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

[lady of hay]

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

 

[Lumutqueen]

We shouldn't look at the past and go What if?
What happened, happened.
We can't imagine what will have happened if Richard had won the battle.

 

[Warren]

We shouldn't look at the past and go What if?

Why not? Richard III's defeat by Henry Tudor was a major turning point in English history and therefore the "what if?" question is perfectly legitimate.
It may encourage those members with a knowledge of the period to offer their views and create an interesting discussion. This is what we are - a discussion forum.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I just don't think we should look at the past and go what if?
I don't see the point, what happened happened, we can't change it so why talk about it?

 

[Warren]

If you don't wish to participate in the discussion in a constructive manner then please stand aside and allow other members to do so.

 

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

Well, Richard would have had to kill or have killed Henry Tudor and his relatives.
He would have had to marry again and have children.
And then, govern wisely & well or there would have been others barking at his door!

Larry

 

[Zonk]

Well I am not sure about the governing wisely but I definitely believe that of Richard had defeated Henry at the Battle of Bosworth, the possiblity exists of another English Civil War. Henry wouldn't have gone away quitely.

But it does make you think...if Henry hadn't become King, you wouldn't have Henry VIII, not all of those wives, certainly not the English Reformation, or the Glorious reign of Elizabeth I. And poor Margaret Pole most likely would have died from old age.

 

[lady of hay]

If you don't wish to participate in the discussion in a constructive manner then please stand aside and allow other members to do so.

Warren , I am really greatful for this comment.
It was my intention to provoke some kind of debate on this matter other than the usual who is wearing what. I had hoped that this forum might have been the place for it.
I am not as they say "throwing my teddy out of the pram", as someone who has done high level academic work ,I am used to criticism, but I feel that these forums may not be the place for someone like myself who is interested in the more academic aspect of royal history.
If what is past is past , then why so many posts about Diana, the late Princess of Wales?

 

[Osipi]

It was my intention to provoke some kind of debate on this matter other than the usual who is wearing what. I had hoped that this forum might have been the place for it.

As much as all of the forums on the British Royal Family are very interesting for me to read, I do have to admit the British Royal History fascinates me. I may not know enough to post and debate on the topics but I sure do love reading them.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Wouldn't Richard III have to answer about the royal princes in the tower? I mean, with his death on the field and Henry VII marrying the sister of the imprisoned princes, the matter sort of went away but I think if Richard had been victorious, there might have been a demand for explanation once peace ruled throughout the land.

 

[Zonk]

But didn't Henry marry Elizabeth after the battle? Or am I thinking Elizabeth and Edward IV?

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Yes, Henry married Elizabeth after he became King but he pledged to marry her before becoming King.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Richard wasn't being asked about the princes at the tmie so why would that have changed. and by the law of the land they had been declared illegitimate so he really had no question to answer on that score.

Most people in the north say he ruled wisely there and even in his short reign did so so saying that he would rule wisely and well based on the available evidence is something I believe he would have done. He certainly would have had to remarry but I am not totally sure he would have married Elizabeth (although she was a good choice but officially illegitimate and there would still be Lancastrians seeking the throne.) He would have needed to find a suitable Lancastrian heiress to make his queen I think. He would certainly have had to kill Henry Tudor and the leading supporters of that usurper.

As for the Reformation we don't know but I suspect it would still have happened - just with a different trigger as it was about power in England as much as a divorced. We wouldn't have had the Stuarts though and that could easily see Scotland and England developing as two separate nations to this day and no British Empire (maybe a small English one and even a small Scottish one but not the Great British one that developed.) Australia would probably be French speaking not English (for those who don't know how close that was to happening the French had an explorer here to claim this land only a week or so after Philip arrived with the First Fleet to invade the country).

 

[lady of hay]

Richard indeed was never asked about the fate of the two princes . Elizabeth Woodville, the boys mother , would not, I believe have let things lie if she had suspected that they were dead. Richard was not,I believe ever accused of this crime during his lifetime ,only later by so called Tudor propogandists.

Richard not marring Elizabeth of York because of her illigitimacy provokes another interesting question. Why did Henry Tudor marry her, or wasn't he so picky ? If in order to marry Elizabeth , Henry had to legitimise her he would have automaticaly made the elder of the two boys Edward V . A possible motive for murder surely ?

It is interesting to note that following the death of Lady Eleanor Butler, with whom Edward IV was said to be pre contracted, he and Elizabeth Woodville could have married again . This would have made their children ligitimate. Did Edward think that the matter would just "go away " Elizabeth Woodville certainly did not know about the pre contract as she was as suprised as anyone on hearing the news.

Henry Tudor married Elizabeth of York, but she was not crowned queen untill 1487, after the birth of their first child, Henry presumably wanting to make sure she could fulfil the Woodville side of the bargain.
Elizabeth Woodville did not even attend her own daughters coronation, and spent the last five years of her life in a convent, having been part of a plot to overthrow her son-in-law Henry Tudor (VII).

Anyone reading this who wishes to know more about this period in history may find the following books usefull

The Daughter of Time by Josphine Tay, a work of fiction but it brought about my interest in the period ,and although published in the 1950's it is still available
Good King Richard ? by Jeremy Potter, this may now be out of print but is worth tracking down at your local library.

and finally Elizabeth Woodville by David Baldwin a good well balanced portrait.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Henry VII married Elizabeth in order to strengthen his claim to the throne because now his children were descended from her father who had been rightful and acknowledged as a King of England.

 

[EleanorOfAquitaine]

What a pitty, that Richard III falls...otherwise there maybe were no Henry VIII, who was a really worst King.
but what happend to the son of Richard III after the battle?
I read, that he had in his marriage one son.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Edward of Middleham, Prince Of Wales was Richard's only legitamate child.
He died in 1484.
Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Battle of Bosworth happened in 1485.

 

[Humfrey]

Edward IV was legitimate - there is no evidence otherwise. He was almost certainly premature and his baptism was rushed. His brother Richard III remained entirely loyal to him while he was alive.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The question with regard to Edward IV being legitimate has never really been the question. A child is legitimate is born to a married couple and the father accepts the child as his but....there is a question about his paternity. However, if a father accepts the child I don't see why anyone should be questioning that this many years later (it is the same with people questioning Harry's paternity - legally Charles is his father and personally I believe that he is biologically as well but there are many that don't but ...)

 

[lady of hay]

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.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

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.

Very wise words from your friend.. many people lose sight of the fact that the standards, morals and values of today are very different from those of the medieval period.. or any other historical period for that matter.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This is an attitude that I emphasise all the time when I am teaching my students from their first days in High School at age 11 until the leave me aged 17/18. It always gets them when I tell them that Ancient Athenians would say that the girls in the class aren't loved by their fathers because they are in a classroom with boys - different standards and ideas but were they wrong? or are we wrong? Who knows if in the future the Ancient Athenian viewpoint might re-emerge? These are points I try to get across to them and it applies to all historical periods and places - their times, their standards and we should judge people by the actions they took within their own standards.

 

[lady of hay]

HM Queen Catherine and Iluvbertie,

thanks for your posts. My friend was wise and full of knowledge about this period of history . Iluvbertie, please feel free to use his quote with your students. He inspired those who knew him.

 

[NoorMeansLight]

Your friend was right, Lady of Hay! And good point, Iluvbertie!
Now this is going to be off topic (cause I don't know where I should post it): Does anyone here think Richard III killed his nephews to solidify his position as King? For the record, I know there's no proof that he did. I want to see your opinions - what do you believe?

 

[Zonk]

There is no particular thread for the Princes in the Tower but its been discussed http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/english-british-historical-royal-scandals-27037-5.html .

Personally I think Richard or Henry IV did in the Princes. Let's face it...they both had a lot to lose with them still alive.

And I agree that is an excellent quote Lady of Hay. You certainly can't compare the moral compass of 2010 with 1485, 1066 or 1960.

 

[NoorMeansLight]

^Thank you for your quick reply and for the new link! I'll visit this thread soon! We share the same thoughts on the issue.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think Richard did but do think that Henry VII had them killed as he had way more to gain by their deaths (he had to relegitmise them in order to justify his marriage to their sister but Richard could have married her without bothering with that as his claim came through them being illegitimate and so it didn't matter whether Elizabeth was legitimate or not to him but it did matter massively to Henry.)

Interestingly one of my senior students is currently writing a major work on this very topic. She started out convinced that Richard killed them but now, after 8 months reseach she is convinced that Henry had them killed. It has been interesting to see the reasoning and research she has done and see how a young girl of 17 has started with one premise and is now totally the other way.

 

[NoorMeansLight]

^ You must be so very proud of your students, Iluvbertie! Thanks for sharing this!

 

[Polly]

I'm with those who acquit Richard of the boys' murders. It was a PR campaign of the day to promote the ambitions of the Tudors which was unrelenting even in Shakespeare's day, viz., his play Richard III. The good citizens of the day were force-fed gruesome tales about Richard who is one of history's most smeared and maligned characters, though today, it's true, that scholarship has done much to rehabilitate him. I believe that a perusal of contemporary documents of Richard's day will indeed show that he was a very fair and able administrator and a popular one, hence the necessary mud-slinging and slanders.

The Society of Friends of King Richard III works to encourage and promote research to exonerate the life and memory of Richard III.

It may be worth noting that the patron of the Society is no other than Prince Richard, the present Duke of Gloucester.

 

[Zonk]

iluvbertie...not to give too much away...by what information did your student find out that makes her think Henry did it?