Henry) was completely unknown to them. I believe that Richard would have easily beaten Henry Tulip’s rag tag army if Lord Stanley and his affinity hadn’t turned against Richard just when they were needed most.
History repeats again where Richard is concerned, because didn’t Edward (his brother) negotiate with Portugal concerning a possible bride for himself before admitting he had married Elizabeth Woodville. and King John did the same thing as well. His Portugal bride deal was all but rubber stamped, sealed and parcelled up all ready to be put on a boat to England when he said “No can do pal I’ve already married Isabella of Angouleme”

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

July 18, 2013
1:30 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Thanks Sharon, and I’m sure Susan won’t mind. That makes it clear at least.

Bo I actually don’t remember that part in the book, it’s been ages since I read it. I suppose she’s playing out the act of murder from different points of view there and who feels responsible.

As for who was actually responsible, that’s a matter for the Richard III society VS mankind.

July 18, 2013
5:33 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

As for who was actually responsible, that’s a matter for the Richard III society VS mankind.

Not all Richardians think he’s totally innocent of every crime thrown his way..including the deaths of the Princes..we are in the minorty though.

It's always bunnies.

July 18, 2013
9:21 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don’t think the documentary The King in the Car Park did the Richard III society any favours in the way of members being unbiased Anyanka, I nearly chucked the telly out the window when that woman sobbed through the entire thing. As an aside I’m attempting to join my local branch but they don’t seem to have grasped the concept of email, I may have join the UK branch.

Meanwhile, this is fun

http://www.susanhigginbotham.c…..loucester/

I have to wholeheartedly admit to number 5.

July 18, 2013
12:59 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

I don’t think the documentary The King in the Car Park did the Richard III society any favours in the way of members being unbiased Anyanka, I nearly chucked the telly out the window when that woman sobbed through the entire thing. As an aside I’m attempting to join my local branch but they don’t seem to have grasped the concept of email, I may have join the UK branch.

Meanwhile, this is fun

http://www.susanhigginbotham.c…..loucester/

I have to wholeheartedly admit to number 5.

Yes I agree with that Olga, I must admit there were a few bite marks in my sofa, over her continued blubbing everytime they did anything. I also feel that she got stroppy and threw a hissy fit when they told her that Richard did have a deformaty. Personally I am glad they found out that he did have a deformaty, because it showed in my opinion, having a disability is no barrier to doing what you want to do. Richard obvisously refused to allow it to control his life, and was a fierce fighter who died on the battlefield, rather than sitting on his horse watching and directing his troops he got stuck in. Good for him.
Little bit of trivia here but another one of those disability being no barrier jobs. There was back in the dark ages of Britain’s turbulant and very stormy past a king who was called Ivar the boneless the reason being that he was a cripple and had to be carried every where on a sheild, but even so he was a good king, and his army conquerored York.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 214

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2337

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 933

DuchessofBrittany: 846

Mya Elise: 781

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 427592

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1712

Posts: 23076

Newest Members:

DennisDorie, vitushatault, oghmaniusVom, Urocchxae, Puimignog, Emma3456

Administrators: Claire: 959