What if?

Hi, I am on the new side here and don't know if this group does the
what if question. But, I just finished reading Michael Bennett's book
the Battle of Bosworth and this came to mind.

Anyway, I was wondering if Richard killed Tudor and then Stanley's men
killed Richard, who would be next in line for the throne? Earl of
Lincoln or Clarence's son Edward? Would different segments support
one or the other and the civil wars would have started up again/continued?
Or if there are any conspiracy theorists, would one of Edward IV's
sons come out of hiding?

Just throwing out a topic for discussion.
Howard

--- In , "Howard Heller"
<howard_heller@m...> wrote:
> Hi, I am on the new side here and don't know if this group does the
> what if question. But, I just finished reading Michael Bennett's
book
> the Battle of Bosworth and this came to mind.
>
> Anyway, I was wondering if Richard killed Tudor and then Stanley's
men
> killed Richard, who would be next in line for the throne? Earl of
> Lincoln or Clarence's son Edward? Would different segments support
> one or the other and the civil wars would have started up
again/continued?
> Or if there are any conspiracy theorists, would one of Edward IV's
> sons come out of hiding?
>
> Just throwing out a topic for discussion.
> Howard

This is a scenario I have considered frequently. We have to assume
that
Richard dies during the battle but the Yorkists prevail. In these
circumstances, John of Lincoln would automatically succeed as his
cousin, Edward of Warwick, is still under his father's attainder. He
was Richard's designated heir from earlier in 1485.

Stephen.

Stephen

I think you are being a bit sweeping here. There is some doubt as to wheher Richard did designate Lincoln as his heir, and there is room for argument that Clarence's attainder did not affect Edward of Warwick's position in the succession, since it did not mention the succession. To my mind a dispute over who should succeed seems only too likely; Lincoln, a young adult with some military and governmental experience, would have been able to get himself proclaimed king and crowned (his position would be stronger if he had actually fought at Bosworth and could claim credit for disposing of Tudor), but a Warwick faction would emerge, either immediately or if Lincoln proved a less than ideal ruler. Bear in mind that Henry IV deposed Richard II and installed himself as king, but his position was never fully secure, and dynastic opposition to the Lancastrians only disappeared (temporarily), because of Henry V's overwhelming prowess as a military commander.

Ann


>
> Anyway, I was wondering if Richard killed Tudor and then Stanley's
men
> killed Richard, who would be next in line for the throne? Earl of
> Lincoln or Clarence's son Edward? Would different segments support
> one or the other and the civil wars would have started up
again/continued?
> Or if there are any conspiracy theorists, would one of Edward IV's
> sons come out of hiding?
>
> Just throwing out a topic for discussion.
> Howard

This is a scenario I have considered frequently. We have to assume
that
Richard dies during the battle but the Yorkists prevail. In these
circumstances, John of Lincoln would automatically succeed as his
cousin, Edward of Warwick, is still under his father's attainder. He
was Richard's designated heir from earlier in 1485.

Stephen.







---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------

I was under the impression Richard named Clarence's son heir after his
own son died? He was waiting to reverse the attainder until his own
death, as Edward of Warwick had a better claim than Richard. So when
Richard died at Bosworth, some could claim the attainder was reversed
and back Edward of Warwick, who would have a better claim than Lincoln.

Howard


--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
>
> Stephen
>
> I think you are being a bit sweeping here. There is some doubt as to
wheher Richard did designate Lincoln as his heir, and there is room
for argument that Clarence's attainder did not affect Edward of
Warwick's position in the succession, since it did not mention the
succession. To my mind a dispute over who should succeed seems only
too likely; Lincoln, a young adult with some military and governmental
experience, would have been able to get himself proclaimed king and
crowned (his position would be stronger if he had actually fought at
Bosworth and could claim credit for disposing of Tudor), but a Warwick
faction would emerge, either immediately or if Lincoln proved a less
than ideal ruler. Bear in mind that Henry IV deposed Richard II and
installed himself as king, but his position was never fully secure,
and dynastic opposition to the Lancastrians only disappeared
(temporarily), because of Henry V's overwhelming prowess as a military
commander.
>
> Ann
>
>
> >
> > Anyway, I was wondering if Richard killed Tudor and then Stanley's
> men
> > killed Richard, who would be next in line for the throne? Earl of
> > Lincoln or Clarence's son Edward? Would different segments support
> > one or the other and the civil wars would have started up
> again/continued?
> > Or if there are any conspiracy theorists, would one of Edward IV's
> > sons come out of hiding?
> >
> > Just throwing out a topic for discussion.
> > Howard
>
> This is a scenario I have considered frequently. We have to assume
> that
> Richard dies during the battle but the Yorkists prevail. In these
> circumstances, John of Lincoln would automatically succeed as his
> cousin, Edward of Warwick, is still under his father's attainder. He
> was Richard's designated heir from earlier in 1485.
>
> Stephen.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>

That is perfectly true. However, reversing the attainder in 1485 would have left England just as unstable as in April 1483 as the Earl of Warwick was younger than Edward IV's sons.
It is widely thought that the Earl of Warwick was regarded as heir immediately after Edward of Middleham's death, implying a future reversal, but that he was supplanted after Queen Anne Neville (Warwick's aunt, of course, in two ways) died.
Richard's decision on this point was based on the ages of his nephews: the Earl of Warwick was 10 and the Earl of Lincoln was 23.
As the rest of the century was to show, Henry VII did not completely believe in the law of attainder but both he and Edward IV had won the throne whilst under one.
Conquest differes from succession here and an attainder does affect an individual's heirs. The Staffords went sixty years without a title until 1825 when Viscount Stafford's attainder was reversed. Clarence's attainder was only reversed after the Earl of Warwick's execution (1504 I think), the Earl's in 1510 and his sister's in about 1554. Otherwise, her copious descendants would have no claim.

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: Howard Heller
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: What if?


I was under the impression Richard named Clarence's son heir after his
own son died? He was waiting to reverse the attainder until his own
death, as Edward of Warwick had a better claim than Richard. So when
Richard died at Bosworth, some could claim the attainder was reversed
and back Edward of Warwick, who would have a better claim than Lincoln.

Howard


--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
>
> Stephen
>
> I think you are being a bit sweeping here. There is some doubt as to
wheher Richard did designate Lincoln as his heir, and there is room
for argument that Clarence's attainder did not affect Edward of
Warwick's position in the succession, since it did not mention the
succession. To my mind a dispute over who should succeed seems only
too likely; Lincoln, a young adult with some military and governmental
experience, would have been able to get himself proclaimed king and
crowned (his position would be stronger if he had actually fought at
Bosworth and could claim credit for disposing of Tudor), but a Warwick
faction would emerge, either immediately or if Lincoln proved a less
than ideal ruler. Bear in mind that Henry IV deposed Richard II and
installed himself as king, but his position was never fully secure,
and dynastic opposition to the Lancastrians only disappeared
(temporarily), because of Henry V's overwhelming prowess as a military
commander.
>
> Ann
>
>
> >
> > Anyway, I was wondering if Richard killed Tudor and then Stanley's
> men
> > killed Richard, who would be next in line for the throne? Earl of
> > Lincoln or Clarence's son Edward? Would different segments support
> > one or the other and the civil wars would have started up
> again/continued?
> > Or if there are any conspiracy theorists, would one of Edward IV's
> > sons come out of hiding?
> >
> > Just throwing out a topic for discussion.
> > Howard
>
> This is a scenario I have considered frequently. We have to assume
> that
> Richard dies during the battle but the Yorkists prevail. In these
> circumstances, John of Lincoln would automatically succeed as his
> cousin, Edward of Warwick, is still under his father's attainder. He
> was Richard's designated heir from earlier in 1485.
>
> Stephen.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought Richard had named Clarences son as his heir in deference to Anne's feeling (she
had adopted Edward and Margaret after the deaths of their parents and her own son).
Certainly he would have not been happy about the prospect of Edward as his heir as it was
said that little Edward "could not discern a goose from a capon" - poor little blighter. I
dont know - maybe he thought things would pan out in the end, as you do - if he had
survived Bosworth possibly he would have married again and had more children or maybe
if he knew Edwards sons were still alive and hidden in a safe place, in the event of him
having no more children he could have made one of them his successor, the Woodvilles
being now safely out of the way. John de la Pole would have seemed the best choice at
that moment in time -
Eileen






--- In , "Howard Heller" <howard_heller@m...>
wrote:
> I was under the impression Richard named Clarence's son heir after his
> own son died? He was waiting to reverse the attainder until his own
> death, as Edward of Warwick had a better claim than Richard. So when
> Richard died at Bosworth, some could claim the attainder was reversed
> and back Edward of Warwick, who would have a better claim than Lincoln.
>
> Howard
>
>
> --- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > I think you are being a bit sweeping here. There is some doubt as to
> wheher Richard did designate Lincoln as his heir, and there is room
> for argument that Clarence's attainder did not affect Edward of
> Warwick's position in the succession, since it did not mention the
> succession. To my mind a dispute over who should succeed seems only
> too likely; Lincoln, a young adult with some military and governmental
> experience, would have been able to get himself proclaimed king and
> crowned (his position would be stronger if he had actually fought at
> Bosworth and could claim credit for disposing of Tudor), but a Warwick
> faction would emerge, either immediately or if Lincoln proved a less
> than ideal ruler. Bear in mind that Henry IV deposed Richard II and
> installed himself as king, but his position was never fully secure,
> and dynastic opposition to the Lancastrians only disappeared
> (temporarily), because of Henry V's overwhelming prowess as a military
> commander.
> >
> > Ann
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Anyway, I was wondering if Richard killed Tudor and then Stanley's
> > men
> > > killed Richard, who would be next in line for the throne? Earl of
> > > Lincoln or Clarence's son Edward? Would different segments support
> > > one or the other and the civil wars would have started up
> > again/continued?
> > > Or if there are any conspiracy theorists, would one of Edward IV's
> > > sons come out of hiding?
> > >
> > > Just throwing out a topic for discussion.
> > > Howard
> >
> > This is a scenario I have considered frequently. We have to assume
> > that
> > Richard dies during the battle but the Yorkists prevail. In these
> > circumstances, John of Lincoln would automatically succeed as his
> > cousin, Edward of Warwick, is still under his father's attainder. He
> > was Richard's designated heir from earlier in 1485.
> >
> > Stephen.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> > Visit your group "" on the web.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

I thought Richard had named Clarences son as his heir in deference to Anne's feeling (she
had adopted Edward and Margaret after the deaths of their parents and her own son).
Certainly he would have not been happy about the prospect of Edward as his heir as it was
said that little Edward "could not discern a goose from a capon" - poor little blighter. I
dont know - maybe he thought things would pan out in the end, as you do - if he had
survived Bosworth possibly he would have married again and had more children or maybe
if he knew Edwards sons were still alive and hidden in a safe place, in the event of him
having no more children he could have made one of them his successor, the Woodvilles
being now safely out of the way. John de la Pole would have seemed the best choice at
that moment in time -
Eileen






--- In , "Howard Heller" <howard_heller@m...>
wrote:
> I was under the impression Richard named Clarence's son heir after his
> own son died? He was waiting to reverse the attainder until his own
> death, as Edward of Warwick had a better claim than Richard. So when
> Richard died at Bosworth, some could claim the attainder was reversed
> and back Edward of Warwick, who would have a better claim than Lincoln.
>
> Howard
>
>
> --- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > I think you are being a bit sweeping here. There is some doubt as to
> wheher Richard did designate Lincoln as his heir, and there is room
> for argument that Clarence's attainder did not affect Edward of
> Warwick's position in the succession, since it did not mention the
> succession. To my mind a dispute over who should succeed seems only
> too likely; Lincoln, a young adult with some military and governmental
> experience, would have been able to get himself proclaimed king and
> crowned (his position would be stronger if he had actually fought at
> Bosworth and could claim credit for disposing of Tudor), but a Warwick
> faction would emerge, either immediately or if Lincoln proved a less
> than ideal ruler. Bear in mind that Henry IV deposed Richard II and
> installed himself as king, but his position was never fully secure,
> and dynastic opposition to the Lancastrians only disappeared
> (temporarily), because of Henry V's overwhelming prowess as a military
> commander.
> >
> > Ann
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Anyway, I was wondering if Richard killed Tudor and then Stanley's
> > men
> > > killed Richard, who would be next in line for the throne? Earl of
> > > Lincoln or Clarence's son Edward? Would different segments support
> > > one or the other and the civil wars would have started up
> > again/continued?
> > > Or if there are any conspiracy theorists, would one of Edward IV's
> > > sons come out of hiding?
> > >
> > > Just throwing out a topic for discussion.
> > > Howard
> >
> > This is a scenario I have considered frequently. We have to assume
> > that
> > Richard dies during the battle but the Yorkists prevail. In these
> > circumstances, John of Lincoln would automatically succeed as his
> > cousin, Edward of Warwick, is still under his father's attainder. He
> > was Richard's designated heir from earlier in 1485.
> >
> > Stephen.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> > Visit your group "" on the web.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Someone (can't remember who) suggested that Richard 'delayed' remarrying after Anne's death. However, even if he had decided immediately that he must remarry, he only survived Anne for five months - insufficient time to get very far on the way to the altar.

Leaving aside the suggestion that he might have married Elizabeth of York, he would surely have sought a bride from a European royal family. Inevitably, this would take time to organise. First, a suitable young lady or ladies would have to be identified - realistically, they would have to be at least 14, and probably no older than 20, not already married or betrothed and of spotless reputation. Then feelers would have to be put out to the parents; in those day England did not have permanent embassies abroad, so suitable emissaries would have to be sent to the relevant courts. If the feelers brought positive results, a more formal embassy would need to be sent to conduct negotiations over the terms of the marriage, bringing suitable presents etc etc. The negotiations might well be protracted, and would need to be followed by a formal proxy betrothal before the bride could set out. Finally, proper arrangements would need to be made for the bride's journey and her reception in the
bridegroom's country. I don't really see that all this could have been done in less than a year. There are suggestions that a marriage with a member of the Spanish or Portuguese royal families was being considered at the time of Richard's death, but, realistically, that seems as far as things could get in five months. Obviously, it would be unseemingly in the extreme for Richard and his advisers to start looking for a second wife while Anne was still alive!

Ann