The Warwick Question

I'm interested in speculation as to how Richard, had he won at
Bosworth, would have dealt in the long term with the thorny question
of his nephew Edward, Earl of Warwick's superior claim to the throne.

Edward and his sister were under attainder at the time of Richard's
coronation due to the treason of their father George of Clarence. But
such attainders were routinely reversed after a decent interval, and
had young Warwick kept his nose clean it would have been difficult to
deny the restoration indefinately. It's worth remembering that
Richard himself, his brothers, his father and Grandfather were all
attainted traitors, duly restored by Parliament in time.

Indeed Warwick seems to have been regarded as heir to the throne
after the death of th Prince of Wales, largely due to the influence
of the Queen who had taken the children under her wing. Only on
Anne's death did Richard turn to his other nephew John of Lincoln as
his adopted heir.

Would Richard have "done a Tudor" and had the boy disposed of on
trumped-up charges? Would he have come up with a bastardy or
precontract story to discount Clarence's offspring? Would the story
of the boy's being simple-minded have been used; this could hardly
have been extended to his sister. Even if these things had worked,
they'd have been unlikely to prevent discontents from using Warwick
as the focus of rebellion.

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> I'm interested in speculation as to how Richard, had he won at
> Bosworth, would have dealt in the long term with the thorny question
> of his nephew Edward, Earl of Warwick's superior claim to the throne.

Just a quick question.....do you believe that Edward was simple minded or whatever you
want to call it at that time? It has been suggested that the long years of imprisonment by
Tudor made had effected him mentally.. or.. was it always the case. What do you say?
Eileen
>
> Edward and his sister were under attainder at the time of Richard's
> coronation due to the treason of their father George of Clarence. But
> such attainders were routinely reversed after a decent interval, and
> had young Warwick kept his nose clean it would have been difficult to
> deny the restoration indefinately. It's worth remembering that
> Richard himself, his brothers, his father and Grandfather were all
> attainted traitors, duly restored by Parliament in time.
>
> Indeed Warwick seems to have been regarded as heir to the throne
> after the death of th Prince of Wales, largely due to the influence
> of the Queen who had taken the children under her wing. Only on
> Anne's death did Richard turn to his other nephew John of Lincoln as
> his adopted heir.
>
> Would Richard have "done a Tudor" and had the boy disposed of on
> trumped-up charges? Would he have come up with a bastardy or
> precontract story to discount Clarence's offspring? Would the story
> of the boy's being simple-minded have been used; this could hardly
> have been extended to his sister. Even if these things had worked,
> they'd have been unlikely to prevent discontents from using Warwick
> as the focus of rebellion.
>

At 12:58 PM 2/19/2009, theblackprussian wrote:

>I'm interested in speculation as to how Richard, had he won at
>Bosworth, would have dealt in the long term with the thorny question
>of his nephew Edward, Earl of Warwick's superior claim to the throne.

(snip)

>Would Richard have "done a Tudor" and had the boy disposed of on
>trumped-up charges? Would he have come up with a bastardy or
>precontract story to discount Clarence's offspring? Would the story
>of the boy's being simple-minded have been used; this could hardly
>have been extended to his sister. Even if these things had worked,
>they'd have been unlikely to prevent discontents from using Warwick
>as the focus of rebellion.

I doubt Richard would have done any of those things, or even
been likely to have to. As long as there were troublemakers, there
would always be rebellions, and killing Warwick wouldn't have changed
that. Rebellions, however, are usually only effective if they have a
decent amount of public support. (Unless they were financed and
supported by other countries, like Tudor's.) As far as the English
people wee concerned, if they had a king they were okay with, most of
them wouldn't have been interested in rocking the boat over somebody
else who _might_ have had a better claim, especially a kid. (As much
is I would like to think Richard was popular, I'll freely admit many
probably supported him over Edward V because they wanted a grown man
on the throne instead of the trouble of a boy king.)

The attainders on the members of the house of York were put
on them by the Lancasters, hence supporters of the House of York
would have considered them meaningless anyway. However, Clarence had
been attainted by his own brother, a York. Even if they didn't find
the attainder on young Warwick entirely fair, they would have been
unlikely to start much trouble over it. And I think Richard,
following his pattern of family loyalty, would probably have treated
the boy well and seen that he was taken care of, as he did all of
Edward's daughters (and sons, IMO, but I shan't start that old
argument up again).

So, with a competent king on the throne and the maybe-better
heir being treating well rather than with some terrible injustice, I
doubt most of the English people would have been inclined to rock the
boat over Warwick.


Take care,
Rogue