- Pronouns
- he/him
Discuss this article by @TR1996 here.
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Exploring Alternate Wars of the Roses: Two Kings Down, None to Go
- Thread starter Gary Oswald
- Start date
Very interesting possibilities there!
heraclius
Well-known member
- Location
- New Forest, Hampshire, England, UK
Interesting ideas; in my own 'Alternative History of Britain: The Wars of the Roses' (Pen and Sword 2013) I didn't think of what might happen if both Richard III and Henry Tudor were killed in the battle but it is a distinct possibility given the intensity of the fight and how near both came to disaster.
My own ideas were mainly centred on the earl of Lincoln, either if Richard died without a son (naturally or in battle) or if Lincoln used 'Simnel' to get rid of Henry VII in 1487 then pushed his own pretender aside after winning at Stoke. There's also the chance that Henry VII would have been assassinated at York by the Stafford/Lovell plotters on his visit there ( p 148 of my book) in later 1486, just before Lincoln fled overseas to join the Yorkists, which would leave another mess with Henry only having a baby (Arthur) as his heir, his ex-Yorkist heiress wife Queen Elizabeth as one Yorkist candidate to find a new husband, Henry's mother the Lancastrian heiress Margaret Beaufort to claim the throne herself or force Elizabeth to stay loyal to the Tudor cause and find a suitable husband as regent for A, or Yorkists to free Warwick from the Tower (aged 11 so in need of a regent) or to back Lincoln as king as he was adult. In either case, the Lancastrian armies would probably be led by Henry's uncle Jasper Tudor, earl of Pembroke and duke of Bedford and now viceroy of Wales, in another civil war.
Another mess might arise if Simnel was put on the throne after his rebels won at Stoke in 1487, but later tried to stand up to his kingmaker , Lincoln; would this wobbly teenage pretender with no political skill or experience go the same way as the False Dmitri whose army overthrew the Godunovs in Russia in 1605 (backed by Poland) but who was then removed and killed by his noble sponsors, led by Vassily Shuisky (also with royal blood), for getting too independent?
My own ideas were mainly centred on the earl of Lincoln, either if Richard died without a son (naturally or in battle) or if Lincoln used 'Simnel' to get rid of Henry VII in 1487 then pushed his own pretender aside after winning at Stoke. There's also the chance that Henry VII would have been assassinated at York by the Stafford/Lovell plotters on his visit there ( p 148 of my book) in later 1486, just before Lincoln fled overseas to join the Yorkists, which would leave another mess with Henry only having a baby (Arthur) as his heir, his ex-Yorkist heiress wife Queen Elizabeth as one Yorkist candidate to find a new husband, Henry's mother the Lancastrian heiress Margaret Beaufort to claim the throne herself or force Elizabeth to stay loyal to the Tudor cause and find a suitable husband as regent for A, or Yorkists to free Warwick from the Tower (aged 11 so in need of a regent) or to back Lincoln as king as he was adult. In either case, the Lancastrian armies would probably be led by Henry's uncle Jasper Tudor, earl of Pembroke and duke of Bedford and now viceroy of Wales, in another civil war.
Another mess might arise if Simnel was put on the throne after his rebels won at Stoke in 1487, but later tried to stand up to his kingmaker , Lincoln; would this wobbly teenage pretender with no political skill or experience go the same way as the False Dmitri whose army overthrew the Godunovs in Russia in 1605 (backed by Poland) but who was then removed and killed by his noble sponsors, led by Vassily Shuisky (also with royal blood), for getting too independent?
- Location
- Derbyshire
It's a more out there possibility, but I can't help but wonder whether this ends up leading to a Polish-style elective monarchy in England, especially if it turns out Warwick actually is mentally incapable (or at least sufficiently unsocialised to appear so) and Lincoln is either unwilling or unable to secure the throne.
The Stanleys creating a semi dynasty in this scenario would be interesting,as is the idea of Francis being elected as King of England before becoming King of France.It's a more out there possibility, but I can't help but wonder whether this ends up leading to a Polish-style elective monarchy in England, especially if it turns out Warwick actually is mentally incapable (or at least sufficiently unsocialised to appear so) and Lincoln is either unwilling or unable to secure the throne.
especially if it turns out Warwick actually is mentally incapable (or at least sufficiently unsocialised to appear so)
If he is massively unsocialised on top of being ten, maybe the elder Elizabeth is 'arranging' things 'on his behalf' for a good chunk of his reign?
TR1996
Well-known member
- Location
- Adelaide, South Australia
Interesting ideas; in my own 'Alternative History of Britain: The Wars of the Roses' (Pen and Sword 2013) I didn't think of what might happen if both Richard III and Henry Tudor were killed in the battle but it is a distinct possibility given the intensity of the fight and how near both came to disaster.
Do you have a personal view on what Lincoln was trying to do with Simnel, or do you find his motivations obscure as well?
It's a more out there possibility, but I can't help but wonder whether this ends up leading to a Polish-style elective monarchy in England, especially if it turns out Warwick actually is mentally incapable (or at least sufficiently unsocialised to appear so) and Lincoln is either unwilling or unable to secure the throne.
A lot would probably depend on if its readily apparent that Warwick is incapable, or if this only becomes apparent several years down the line after he's crowned, anointed, and suchlike. In the first case, its possible for people to pull out before putting him on the throne. In the second, things get more messy, but if his incapacity only becomes apparent after he's married then...
If he is massively unsocialised on top of being ten, maybe the elder Elizabeth is 'arranging' things 'on his behalf' for a good chunk of his reign?
...Elizabeth has a big role to play. Presumably whilst hoping like hell that a) they have kids, and b) those kids don't suffer their father's issue. And if Warwick is incapable or 'just' unsocialised, there's obviously even more fertile ground for Buckingham/Perkin Warbeck analogues/anyone with a half-plausible claim to cause trouble.
The Stanleys creating a semi dynasty in this scenario would be interesting,as is the idea of Francis being elected as King of England before becoming King of France.
There's a definite possibility for the Stanleys to come out with something- they're in a very good position after our alt!Bosworth, given they command several thousand fresh troops whilst both the other armies are left leaderless.
This scenario periodically comes up on the other place, and you occasionally see suggestions that Stanley would exalt himself to the throne as Margaret Beaufort's husband, but, IDK, Stanley was infamously cautious, and he doesn't have kids with Margaret so where the hell would things go from there?
heraclius
Well-known member
- Location
- New Forest, Hampshire, England, UK
With regards to what Lincoln was up to with Simnel, I find it a bit surprising that he would stand aside from taking the throne permanently for a teenage pretender if he thought the latter was a fake, given that Lincoln is supposed to have been named as Richard's heir by the latter. He had seen and talked to the 'Earl of Warwick' who was being held in the Tower before he defected from Henry's court, as Henry had this boy taken out in public to appear at the Church 'Convocation' meeting in London, stay overnight with archbishop Morton (the same man who had allegedly inspired the duke of Buckingham to desert Richard and back Tudor in summer 1483)at Lambeth, and then meet the court at a reception at Sheen/'Richmond' once Simnel was being feted by Richard's sister Margaret in Flanders as the 'real Warwick' . This was just before Lincoln defected, so he presumably knew that Simnel was a fake and W was really in the Tower before he fled abroad to join the rebels. My guess would be that Lincoln found that the majority of the rebel's backers were determined to put 'Warwick' on the throne as the legal heir to Edward IV (if the latter's children were illegitimate as Richard had claimed in 1483 and had enshrined in the Act of Parliament 'Titulus Regius', recently reversed by Henry VII to make his wife Elizabeth the legit Yorkist claimant). If Edward's children were out of the running, Warwick was the son of the next heir, the executed Clarence, so closer in blood to Edward than E's youngest brother Richard or Edward's sister's son Lincoln. So Lincoln decided to go along with this and keep the rival Yorkist factions united under their talisman Simnel until they had got rid of Henry, even if Simnel was really a fake.
I have no idea if Lincoln intended to remove Simnel after the battle, either in favour of the 'real' Warwick (if rescued from the Tower) or on his own behalf; possibly he had no clear idea himself and would test the reaction of his backers to this after he had won the battle? Logically he was afraid that Richard had been so unpopular among the elite that basing his own claim on R's wishes would be risky.
The John Ashdown-Hill theory about Simnel being the real W, as argued in his book on 'The Dublin King', however has it that the real W had been smuggled abroad as a baby before his father Clarence was executed in 1478 by Clarence's followers, presumably resurfacing as 'Simnel', and the one in the Tower was a fake. This is also linked to the mystery over why different sources say that 'Simnel' was aged around 10-12 or 14-16 in 1487, which has been explained as implying that the boy who was with the rebel army as it landed in England and 'led' it to Stoke was not the boy who was taken into custody after the battle by Henry , given a job in his kitchens, and was paraded before a party of visiting Irish lords (previous followers of 'Simnel' when he was in Ireland before the invasion) a few years later. They did not recognise 'Simnel' at this encounter - so the theory has it that the 'kitchen boy' was not the same boy who had been with the rebels in Ireland and invading England. The real Simnel had escaped after the battle, so Henry set up a fake to show everyone that the rebel leader was now safely in his hands. A bit far-fetched and all rather confusing, but a slight possibility - more likely is genuine confusion over how old Simnel was, with one of the rival claims being based on gossip or second-hand reports.
I have no idea if Lincoln intended to remove Simnel after the battle, either in favour of the 'real' Warwick (if rescued from the Tower) or on his own behalf; possibly he had no clear idea himself and would test the reaction of his backers to this after he had won the battle? Logically he was afraid that Richard had been so unpopular among the elite that basing his own claim on R's wishes would be risky.
The John Ashdown-Hill theory about Simnel being the real W, as argued in his book on 'The Dublin King', however has it that the real W had been smuggled abroad as a baby before his father Clarence was executed in 1478 by Clarence's followers, presumably resurfacing as 'Simnel', and the one in the Tower was a fake. This is also linked to the mystery over why different sources say that 'Simnel' was aged around 10-12 or 14-16 in 1487, which has been explained as implying that the boy who was with the rebel army as it landed in England and 'led' it to Stoke was not the boy who was taken into custody after the battle by Henry , given a job in his kitchens, and was paraded before a party of visiting Irish lords (previous followers of 'Simnel' when he was in Ireland before the invasion) a few years later. They did not recognise 'Simnel' at this encounter - so the theory has it that the 'kitchen boy' was not the same boy who had been with the rebels in Ireland and invading England. The real Simnel had escaped after the battle, so Henry set up a fake to show everyone that the rebel leader was now safely in his hands. A bit far-fetched and all rather confusing, but a slight possibility - more likely is genuine confusion over how old Simnel was, with one of the rival claims being based on gossip or second-hand reports.
- Location
- Derbyshire
I think any theory which relies on multiple fake Warwicks to allow the actual Warwick to then go off and... live in obscurity for the rest of his life? is one that is a bit lacking in grounding.
TR1996
Well-known member
- Location
- Adelaide, South Australia
The John Ashdown-Hill theory about Simnel being the real W, as argued in his book on 'The Dublin King'
Yeah, I'm familiar with that one. All a little too... elaborate for my tastes.
heraclius
Well-known member
- Location
- New Forest, Hampshire, England, UK
There is also an overlap from the later 'Perkin Warbeck' episode in the 'Dublin King' theory, in that the man in Clarence's household who was supposed to have been in charge of the plan to smuggle C's son (Warwick) abroad in 1478 and replace him with a fake - so the real boy could be hidden in the Low Countries and later be used as a figurehead for a revolt against Edward IV, presumably - resurfaced in 1490 as a leading backer of 'Warbeck'. The latter first appeared in Ireland (Cork) then as a 'Flemish teenage servant' of Richard III's ex-employee Dom Duarte Brandao, aka 'Sir Edward Brampton', a Portuguese Jewish sea-captain and merchant who also had English citizenship. Taylor and his local allies 'recognised' Warbeck as a Yorkist prince in disguise and set him up as a pretender, with or without Brampton's help, and when they failed to attract enough support from the Irish nobles but Henry VII's foe France (regency for Charles VIII) sent troops to help they took Warbeck off to France. Brampton later told Henry VII that at this date Warbeck coudl not speak English, ie that he had not been in England at all unless he had left it as a baby - but was he lying in return for a pardon?
There is a theory that as Taylor had been mixed up in the 1478 plot he had taken the real Warwick abroad then, so he was responsible for 'Simnel' being on the Continent if the latter was genuinely Warwick - which ignores the official Tuydor story put out in 1487 that Simnel was an Oxford organ-maker's son set up as a pretender by a meddling Yorkist priest and smuggled abroad (possibly by allies of the earl of Lincoln who had a house near Oxford) in 1486. Alternatively, there is another theory that Warbeck looked like Edward IV (tall, fair, handsome, easygoing manner) because he was really a bastard son of E's brother Clarence and someone (Taylor?) had smuggled him abroad as a baby c. 1478-80 and hidden him in Flanders, where Brampton kept an eye on him and in 1490 duly brought him to Ireland for the Warbeck plot there.
Notably, when Taylor and co set up Warbeck as a prince in 1490 they did not immediately hail him as either 'Richard Duke of York, younger of the princes in the Tower' (his eventual claim) or as Warwick but as a bastard son of Richard III. This argues in favour of them being opportunists and of Warbeck (whoever he really was) not being Richard of York - otherwise why not use his real name from the start? The Tudor 'spin machine' in the 1490s claimed that Warbeck was really the secret love-child of Richard III's sister, Margaret of Burgundy, by a bishop - and an anonymous child of his age was in Margaret's court as her protege and ward around 1480-3 so this might just have been 'Warbeck'. It is all really far too confusing, and we have no idea who was telling the truth, for any theory to be really proveable in the C21st unless Warbeck's body (buried as a felon in a pit for criminals' bodies at Tyburn ie Marble Arch in London??) was to turn up like Richard III's did.
There is a theory that as Taylor had been mixed up in the 1478 plot he had taken the real Warwick abroad then, so he was responsible for 'Simnel' being on the Continent if the latter was genuinely Warwick - which ignores the official Tuydor story put out in 1487 that Simnel was an Oxford organ-maker's son set up as a pretender by a meddling Yorkist priest and smuggled abroad (possibly by allies of the earl of Lincoln who had a house near Oxford) in 1486. Alternatively, there is another theory that Warbeck looked like Edward IV (tall, fair, handsome, easygoing manner) because he was really a bastard son of E's brother Clarence and someone (Taylor?) had smuggled him abroad as a baby c. 1478-80 and hidden him in Flanders, where Brampton kept an eye on him and in 1490 duly brought him to Ireland for the Warbeck plot there.
Notably, when Taylor and co set up Warbeck as a prince in 1490 they did not immediately hail him as either 'Richard Duke of York, younger of the princes in the Tower' (his eventual claim) or as Warwick but as a bastard son of Richard III. This argues in favour of them being opportunists and of Warbeck (whoever he really was) not being Richard of York - otherwise why not use his real name from the start? The Tudor 'spin machine' in the 1490s claimed that Warbeck was really the secret love-child of Richard III's sister, Margaret of Burgundy, by a bishop - and an anonymous child of his age was in Margaret's court as her protege and ward around 1480-3 so this might just have been 'Warbeck'. It is all really far too confusing, and we have no idea who was telling the truth, for any theory to be really proveable in the C21st unless Warbeck's body (buried as a felon in a pit for criminals' bodies at Tyburn ie Marble Arch in London??) was to turn up like Richard III's did.