"If" Richard III had won at Bosworth? | Page 2 | 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?
July 18, 2013
3:07 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said
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.

Nicely put. I remember she went outside and bawled after they told he his spine was curved, I mean is that necessary? Not to mention shallow?

July 18, 2013
6:00 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn well said!
Olga,
At first, I wanted to slap her. She looked so shocked, I was sure she was going to say that wasn’t him. Of course, she may have been thinking what I was thinking. My first thought was that his curve was quite severe and he would have had pain all of his life, and there was little they could do to ease his pain. And yet, as Boleyn so nicely put it, he was able to wield a sword with the best of them, and he died a warrior’s death. Of course, I am not in love with Richard, nor have I been looking for him as long as she was, so I didn’t cry.

July 23, 2013
7:16 am
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The film company made 60 hours of film relating to the discovery of Richard’s remains which they cut down to around 60 minutes for The King in the Car Park. I think they wanted to show Philippa in a particular light – perhaps the human interest side – so they showed all the bits where she was emotional. I think you have to put her reactions into context. She had, almost single-handedly, persuaded the University authorities to undertake the dig – and they were convinced they would not find him. She had to organise last minute fund-raising when a sponsor pulled out. She had been working on the idea for around 4-5 years.

I think she is entitled to be a little emotional at times, don’t you?

I heard Philippa give a talk about the whole thing and she was philosophical about the way she was portrayed in the documentary. She thinks the ends justifies the means.

July 24, 2013
2:14 pm
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 611
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I can’t help feeling sorry for Richard. All he was trying to do was make his nephews all warm and comfy. It must have come as a terrible shock to him when someone pointed out that pillows are usually placed underneath the head and not on top.

July 28, 2013
4:23 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I can understand Richard’s reasoning in taking the throne, but I don’t agree on how he did it. It’s seems as if he had a personal vendetta against Elizabeth Woodville, although from what I have read she really didn’t do anything to harm Richard. The fact that she named her second son Richard in my eyes meant that she was in no way a threat to him.
Richard’s reason for taking the throne was a good one, after the hassles of the Wars of the Roses, the last thing England needed was a boy on the throne. England was a peace for the first time in many years, and with a boy on the throne there would be conflict. The Woodville family were emmencely powerful, so the Boy king would have been under a lot of pressure to rule as his mother and uncles dictated, and not in a way that could be of benefit to England and it’s people.
Richard did what he felt was right for England, and as a result got slated, as this evil, twisted sick uncle, who murdered his nephews who stood in his way to power and glory.
Crap I don’t believe that Richard murdered his Nephews. I’m sure if that was true, Elizabeth Woodville would no way allow her daughters anywhere near him or his court.
Margaret Beaufort. Would she be capable of ordering the death of 2 innocent children? Would her concious and her devoted nature to the church allow her to order their deaths without a backwards glance?
And just what would happen if Richard had won Bosworth? Would Richard blame Henry Tulip and his mother for the Princes deaths?
It’s my opinion that the Duke of Buckingham had a hand in it somewhere. He was after all Margaret Beaufort’s stepson, and therefore Henry Tulip’s step-brother. Had she made promises to him that if he killed the boy King and his brother that Henry Tulip would give him power beyond his wildest dreams?
Someone killed them that’s for sure, but I don’t suppose we will ever really know.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

July 28, 2013
5:06 pm
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don’t think the Duke of Buckingham was Margaret Beaufort’s step son. Her second husband was a Stafford (a relative of the Duke of Buckingham) but he wasn’t the Duke’s father.

Interestingly, the Duke was Elizabeth Woodville’s brother-inlaw.

July 29, 2013
12:15 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Thank you Jasmine. By coincidence too Margaret Beaufort, became sister in law to Catherine Woodville, as she married Jasper Tudor.
The Wars of the Roses history is really complex, and extremely messy. I don’t suppose we will ever really know what went on during that period.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

July 29, 2013
4:41 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

I can understand Richard’s reasoning in taking the throne, but I don’t agree on how he did it. It’s seems as if he had a personal vendetta against Elizabeth Woodville, although from what I have read she really didn’t do anything to harm Richard. The fact that she named her second son Richard in my eyes meant that she was in no way a threat to him.

Given that both Edward’s and Elizabeth’s fathers were named Richard as well as one of Elizabeth’s son’s from her first marriage and one her brothers was named Richard, I doubt if the young Prince Richard was named soley for his sake.

As queen, Elizabeth had rapidly and ruthlessly made advantegous matches for her maternal family by inter-marrying them to heirs, heiress and dowagers.

With such a powerbase, Richard would be right in fearing for his life should the Greys/Woodville family manage to take control of the young king and his parliment.

eta especially as he’d already seen who his brother George was treated by them.

It's always bunnies.

July 29, 2013
6:21 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said

Boleyn said

I can understand Richard’s reasoning in taking the throne, but I don’t agree on how he did it. It’s seems as if he had a personal vendetta against Elizabeth Woodville, although from what I have read she really didn’t do anything to harm Richard. The fact that she named her second son Richard in my eyes meant that she was in no way a threat to him.

Given that both Edward’s and Elizabeth’s fathers were named Richard as well as one of Elizabeth’s son’s from her first marriage and one her brothers was named Richard, I doubt if the young Prince Richard was named soley for his sake.

As queen, Elizabeth had rapidly and ruthlessly made advantegous matches for her maternal family by inter-marrying them to heirs, heiress and dowagers.

With such a powerbase, Richard would be right in fearing for his life should the Greys/Woodville family manage to take control of the young king and his parliment.

eta especially as he’d already seen who his brother George was treated by them.

You are right there Anyanka. It make me wonder just what Elizabeth Woodville’s motives were in arranging such matches? She certainly seemed to allow her royal power to go to the head. I wonder who she had in mind to marry her son Edward if he had been allowed to rule? As daft as it sounds is just possible that there may have been an allience given time between England and Spain, when Boy King Eddy reached his majority? Now that would certainly put the Cat among the pigeons, wouldn’t it?

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

July 29, 2013
7:07 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

Thank you Jasmine. By coincidence too Margaret Beaufort, became sister in law to Catherine Woodville, as she married Jasper Tudor.
The Wars of the Roses history is really complex, and extremely messy. I don’t suppose we will ever really know what went on during that period.

There were two Margaret Beaufort’s. Stafford’s mother born 1427 and Henry VII’s mother born 1443.
Stafford’s mom’s father was Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset. died 1455
Henry’s Mom’s father was John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset. died 1444
The dad’s were brothers.

August 1, 2013
10:47 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Jasmine said
I think she is entitled to be a little emotional at times, don’t you?

I heard Philippa give a talk about the whole thing and she was philosophical about the way she was portrayed in the documentary. She thinks the ends justifies the means.

She is certainly entitled to be emotional Jasmine. I am well aware of how completely involved she was with the dig. I stand by my comments. I was perfectly sympathetic for the first quarter and thoroughly sick of her and the whispered conversations by the end of it.

Anyanka said
With such a powerbase, Richard would be right in fearing for his life should the Greys/Woodville family manage to take control of the young king and his parliment.

eta especially as he’d already seen who his brother George was treated by them.

I can’t really feel much sympathy for George. I also don’t believe the Woodvilles were entirely responsible for his execution. Edward had to do something about him at some point, he was poisonous.

Boleyn said
It make me wonder just what Elizabeth Woodville’s motives were in arranging such matches? She certainly seemed to allow her royal power to go to the head.

Her motivation? If I had 12 or 13 brothers and sisters I’d be trying to marry them off too. Absolutely to nobility, what’s the use of being a queen if you can’t exercise power? Same sort of thing people said about Anne Boleyn a the time. Nobility at the time would of course complain when another eligible noble was snatched up, they were all after each other’s wealth.
I think people tend to forget where the buck stops. And it usually wore pants.

August 5, 2013
10:02 pm
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

the motivation for the marriages was not just material gain, but protection – by marrying into as many of the most powerful families of the time as possible the Woodvilles become very difficult to attack at some stage in the future because they will be closely related to almost everyone that matters.

it, for me, underlines quite how unpopular and indeed detested by the old nobility they were – that King Edward, usually a reasonably good politician, decided to press for these (in some cases scandalous) marriages shows how critical he believed integrating the Woodvilles into the nobility was. if he was prepared to take the political and personal heat that came with them, this famously easy going King must have believed them important.

it may well also be an indication that the famous, and unprovable, plight-troth with Elanor Butler is true – Edward may well have forseen that had it come out, the Woodvilles would need to have a wide spread of very powerful friends at court in order to survive.

August 6, 2013
9:02 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I wonder if these marriages were more to do with changing sides? Lets face it there was no doubt before Elizabeth Woodville married Edward she and her family were stauch Lancastians. Her husband was killed by the Yorkist Faction, and she and her family were more or less left without a pot to piss in. Therefore Elizabeth had no choice but to throw herself on the mercy of Edward and hope that he would at least restore the Grey land and titles on her children by her husband, after all they weren’t to blame for their father’s perfidy.
That Edward fell in love or lust with Elizabeth, married her and made his Queen was a bonus. She was far from safe however in opinion, so perhaps many believed her purpose was to seduce Edward and then kill him to bring back Henry 6th. In order to dispel those fears she quickly arranged matches for her family with the nobels and family of the Yorkists, it was her way of saying “I hate Henry 6th and the Lancastian faction. but I love the Yorkist faction and Edward 4th” As the saying goes “In for a penny in for a pound” If she was to be considered a Yorkist then the whole family would have to do likewise. The Woodvilles certainly regained and added to the wealth they had when they were Lancastians of that there can be no doubt, But I wonder what would have happened if Warwick had fully succeeded in putting Henry 6th and then Henry’s son Edward back on the throne in 1470. Would Elizabeth and her family turned their coats again?

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 6, 2013
6:23 pm
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said …But I wonder what would have happened if Warwick had fully succeeded in putting Henry 6th and then Henry’s son Edward back on the throne in 1470. Would Elizabeth and her family turned their coats again?

given that Warwick chopped two of their heads off at the first opportunity, i rather doubt that they’d have been given the opportunity to swap sides again!

we know that one of Warwicks reasons for rebelling was his hatred/jealousy of the Woodvilles, and the other power behind Henry VI was the famously forgiving and non-partisan Margaret of Anjou – realistically the male Woodvilles are going to go to the block and the females to a dungeon or a nunnery.

i doubt that a need to ‘fit in’ with the Yorkist nobility was the mover behind the marriages – as the Queens family they need no protection while the King lives. when he’s dead however…

August 6, 2013
8:50 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said
I wonder if these marriages were more to do with changing sides? Lets face it there was no doubt before Elizabeth Woodville married Edward she and her family were stauch Lancastians. Her husband was killed by the Yorkist Faction, and she and her family were more or less left without a pot to piss in. Therefore Elizabeth had no choice but to throw herself on the mercy of Edward and hope that he would at least restore the Grey land and titles on her children by her husband, after all they weren’t to blame for their father’s perfidy.

Elizabeth’s first husband was killed at St Albans, a few years before Edward took the throne. Her husband’s allegiances had nothing to do with her losing her jointure, her mother-in-law contested it even though she had two small boys to look after.
As for the Woodvilles, as they had surrendered to Edward and sworn allegiance they hadn’t lost anything to the crown as far as I am aware. They were simply not that well off to begin with. Jaquetta’s first husband had initially left her a generous jointure, although Henry VI fined her a thousand pounds for marrying without permission which left quite a dent in that. the land he left her in France was whittled away over the years due to wars.
Warwick hated them for years before Elizabeth married Edward, I agree with Bob, he was hankering to destroy Jacquetta and Richard. They would have had no chance at all if he seized power. They were lucky they couldn’t/wouldn’t execute women for treason back then, that’s probably why Warwick tried to slap her with the witchcraft accusation.

August 6, 2013
11:38 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Thinking about this you are quite right Olga and Bob.
After all when Warwick did succeed in restoring Henry 6th to the throne in 1470/71 the first thing he did after capturing Edward 4th was to imprison and bring charges against Jacquette and I feel he would have succeeded in either getting her burned or hung as a witch, that in turn would have put pressure on Edward to possibly bring charges against Elizabeth for witchcraft too. Remember Henry the 4th’s Queen Joanna of Navarre was accused of using witchcraft to kill Henry 5th she was convicted of these crimes and was imprisoned for pretty much the rest of her life.
If Warwick had perhaps been maybe 6 months more to rule England (loosely worded) I believe he could have quite possibly found a way to wipe out the whole Woodville clan, and maybe get his hands on his lands of the Woodville lands too.
Why did Warwick hate the Woodvilles? I know Warwick was somewhat miffed at Edward marrying Elizabeth, but surely there was more than just a marriage that had caused such hatred between the Woodvilles and Warwick?
Was Warwick pissed off because he had hoped to marry Anne to Edward so that he would have both his daughters in the Royal house? if Edward didn’t work out as King or died as a result of an accident or in battle, without heirs from Anne he had a back up plan in Isabella and George?
Honestly these what I call petty arguements between houses were really pathetic at times and the thing is these blood fueds could gone on for decades, or even hundreds of years. They could be started by the most petty things too, such as chance remark taken out of all context (Chinese Whispers). All I can say is thank whatever we have matured since then, and learnt the meaning of sticks and stones.
These days we respect another persons point of view even if it doesn’t mirror our own. In short we’ve grown up

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 20, 2013
11:07 am
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said …They could be started by the most petty things too, such as chance remark taken out of all context (Chinese Whispers). All I can say is thank whatever we have matured since then, and learnt the meaning of sticks and stones.
These days we respect another persons point of view even if it doesn’t mirror our own. In short we’ve grown up

not really, whats happened is the the stakes for us are markedly lower than they were for them – so we get less upset and less fearful about losing.

when Tony Blair stopped being Prime Minster (and this goes for all PM’s in all democratic countries..) he got a book deal and a protection team, he lives in a nice house and his children went on to live successful lives – indeed one of his children may be about to become an MP. he can walk the streets, journalists and politicians are always seeking his opinion, and he charges the value of your house to give a 20 minute speech to 300 people.

when Richard III stopped being king he was hacked to death, his body was stripped and displayed naked in public for 2 days, he was then buried in a hole at least a foot too small for him, and he may not even had had a funeral service. his two remaining children then lived at the ‘pleasure’ of his successor, and its possible, though not certain, that his son John Plantganet was executed. in addition, he was reviled for the next 500 years on the basis of some somewhat dodgy ‘history’.

one of those endings provokes a ‘meh’, and ‘i wish my redundancy was that pleasant’, the other is an ending you’d willingly shed blood to prevent. we haven’t got more civilied – look at Syria – we’ve just devised a way of losing less if the other guy wins.

March 12, 2014
5:42 pm
Avatar
Joycie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 5
Member Since:
March 11, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

One of the the great what ifs of English history, Obiously there would have been no Henry VIII, no Anne Boleyn and no Tudor dynasty. England would perhaps still be a Catholic power and the Crown considerably less powerful than it became under Henry VII and VIII. This is not to say Richard would have been a bad king had he not died, but the course of histroy would have been difernet. Any challenging argument?

March 12, 2014
5:52 pm
Avatar
Joycie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 5
Member Since:
March 11, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

One of the great what ifs of English history. There would have been no Tudors, no Henry VIII and no Anne Boleyn. England would perhaps still be a Catholic power, for there would have been no reformation, and the Crown less powerful than it became under Henry VII and VIII. Or perhaps Richard would have been as meticulous with his finances and as ambitious for England?

March 13, 2014
11:05 am
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Joycie said …Or perhaps Richard would have been as meticulous with his finances and as ambitious for England?

sadly i think the evidence suggests that Richard was much less careful with money than H7 – not particularly in terms of spending it, but in terms of collecting it – on the other hand it appears his appetite for the administration of justice was significant. he was known to be personally hostile to France, so its possible there might have been a resurgence of the French wars – though being both an able and experienced battle commander, and the experience of his Scottish expedition of 1482 (to put a proxy king on the Scottish throne, however when R3 got to Edinburgh he immediately realised that the proxy was not going to be able to hold power and he made a deal with King James III instead) he may well have decided that such a war was a non-runner, and gone for a more diplomatic strategy of alliances with the surrounding countries and funding civil war within France instead.

his appontment of his son, John, to be Captain of Calais is however an indicator that he was not indifferent to Calais or the wider French scene.

Anne Boleyn would possibly still be a figure of some hIstorical importance – she was the Grand-Daughter and Great-Grandaughter of the Howard Dukes of Norfolk: they were both the closest and most important friends and supporters of Richard III. i think i’ve read somewhere that R3 (as Richard, Duke of Gloucester) stood as Godparent to AB’s mother, Elizabeth Howard – though quite where i can’t recall – this relationship would put the future AB right at the center of the Richardian/Yorkist court.

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: 427586

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1711

Posts: 23075

Newest Members:

Goldyy, klftault, Opilacetault, 415berna, modwynVom, Thelmaaledo

Administrators: Claire: 959