A future Ricardia?

This has probably been discussed at some time before on these boards.

Has anyone any views on how Richard III would have altered England and perhaps British history had he been victorious at Bosworth? What visions would he have had?

Alan.

"Has anyone any views on how Richard III would have altered England and perhaps British history had he been victorious at Bosworth? What visions would he have had?"

Carol responds:

I don't think we've discussed this topic much though I'll bet we've all thought about it! For one thing, there wouldn't have been any Tudor kings or queens, and people wouldn't think that English history began with Henry VIII (Henry VII is mostly forgotten) or credit Elizabeth I with the English Renaissance!

Seriously, I think there would have been an English Reformation (the English temperament strikes me, an American, as more inclined toward Protestantism than, say, Spain or Portugal, which remained Catholic), but it would have been more gradual, without all the bloodshed that switching from Catholicism to Anglicanism and back again entailed. I also like to think that Richard would have been interested in exploring the New World, as possibly his alliance with Portugal would have enabled him to do that. I think he would have given John Cabot considerably more than ten pounds (Henry VII's reward) for discovering Newfoundland.

And, of course, there would have been no Simnel Rebellion and John, Earl of Lincoln would have remained alive to serve his uncle, as would all the Plantagenet heirs destroyed by the Tudors, so even if Richard and Joanna of Portugal had no children of their own, the Yorkist monarchy (perhaps as the House of Suffolk?) would have continued, and *Richard,* not Henry Tudor, would be credited with ending the Wars of the Roses. His victory (rather than Henry's) would have been viewed as God's will--and the triumph of the rightful king against a foreign invasion by a claimless would-be usurper.

He would have married immediately and attempted to father a child as soon as possible, and he certainly would not have made Edward IV's mistake of sending his heir to Ludlow to be raised by relatives hostile to the House of York. (I think he left little Edward at Middleham because he didn't want to uproot him and also possibly because his health was frail. That, also, may have been a mistake.)

He would almost certainly have maintained his truce with Scotland, he would have been on good terms with Burgundy, and Spain, and he would have found a way to deal with France and Brittany, both of which would be leery of making trouble for him after his victory, not to mention that there would have been no Tudor to use against him.

As for Parliaments, I think Richard, always concerned for the welfare of the people, would have continued his enlightened legislation. Who knows what good laws he might have enacted?

I also like to think that he would have put the printing press to better use than Tudor did. Certainly, it would not have been used for spreading anti-Yorkist propaganda. Imagine the humanist "historians" flocking to Richard's court and producing his version of history rather than Tudor's. Whatever doubts people had about the Protectorship and Richard's so-called "usurpation" could be put to rest with a widespread circulation of the facts.

And we would know what became of the "Princes."

He would learn from his own experience and Edward's to avoid making the same mistakes, and he would take advantage of the boost to his reputation resulting from his victory and the new alliance with Portugal to again show himself to the people, who would view him as a hero. And then he would prove himself their benefactor through enlightened legislation.

That's my vision of Richard as victor, anyway. Others undoubtedly have their own imagined happy ending.

Carol

Alan wrote:

"Has anyone any views on how Richard III would have altered England and perhaps British history had he been victorious at Bosworth? What visions would he have had?"

Carol responds:

I don't think we've discussed this topic much though I'll bet we've all thought about it! For one thing, there wouldn't have been any Tudor kings or queens, and people wouldn't think that English history began with Henry VIII (Henry VII is mostly forgotten) or credit Elizabeth I with the English Renaissance!

Seriously, I think there would have been an English Reformation (the English temperament strikes me, an American, as more inclined toward Protestantism than, say, Spain or Portugal, which remained Catholic), but it would have been more gradual, without all the bloodshed that switching from Catholicism to Anglicanism and back again entailed. I also like to think that Richard would have been interested in exploring the New World, as possibly his alliance with Portugal would have enabled him to do that. I think he would have given John Cabot considerably more than ten pounds (Henry VII's reward) for discovering Newfoundland.

And, of course, there would have been no Simnel Rebellion and John, Earl of Lincoln would have remained alive to serve his uncle, as would all the Plantagenet heirs destroyed by the Tudors, so even if Richard and Joanna of Portugal had no children of their own, the Yorkist monarchy (perhaps as the House of Suffolk?) would have continued, and *Richard,* not Henry Tudor, would be credited with ending the Wars of the Roses. His victory (rather than Henry's) would have been viewed as God's will--and the triumph of the rightful king against a foreign invasion by a claimless would-be usurper.

He would have married immediately and attempted to father a child as soon as possible, and he certainly would not have made Edward IV's mistake of sending his heir to Ludlow to be raised by relatives hostile to the House of York. (I think he left little Edward at Middleham because he didn't want to uproot him and also possibly because his health was frail. That, also, may have been a mistake.)

He would almost certainly have maintained his truce with Scotland, he would have been on good terms with Burgundy, and Spain, and he would have found a way to deal with France and Brittany, both of which would be  leery of making trouble for him after his victory, not to mention that there would have been no Tudor to use against him.

As for Parliaments, I think Richard, always concerned for the welfare of the people, would have continued his enlightened legislation. Who knows what good laws he might have enacted?

I also like to think that he would have put the printing press to better use than Tudor did. Certainly, it would not have been used for spreading anti-Yorkist propaganda. Imagine the humanist "historians" flocking to Richard's court and producing his version of history rather than Tudor's. Whatever doubts people had about the Protectorship and Richard's so-called "usurpation" could be put to rest with a widespread circulation of the facts.

And we would know what became of the "Princes."

He would learn from his own experience and Edward's to avoid making the same mistakes, and he would take advantage of the boost to his reputation resulting from his victory and the new alliance with Portugal to again show himself to the people, who would view him as a hero. And then he would prove himself their benefactor through enlightened legislation.

That's my vision of Richard as victor, anyway. Others undoubtedly have their own imagined happy ending.

Carol

Many thanks for your very interesting views Carol. I particularly like the idea of no Elizabeth and no Henry VIII. There wouldn't be all those movies and TV series about both of them that seem to appear every six months or so. Then we wouldn't have had the Stuarts or the Puritans, and oh dear...no Pilgrim Fathers! Even the USA wouldn't be as we know it. Neither would the UK. However I think perhaps the best of all outcomes would be that we wouldn't have a Dr. Starkey!

But it's only a "What if?" :-)

Thanks again Carol,

Alan

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 10:18 PM, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Alan wrote:

"Has anyone any views on how Richard III would have altered England and perhaps British history had he been victorious at Bosworth? What visions would he have had?"

Carol responds:

I don't think we've discussed this topic much though I'll bet we've all thought about it! For one thing, there wouldn't have been any Tudor kings or queens, and people wouldn't think that English history began with Henry VIII (Henry VII is mostly forgotten) or credit Elizabeth I with the English Renaissance!

Seriously, I think there would have been an English Reformation (the English temperament strikes me, an American, as more inclined toward Protestantism than, say, Spain or Portugal, which remained Catholic), but it would have been more gradual, without all the bloodshed that switching from Catholicism to Anglicanism and back again entailed. I also like to think that Richard would have been interested in exploring the New World, as possibly his alliance with Portugal would have enabled him to do that. I think he would have given John Cabot considerably more than ten pounds (Henry VII's reward) for discovering Newfoundland.

And, of course, there would have been no Simnel Rebellion and John, Earl of Lincoln would have remained alive to serve his uncle, as would all the Plantagenet heirs destroyed by the Tudors, so even if Richard and Joanna of Portugal had no children of their own, the Yorkist monarchy (perhaps as the House of Suffolk?) would have continued, and *Richard,* not Henry Tudor, would be credited with ending the Wars of the Roses. His victory (rather than Henry's) would have been viewed as God's will--and the triumph of the rightful king against a foreign invasion by a claimless would-be usurper.

He would have married immediately and attempted to father a child as soon as possible, and he certainly would not have made Edward IV's mistake of sending his heir to Ludlow to be raised by relatives hostile to the House of York. (I think he left little Edward at Middleham because he didn't want to uproot him and also possibly because his health was frail. That, also, may have been a mistake.)

He would almost certainly have maintained his truce with Scotland, he would have been on good terms with Burgundy, and Spain, and he would have found a way to deal with France and Brittany, both of which would be leery of making trouble for him after his victory, not to mention that there would have been no Tudor to use against him.

As for Parliaments, I think Richard, always concerned for the welfare of the people, would have continued his enlightened legislation. Who knows what good laws he might have enacted?

I also like to think that he would have put the printing press to better use than Tudor did. Certainly, it would not have been used for spreading anti-Yorkist propaganda. Imagine the humanist "historians" flocking to Richard's court and producing his version of history rather than Tudor's. Whatever doubts people had about the Protectorship and Richard's so-called "usurpation" could be put to rest with a widespread circulation of the facts.

And we would know what became of the "Princes."

He would learn from his own experience and Edward's to avoid making the same mistakes, and he would take advantage of the boost to his reputation resulting from his victory and the new alliance with Portugal to again show himself to the people, who would view him as a hero. And then he would prove himself their benefactor through enlightened legislation.

That's my vision of Richard as victor, anyway. Others undoubtedly have their own imagined happy ending.

Carol

Many thanks for your very interesting views Carol. I particularly like the idea of no Elizabeth and no Henry VIII. There wouldn't be all those movies and TV series about both of them that seem to appear every six months or so. Then we wouldn't have had the Stuarts or the Puritans, and oh dear...no Pilgrim Fathers! Even the USA wouldn't be as we know it. Neither would the UK. However I think perhaps the best of all outcomes would be that we wouldn't have a Dr. Starkey!

But it's only a "What if?" :-)

Thanks again Carol,

Alan

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 10:18 PM, justcarol67@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Alan wrote:

"Has anyone any views on how Richard III would have altered England and perhaps British history had he been victorious at Bosworth? What visions would he have had?"

Carol responds:

I don't think we've discussed this topic much though I'll bet we've all thought about it! For one thing, there wouldn't have been any Tudor kings or queens, and people wouldn't think that English history began with Henry VIII (Henry VII is mostly forgotten) or credit Elizabeth I with the English Renaissance!

Seriously, I think there would have been an English Reformation (the English temperament strikes me, an American, as more inclined toward Protestantism than, say, Spain or Portugal, which remained Catholic), but it would have been more gradual, without all the bloodshed that switching from Catholicism to Anglicanism and back again entailed. I also like to think that Richard would have been interested in exploring the New World, as possibly his alliance with Portugal would have enabled him to do that. I think he would have given John Cabot considerably more than ten pounds (Henry VII's reward) for discovering Newfoundland.

And, of course, there would have been no Simnel Rebellion and John, Earl of Lincoln would have remained alive to serve his uncle, as would all the Plantagenet heirs destroyed by the Tudors, so even if Richard and Joanna of Portugal had no children of their own, the Yorkist monarchy (perhaps as the House of Suffolk?) would have continued, and *Richard,* not Henry Tudor, would be credited with ending the Wars of the Roses. His victory (rather than Henry's) would have been viewed as God's will--and the triumph of the rightful king against a foreign invasion by a claimless would-be usurper.

He would have married immediately and attempted to father a child as soon as possible, and he certainly would not have made Edward IV's mistake of sending his heir to Ludlow to be raised by relatives hostile to the House of York. (I think he left little Edward at Middleham because he didn't want to uproot him and also possibly because his health was frail. That, also, may have been a mistake.)

He would almost certainly have maintained his truce with Scotland, he would have been on good terms with Burgundy, and Spain, and he would have found a way to deal with France and Brittany, both of which would be  leery of making trouble for him after his victory, not to mention that there would have been no Tudor to use against him.

As for Parliaments, I think Richard, always concerned for the welfare of the people, would have continued his enlightened legislation. Who knows what good laws he might have enacted?

I also like to think that he would have put the printing press to better use than Tudor did. Certainly, it would not have been used for spreading anti-Yorkist propaganda. Imagine the humanist "historians" flocking to Richard's court and producing his version of history rather than Tudor's. Whatever doubts people had about the Protectorship and Richard's so-called "usurpation" could be put to rest with a widespread circulation of the facts.

And we would know what became of the "Princes."

He would learn from his own experience and Edward's to avoid making the same mistakes, and he would take advantage of the boost to his reputation resulting from his victory and the new alliance with Portugal to again show himself to the people, who would view him as a hero. And then he would prove himself their benefactor through enlightened legislation.

That's my vision of Richard as victor, anyway. Others undoubtedly have their own imagined happy ending.

Carol

Pamela wrote: "...and Rule Britannia in general?"

What? No Last Night of the Proms? That IS sad! :-)

Al.

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:04 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <> wrote:

Love it! And this spirals on, what about Australia, India, and Rule Britannia in general? And could England manage all the debtors, the restive people in Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and would that have sealed the end of war with France, with so many potential young men to fight so few Frenchmen? Better minds than mine could certainly come up with potential scenarios.
On Oct 5, 2016, at 4:44 PM, alan thomas alanth2521@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Many thanks for your very interesting views Carol. I particularly like the idea of no Elizabeth and no Henry VIII. There wouldn't be all those movies and TV series about both of them that seem to appear every six months or so. Then we wouldn't have had the Stuarts or the Puritans, and oh dear...no Pilgrim Fathers! Even the USA wouldn't be as we know it. Neither would the UK. However I think perhaps the best of all outcomes would be that we wouldn't have a Dr. Starkey!

But it's only a "What if?" :-)

Thanks again Carol,

Alan

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 10:18 PM, justcarol67@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Alan wrote:

"Has anyone any views on how Richard III would have altered England and perhaps British history had he been victorious at Bosworth? What visions would he have had?"

Carol responds:

I don't think we've discussed this topic much though I'll bet we've all thought about it! For one thing, there wouldn't have been any Tudor kings or queens, and people wouldn't think that English history began with Henry VIII (Henry VII is mostly forgotten) or credit Elizabeth I with the English Renaissance!

Seriously, I think there would have been an English Reformation (the English temperament strikes me, an American, as more inclined toward Protestantism than, say, Spain or Portugal, which remained Catholic), but it would have been more gradual, without all the bloodshed that switching from Catholicism to Anglicanism and back again entailed. I also like to think that Richard would have been interested in exploring the New World, as possibly his alliance with Portugal would have enabled him to do that. I think he would have given John Cabot considerably more than ten pounds (Henry VII's reward) for discovering Newfoundland.

And, of course, there would have been no Simnel Rebellion and John, Earl of Lincoln would have remained alive to serve his uncle, as would all the Plantagenet heirs destroyed by the Tudors, so even if Richard and Joanna of Portugal had no children of their own, the Yorkist monarchy (perhaps as the House of Suffolk?) would have continued, and *Richard,* not Henry Tudor, would be credited with ending the Wars of the Roses. His victory (rather than Henry's) would have been viewed as God's will--and the triumph of the rightful king against a foreign invasion by a claimless would-be usurper.

He would have married immediately and attempted to father a child as soon as possible, and he certainly would not have made Edward IV's mistake of sending his heir to Ludlow to be raised by relatives hostile to the House of York. (I think he left little Edward at Middleham because he didn't want to uproot him and also possibly because his health was frail. That, also, may have been a mistake.)

He would almost certainly have maintained his truce with Scotland, he would have been on good terms with Burgundy, and Spain, and he would have found a way to deal with France and Brittany, both of which would be leery of making trouble for him after his victory, not to mention that there would have been no Tudor to use against him.

As for Parliaments, I think Richard, always concerned for the welfare of the people, would have continued his enlightened legislation. Who knows what good laws he might have enacted?

I also like to think that he would have put the printing press to better use than Tudor did. Certainly, it would not have been used for spreading anti-Yorkist propaganda. Imagine the humanist "historians" flocking to Richard's court and producing his version of history rather than Tudor's. Whatever doubts people had about the Protectorship and Richard's so-called "usurpation" could be put to rest with a widespread circulation of the facts.

And we would know what became of the "Princes."

He would learn from his own experience and Edward's to avoid making the same mistakes, and he would take advantage of the boost to his reputation resulting from his victory and the new alliance with Portugal to again show himself to the people, who would view him as a hero. And then he would prove himself their benefactor through enlightened legislation.

That's my vision of Richard as victor, anyway. Others undoubtedly have their own imagined happy ending.

Carol