Richard III and the Battle of Bosworth: A "What If?"


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
lady of hay said:
Does anyone have any thoughts on what would have happened had Richard, not Henry Tudor , won the battle of Bosworth in 1485 ? Tony Robinson did an interesting programme called "Englands real royal family", about who they think should be ruling the country. However this programme was based on the assumption that Edward IV was illigitimate and the fact that Richard had lost at Bosworth.
I would be interested to know what other members opinions are:)
Click to expand...
The short answer is that Richard III was very young when he died. Had he won the battle, he would have remarried and built his own dynasty.
------------------
On you tube it is Britain's Real Monarch.
----------
BACKSTORY
Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York had four sons, and three daughters.
1) Edward IV, King of England
2) Edmund, Earl of Rutland
3) George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence
4) Richard III, King of England
As the oldest son, Edward IV, became king until he died. In modern times, when he died the throne would go to his oldest sons and then to his oldest daughter. But after Edward's death both of his sons vanished after being imprisoned in the Tower. At the time, there was no precedent about a woman inheriting the throne. So Richard III took over the throne from his niece Elizabeth.
The death of Richard III meant that he could not try and father another son. The throne in modern law would go to Elizabeth (daughter of Edward IV). But Henry VII took the throne. He had parliament crown him firstly "By Right of Conquest", but to solidify his claim by marrying Elizabeth. He did not make her the monarch, but her bloodline added to the claim of legitimacy of their children.
The rumors that Edward IV was illegitimate were widespread at the time. Those rumors were chronicled by Shakespeare. One story had his mother telling people that her son was a bastard because she was angry at him for his choice of bride.
If Edward IV was illegitimate, then so was Elizabeth. The decision of Henry VII to marry Elizabeth did nothing to strengthen his claim.
The TV show followed the bloodline (using modern rules of primogeniture) through George Plantaganet, the only brother who had a son who survived him.
====================
While the TV show was entertaining it was very annoying in one respect. Tony Robbins pretended like he was making all these discoveries. In reality, the story of this bloodline is extremely well known to history.
 
The boys were taken to the Tower because that is where a new monarch went to prepare for their coronation and from where the new monarch left for the Abbey to be crowned. When Richard was proclaimed King the princes were still alive. They were last seen in August and he was proclaimed King before that.

The death of Richard III meant that he could not try and father another son. The throne in modern law would go to Elizabeth (daughter of Edward IV). But Henry VII took the throne. He had parliament crown him firstly "By Right of Conquest", but to solidify his claim by marrying Elizabeth. He did not make her the monarch, but her bloodline added to the claim of legitimacy of their children.
The rumors that Edward IV was illegitimate were widespread at the time. Those rumors were chronicled by Shakespeare. One story had his mother telling people that her son was a bastard because she was angry at him for his choice of bride.
Click to expand...
The story of the illigitimacy of Edward V and his brother and sister was enshrined in law - Titulus Regulus. The rumours about Edward IV were known in some circles but it didn't impact on the position of Richard - his claim was based on the supposed betrothment of his brother that hadn't been broken at the time of his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. A betrothment, in those days was as powerful as a marriage.

Shakespeare was no historian and he couldn't present things any differently anyway - he was writing in the reign of Henry VII's granddaughter. Had he written that Richard III was the rightful King or anything else that cast doubt on the right of the Tudors would have landed him in the Tower.


If Edward IV was illegitimate, then so was Elizabeth. The decision of Henry VII to marry Elizabeth did nothing to strengthen his claim.
Click to expand...
It did in the sense that Henry's blood claim was very weak compared to Elizabeth's except that she had been declared illigitimate by the parliament - and Henry had the copies of that law destroyed as otherwise he was marrying someone who was illigitimate and that wouldn't help him anyway but... the marriage united the two warring families (York and Lancaster) and meant that the two sides could share the next heir as one of theirs. Not the first time in history a usurper has married a woman from the deposed dynasty to unite the two in the heir (c.f. Xerxes being the son of Darius and the grandson of Cyrus the Great in ancient Persia)

The TV show followed the bloodline (using modern rules of primogeniture) through George Plantaganet, the only brother who had a son who survived him.
====================
While the TV show was entertaining it was very annoying in one respect. Tony Robbins pretended like he was making all these discoveries. In reality, the story of this bloodline is extremely well known to history.
Click to expand...
And of course totally ignored the Act of Settlement by which parliament decided the fate of the crown.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DNA on the Bones

I can't understand why HM would not to a DNA test on the bones. It could be done privately (perhaps it has been done, but the results not released). Such conspiracy.

Maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA enables researchers to trace maternal lineage far back in time. Because this type of DNA is transmitted from mother to child (both male and female), it can be a useful tool in genealogical research into a person's maternal line.

Perhaps HM doesn't want it done, as it would only reveal that she was related to the bones, but would never know who they REALLY were. Let sleeping dogs lie (mtDNA has traced today's dogs way back thousands of years to living wolves today).

Thank you all for this most interesting thread.
 
Iluvbertie said:
And of course totally ignored the Act of Settlement by which parliament decided the fate of the crown.
Click to expand...
(A) Even people with only a glimmer of knowledge of British history know that the present monarchy is not the senior line, that in fact parliament passed over 50 plus people with stronger blood claim to specify that future monarchs would come from Sophia of Hanover.
(B) Given that this Queen is the correct descendant since 1714, you know that someone else is the true senior line. Before watching the TV show you just didn't know who was that person.
(C) If genealogists have tracked 2.3 million different bloodlines from William the Conqueror to Prince Williams, the idea that they lost track of the senior male preference primogeniture line is ludicrous. The TV show tries to sell the idea that if it wasn't for Tony Robinson's research the bloodline would have remain undiscovered. In reality, it was a well known bloodline to genealogists that Tony Robinson made famous to the general public.
(D) The fact that the bloodline from George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence made the Tudors nervous is also part of every textbook. Henry the 7th and Henry the 8th managed to kill the first three generations in some of the most famous executions of the Tudor era. The execution the last of the direct line Plantaganets was a priority for Henry the 7th. The execution of the Catholic martyr, Margaret Pole, is front and center in every story of Henry the 8th. With the Stuarts taking control of the monarchy, the alternative bloodline began to fade in importance.
(E) The politics of the TV show bothered me a lot. Had they made the TV special a few years earlier it would have ended with an old countess, who faithfully sat in the House of Lords for decades, guarding her family heritage, even though the money was completely lost in the early 20th century. By waiting until she died, they could end the search with her son, who had run away to the Australian Outback as a teenager, and was a dedicated Republican. You get the feeling that Tony Robinson, a dedicated republican, was waiting for the mother to die.
(F) The implication of the TV show that it ended in a "King Ralph" scenario, where some poor fat slob is told that he is now the British King. While Michael lived in a little house in the Australian Outback, he knew that he was an Earl, and he knew his bloodline. He couldn't help but notice that his surname, "Hastings" was one of the most prominent in English history. At one point he complained about his mother and aunt being obsessed with the bloodline and trying to regain the titles that had been lost over the years.
===============
All that said, I did enjoy the TV special, and I encourage you to watch it. It does provide an interesting view of history, the acquisition and loss of great family fortunes, and the politics of Britain throughout the last centuries. Keep in mind a few things:

(1) Henry the 7th was king primarily by Right of Conquest. The status of his wife was important to the politics of keeping the peace at the end of th 15th century.
(2) Male preference primogeniture (MPP) was a system that evolved with many bumps. King John, murdered his nephew to defeat his rival claim to the throne. Today the nephew would be king. Applying MPP backwards throughout centuries back to William the Conqueror is an exercise in logic, not an alternative history
(3) According to English common law, if you raise a child as your own, it is your own. Illegitimacy cannot be claimed years later, or especially posthumously.

In general I enjoy alternate histories. It makes you wonder about crucial moments in time, and how they can change everything.
 
Last edited:
I assume English law is similar to American law when it comes to determining illegitimacy. If a child is born to a married woman, it is presumed to be the father's and is always legitimate. If the same holds true in England, then Edward IV, born of a marriage, was legitimate. This means the television host is just out to shake the royal tree and cause mischief.

This is why it was so important to kings, and their courtiers, that their queens be faithful. The allegations against Anne Boleyn, that she was unfaithful to Henry VIII, amounted to treason and led to her death. History will never know if a bloodline was always pure. Wasn't there some scandal about Sophia's daughter-in-law being unfaithful and maybe George II was not really George I's son?
 
Actually, most people in the English-speaking world would regard a child born to a woman (who is not actually the husband's child - but some other man's child) as something mischief-making.

A legitimate child can still be due to mischief, obviously - especially from the point of view of the cuckolded husband.

Frankly, as a person whose parents never married, I find the entire distinction artificial. But if it's to be made, let's not stop with simple legal documents. The truth of who engendered the child may be important to some people - just as the documents may be.

Myself, I don't care about the documents, but lying to someone that they're the father when they're not is unethical. It's more than mischief.

Vasillisos Markos said:
I assume English law is similar to American law when it comes to determining illegitimacy. If a child is born to a married woman, it is presumed to be the father's and is always legitimate. If the same holds true in England, then Edward IV, born of a marriage, was legitimate. This means the television host is just out to shake the royal tree and cause mischief.

This is why it was so important to kings, and their courtiers, that their queens be faithful. The allegations against Anne Boleyn, that she was unfaithful to Henry VIII, amounted to treason and led to her death. History will never know if a bloodline was always pure. Wasn't there some scandal about Sophia's daughter-in-law being unfaithful and maybe George II was not really George I's son?
Click to expand...

Current DNA testing can tell "history" this fact. For example, one of the ancient Kings of Denmark (buried next to his mother) turned out not to be her child - he was likely an adoptee/changeling.

Don't be surprised if more of this kind of thing becomes part of history - it's one of the easiest things to ascertain, if people consent to test the remains (which is happening, for a variety of reasons).

One can even tell, in some cases, by testing progeny many generations later (especially male progeny - really quite simple).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vasillisos Markos said:
I assume English law is similar to American law when it comes to determining illegitimacy. If a child is born to a married woman, it is presumed to be the father's and is always legitimate. If the same holds true in England, then Edward IV, born of a marriage, was legitimate. This means the television host is just out to shake the royal tree and cause mischief.

This is why it was so important to kings, and their courtiers, that their queens be faithful. The allegations against Anne Boleyn, that she was unfaithful to Henry VIII, amounted to treason and led to her death. History will never know if a bloodline was always pure. Wasn't there some scandal about Sophia's daughter-in-law being unfaithful and maybe George II was not really George I's son?
Click to expand...

And that part of the Treason Act still exists -that a man who sleeps with the wife of the monarch or wife of the heir to the throne is a traitor (e.g. James Hewitt) but the women is also an accesory to that treason - unless she cries 'rape'.

As for a child born during a marriage being legitimate that is the case so regardless of who actually is Prince Harry's biological father - and I believe that it is Charles - Harry has been accepted as Charles' son by Charles and he was born to a couple who were married at the time so he is legitimate.
 
Last edited:
WOW ! :ohmy:

I have returned to this thread after quite an absence ( doing other things , thought the interest would have died )

I have been given plenty of food for thought ,and the posts have refreshed memories that I had forgotten.
Thank you to you all for continuing the debate here, it has gone one with others that I know for a long time !
 
Little late to the party here but thought I'd post my own theories:
I don't think that Richard killed his nephews. I have read that Edward V had been ill, I believe with an infection of the jaw. I think that the infection spread and Edward died an entirely natural death. I also think that his brother, who was housed with him and most likely used the same dirty linen, drank from the same infected cups etc, caught the infection and also died a natural death. At this point Richard III was between a rock and a hard place. I highly doubt anyone would have believed him if he had come out and said "Unfortunately my nephews got sick and died."
Richard was in a tough spot so I think he just swept it under the proverbial carpet and hoped that once he remarried and produced an heir of his own the rumors and speculation would die down.
I think if he had won Bosworth that is what would have happened. I do think that he would have been a good medieval king, since he had many of the qualities that era looked for in a leader.
I have also always found it very interesting that Elizabeth of York never had anything truly horrid to say about her uncle. And if anyone had an axe to grind she would be the one.
 
I've always thought Richard killed them, he had the most to gain from it. Now as to this death by illness theory, still think that points the finger at Richard because he put them in the place to get sick.
Must say I agree with Lumetqueen from last year; IV never understood the point in playing what if games with history. To me it's like saying " what is red was purple and what if a banana was a plum"
 
XeniaCasaraghi said:
I've always thought Richard killed them, he had the most to gain from it. Now as to this death by illness theory, still think that points the finger at Richard because he put them in the place to get sick.
Must say I agree with Lumetqueen from last year; IV never understood the point in playing what if games with history. To me it's like saying " what is red was purple and what if a banana was a plum"
Click to expand...


What a lot of people forget is that Edward went to the Tower to prepare for his coronation because in those days that is where the monarch left from to go to the Abbey.

Edward was known to be sickly before he ever entered the Tower.
 
So because he went there willingly does that make him any less of a prisoner when he was forced to stay?
Just because a person is sickly doesn't exonerate a suspect for putting them in a situation that exacerbated an illness thus leading to death.
 
Last edited:
I think it's possible that the Duke of Buckingham did them in.


MM
 
XeniaCasaraghi said:
So because he went there willingly does that make him any less of a prisoner when he was forced to stay?
Just because a person is sickly doesn't exonerate a suspect for putting them in a situation that exacerbated an illness thus leading to death.
Click to expand...


Richard didn't put him there - it was where he was expected to go to await his coronation and not to go there would have been the wrong thing to do.

The Tower, in those days, was one of the major London homes of the monarch - it wasn't only a prison as it was to become - but an actual home where the monarch's regularly stayed - particularly as they prepared for their coronations.

Certainly there were prison cells there but the princes were seen playing regularly through the summer of 1483 and then when the summer turned to autumn and the government decided that they were illegitimate people really didn't care - they were 'bastards' and thus had no further interest to the public or powers that be. Even Henry didn't make an issue of their disappearance - probably because he knew that fingers could/would be pointed at him.

Personally I believe that Richard sent them both to the continent - as he knew if they were still in the country if he lost as Henry advanced then they had no hope of surviving.

The passing of Titulus Regius in 1484 only put into legal effect the decisions already reached the year before that the children of Edward IV were illegitimate. With that in effect there was no need to kill the children but there was a reason for Henry to do so - he had no claim once he had that act repealed as the boys, and even Elizabeth had way better claims then he did so he had two choices - if he could get his hands on the boys - kill them and with Elizabeth he could either kill her or marry her - he chose the latter option but he could just as easily have chosen the other option had he wanted to do so and no one would have cared.
 
Last edited:
lady of hay said:
Many years ago, almost 30 , a friend of mine , a medievalist who had studied the "war of the roses" and who sadly is no longer with us, told me that we should not seek to judge the actions of the men of that time by the standards of our own. He said that as we do not live in their times we should not seek to judge at all.
Click to expand...
:previous:
I am sorry that your friend is no longer with you.
He sounds like a very intelligent person.
I like the descripton 'medievalist' - that would be a great person to have at a dinner party!
I agree that we should not judge by our own standards, but it is fun to speculate what would have happened!
May you always enjoy your memories of your time spent with your friend.:flowers:
 
I think had Richard not lost the battle, then Henry Tudor would have to have been executed, along with his Uncle and mentor Jasper and the noble supporters.
Elizabeth of York could have become his second wife, if they got a dispensation from the Pope as she was his neice, (not unheard of during those times ... Grosses me out thinking about it - but as a wise medievalist said ...:previous: refer above post).
Mmm ...
No Tudors = no Henry VIII,
No Tudor Rose :sad: (please join my Tudor Rose Group to discuss them all),
No 6 Wives of ...
No English Church separating from Rome
No Bloody Mary or Elizabeth I
No Stewart connection
No Union Jack
No Great Britain
No Hundreds of books & all those movies too!
Love them or hate them, there really is no denying that the Tudors have had a huge impact on the History of England, Great Britain & her Commonwealth.
The world would be less interesting without having had them so prominently in it, IMO;)
Oh - RIP Richard III ... & I think someone else with a greedy eye towards the throne would have challenged him, unless he could secure his line with an heir, ...but we'll never know!

Midwestern Mom said:
I think it's possible that the Duke of Buckingham did them in.


MM
Click to expand...
:previous:
Yep - he could have "done 'em in", or Richard, or someone acting for the Tudors .......Would'nt it be fun if we had the papparazzi around then:lol:
...No of them would have gotten a moments peace ... and we'd have proof in pictures:ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This idea that just because you are illegitimate meaning you can't become kIng and as a result that exonerates Richard is faulty at best. There have been dozens of men and women who had little claim to a throne and/or were illegitimate who still became king; whether in England or other countries. Frequently countries with monarchs will pull anything out of their butt when it comes to king making. A few centuries after Richard & Henry, England itself asked some 50th cousin 33x removed to sail over from Germany to rule the country rather than the legitimate claimant. I recall hearing a Russian saying; " the only good ex Tsar, is a dead Tsar" and it fits into various other countries who had kings and Queen's. As long as the boys were alive they were a threat to Richard whether he claimed they were bastards or not. The same thing could be said for Henry VII but that only works if the boys weren't dead by the time he arrived in England.
 
You have hit the nail on the head though - parliament made the decision, just as it did in 1701 - to select the best protestant claimant and the great-granddaughter of James I and VI as the future Queen.

In both cases they took account of the political situation in the country and the needs of the country - an adult male with good military credentials over a sickly boy was just what a country tired out by over a century of war needed - someone who could bring them peace. A child king couldn't do that - see what happened with Henry VI as well and that was within living memory so they made the decision to declare the children illegitimate and that was good enough - legitimacy mattered then as today for things like this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry would have had to fear the existence of Edward and Richard IF they were still alive. They disappeared years earlier long before Henry became King and the Battle of Bosworth; those who try to fight for Richard's innocence and put the blame on Henry can't answer where try were for the previous 2yrs. Henry having parliament declare Elizabeth legitimate again would not have been dangerous to Henry if he like everyone else believed her brothers were dead, also being declared illegitimate doesn't necessarily mean you can't become King. The Princes being alive was a threat to both Richard and Henry, only one of them was king during the time when it is believed they were killed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Richard III (1452-1485) and Queen Anne Neville
Replies
6
Views
911
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Blog Real
King Henry V (1386-1422) and Queen Catherine of Valois
Replies
7
Views
1K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Blog Real
King Edward III 'The Confessor' (1003/5-1066) and Queen Edith of Wessex
Replies
3
Views
817
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
T
Complete List of Monarchs and Legitimate Pretenders of the Kingdom of Jerusalem
Replies
4
Views
4K
Troy Thompson
T
Spartica
The genealogy of the House of Valois
Replies
1
Views
4K
Countessmeout
Countessmeout

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom