Proclamation from Hnery VII

Carol wrote: //snip// Or were the rebellions limited because so many of Richard's followers had died or been imprisioned after Bosworth and the remainder killed at Stoke? Or was it because the candidates to replace him (setting aside Edward V and his brother, whose whereabouts no one knew ans whom many believed dead) were another child and a virtually unknown sister's son? In other words, why did Henry's usurpation succeed when Richard's deposition of his nephews, approved by Parliament failed? Would it, as Marie suggests, have succeeded if he had won Bosworth (his victory "proving" that his reign was God's will)? We need to remember that much of the kingdom supported Richard before Bosworth, not just the North but also, I believe, the Midlands and London, as well as parts of Wales. He also had alliances with Scotland, Portugal and Spain, and had he won, France would have ceased to harass him." //snip// Doug here: Unfortunately there's no "proof" for my assertion, but I think the answer to your second question above is contained in your third: the number of possible Yorkist contenders for the throne. While the Earl of Lincoln had the clearest claim, Edward of Warwick needed only a slight adjustment, for that era anyway, of his father's attainder to place *his* claim to the throne before Lincoln's. Nor would I discount support for the claims of Edward (V) and his brother. We know their whereabouts weren't generally known, but it was only some supporters of Henry Tudor who claimed they were dead. As evidenced by Warbeck's "career", there were apparently an awful lot of people who *didn't* think the boys were dead. It's that multiplicity of candidates, in my opinion anyway, that resulted, first off in the outcome at Bosworth and then, in the following two decades, the inability of the Yorkists to coelesce around a *single* candidate and topple Henry Tudor. The phrase "embarassment of riches" with an entirely new, and sinister, meaning... Doug

Doug wrote:
: "Unfortunately there's no "proof" for my assertion, but I think the answer to your second question above is contained in your third: the number of possible Yorkist contenders for the throne. While the Earl of Lincoln had the clearest claim, Edward of Warwick needed only a slight adjustment, for that era anyway, of his father's attainder to place *his* claim to the throne before Lincoln's. Nor would I discount support for the claims of Edward (V) and his brother. We know their whereabouts weren't generally known, but it was only some supporters of Henry Tudor who claimed they were dead. As evidenced by Warbeck's "career", there were apparently an awful lot of people who *didn't* think the boys were dead. It's that multiplicity of candidates, in my opinion anyway, that resulted, first off in the outcome at Bosworth and then, in the following two decades, the inability of the Yorkists to coelesce around a *single* candidate and topple Henry Tudor. The phrase "embarassment of riches" with an entirely new, and sinister, meaning..."

Carol responds:

That's an interesting possibility. The Yorkists were already divided between Edward V and then the poor substitute of Tudor married to EoY. Then any who found Tudor unsatisfactory or still believed that Richard was the rightful king and opposed Tudor on principle (Margaret of York and John, Earl of Lincoln, Lovell) would have to decide on a candidate. I can see the three I named, especially the last two, being reluctant to support ex-Edward V even if they knew he was alive, but others (Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset) would obviously support EV, or, if he had somehow died, her younger son, Richard. The Ricardian faction might have been divided between the Earl of Lincoln (Richard's apparent choice and old enough to rule) and the little Earl of Warwick (a better blood claim, easily overturned attainder that need not repeal the whole of Titulus Regius, easy to manipulate, especially by his cousin, the Earl of Lincoln). But also, the sheer numbers weren't there (unless you count poor Ireland) because so many of Richard's supporters were dead and imprisoned, and I suppose the rest of England either decided to live with the as yet unknown Tudor (who had at least married a relegitimized Yorkist princess) and by that time had a son (even if they didn't come running with their swords and battleaxes to join the battle). I don't know the numbers at Stoke, only that Lincoln's forces were mostly German mercenaries under Martin Schwartz and poorly armed Irish. The English (except the Stanley and Oxford factions) mostly stayed home. So the sick-of-battle, accepting-the-status-quo factor also played a part. As for Richard III, even those who mourned him must have thought that the House of York was a lost cause. And that type of thinking is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Just thinking with my keyboard. I haven't arrived at any conclusions and may well be wrong on some points.

Stephen, Paul, David R., what do you guys think? You know more about Stoke than I do. Why didn't the English show up in force to overthrow Henry VII? It couldn't have been loyalty. Was it apathy, resignation, fear, a belief that his victory (by whatever means) was God's will, or what? Or had Tudor propaganda already taken such hold that they believed by now that Richard was an evil tyrant and Tudor had saved England? Surely not the last. Many people--mostly priests and poor people--survived who knew the contrary.

Maybe if the Earl of Surrey had escaped from the Tower and joined Lincoln, it would have been different, but he's a difficult nut to crack and, sad to say, I think he valued his own skin above any cause. He wanted his earldom back, followed by his father's dukedom, and the only way to get them was to kowtow to Henry. (If someone can argue in his favor, I'd be happy to hear it. I'd rather think better of him. He, if anyone still alive after Bosworth, knew perfectly well that Richard's claim was legitimate. He had no doubt been among the lords and clergy who presented the petition to Richard in the first place and approved Titulus Regius.)

Carol