Richard III discussion

The talk about Richard's birthday sent me thinking. In Bertram's book Royal Blood Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes he did a what if of sorts if things had gone differently. Anyone want to take a few guesses at how different our world might be if Richard had taken the day at Bosworth?

Personally, I doubt it would have been much different in the long run, except for those authors who specialize in writing about the Tudors. As I recall, Fields speculates that England would have remained a Catholic country, but I don't think the reformation would have been all that easy to keep out of England.

I'm cynical enough to think that the Earl of Warwick would have eventually met the same fate under Richard III as he did under Henry VII (especially if Richard's remaining enemies looked toward Warwick as their last hope following Richard's victory at Bosworth), and I suspect the Duke of Buckingham's sons might have been taken into custody by Richard eventually also.

Ah, virtual/alternative history! Love it...
I can't imagine that England would have resisted the Reformation, although the specifics would undoubtedly have been different.
To me, the interesting question is who would Richard's heir have been? He would certainly have married off all his nieces to suitable matches. Warwick? That's hard to imagine. I think he would have remarried to some sturdy foreign princess and bred a passel of kids, as Edward had done. But given the average lifespan of the time, he may also have left his son to rule as a minor...
I can't imagine that he would have been able to leave Warwick & Buckingham's sons free in that eventuality.
Would England have been a different country? Probably not. (Except there would be no Tudor tourism & media industry.)

Well, we wouldn't have eventually had the great Queen Elizabeth I, now would we? It's possible that the particular flowering of culture that took place in the Elizabethan age would have taken place in any case - a sort of cultural determinism? - but it's also possible that it was the unique circumstances of her reign (a regnant, unmarried Queen, etc.) that created the climate in which, say, Shakespeare flourished.

I love Richard, and I think he was somewhat ill-done by history, but ... I don't think I'd trade him for Good Queen Bess!

I do think that the temptation to meddle in English affairs (just as the English had meddled in theirs for the last century) may have been too much for the French to resist, especially as the defeat of Henry Tudor receded in their memory, and particularly if Richard's successor had been young, weak or ill-prepared. (After all, great kings aren't always succeeded by equally capable sons -- Henry II and his sons; Edward I and Edward II, etc.) A lot, of course, would have depended on the character of the young Warwick and his own talents or lack thereof. He certainly could have been a threat to Richard or Richard's sons, especially in the context of a crown that had been tossed around for much of the previous century. A century later, when Elizabeth died, the transition to Stuart rule was almost scarily smooth, given the number of possible (albeit distant and mostly female or via the female line) other possible claimants. By then, stability had taken over as a prime consideration for the 'new elite' of Tudor England, vs the scrabble for power.

And that's another interesting question that flows from Bibliophile's comment. The Tudors were very mercantilist -- they encouraged business, free enterprise, a focus on trade and industry as a means to achieve riches and power, rather than raw military power and birth. By Elizabeth's death, English society had been dramatically transformed (and not just culturally). The "nation of shopkeepers" had been born. This emphasis was born in Henry VII's rule -- the penny-pinching miser who disdained war as unproductive may have been charmless, dull, and perhaps even evil and malicious. But I would argue that he set England on a different course, one that laid the first seeds of what the country would become in the late 18th and first 19th century.

I'm not saying that that could not have happened had Richard won, I'm just arguing that I think Henry VII's distinct personality and priorities had a very definite and lasting impact on the English polity. A victory by Richard may have ended with England remaining a more conventional kind of European monarchy.

As far as rebellions against Richard go, it would depend a great deal on who (if anyone) on Tudor's side escaped following Bosworth and how Richard treated those who were within his power. If he felt that his right to rule had been divinely vindicated, his rule might well have been less, as opposed to more, inclusive.

For those who believe that one or both princes in the Tower were still alive in August 1485 (I for one don't believe that they were), there's also the question of whether they would have been content to live and die in obscurity, or whether they might have asserted a claim to the throne.

The Tudors were very mercantilist -- they encouraged business, free enterprise, a focus on trade and industry as a means to achieve riches and power, rather than raw military power and birth.

Suzanne, I think this is a key point. (Plus, of course, there is all of the money that the royal family and key courtiers amassed when they were able to get the treasuries of the Catholic Church in England.) Wasn't enclosure - and the changes to agriculture that it entailed - also a process that accelerated and was perhaps given great impulse under the Tudors? (The question is whether it was the personality of the rulers, or the change in the relationship between state, society and church that was the key ingredient. Although I think it is also possible to overstate the degree of actual religious reformation in England - weren't Calvinists also considered heretics by the C of E?)

Yes, enclosure as a phenomenon really didn't get going very aggressively until the 16th century. (It was around in the 15th, but not in such an intensive manner.) Once the wars in France were over, and Edward IV ascended the throne, it was time to emphasize the cloth industry, which meant sheep farming, which meant enclosure. The culmination of this came in the early Stuart years, and was one of the grievances of Parliament in that era.

And Henry VIII was, indeed, an equal-opportunity burner of heretics. Monks were burned alive, but so was Anne Askew. The Anglican Communion continues to dance along the fault line between Catholicism and Protestantism; it accepts many of the same theological principles of the Catholic church, including most (all?) of the sacraments (sorry, don't know what all the Catholic sacraments are...) but deny the Pope's dominion. In many ways, the English church is closer to the Catholic than to the Calvinists/Lutherans, etc. , and ever since the political role of the papacy sharply declined in the 19th century, talk of some kind of re-affiliation has actually been heard. You certainly have 'divines' who moved both ways across the divide, with Cardinal Newman being just one example. (And many Catholic priests who leave in order to marry end up in the Anglican/episcopal church.)

The point about the personality of the ruler is extremely intriguing. Some monarchs -- Edward I, Elizabeth, Henry 8, etc. -- had strong personalities that definitely shaped their reigns and the nation they left behind. (Louis XIV would be another such, or Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor.) Others had a strong impact that proved to be short-lived -- Henry V, Edward IV. And then others had strong personalities that had little to no impact on the realm, whether it's because of the constraints of an increasingly constitutional monarchy or because of their own inability to win enough adherents to really reshape their world. Some, like Edward III, emerge almost as caretaker kings -- monarchs who weren't transformative.

We know Richard was a very effective administrator, a skilled warrior and a cultured individual (if not up to the standards of Anthony Woodville). But two years of data -- a large part of which had to be spent battling rebellions, dealing with the deaths of his wife and son -- isn't a lot to extrapolate from in trying to decide what kind of monarch he would have been. I think he probably would have been a very good one, but what KIND of good king is harder to gauge. There are too many 'unknown unknowns' -- how he would have reacted to changes in society, for instance. We can extrapolate, theorize, but never know. (Which is why we have historical fiction!)

I think overall, Richard was cautious and mostly made considered decisions, but could act rashly, especially if he felt he and/or those close to him were threatened. I think his decision to ignore the advice at Bosworth was one of impatience based on his experience that his prior winning decisions.

"Which is why we have historical fiction!"

Which is a reason why I chose to bring him forward in time to this century rather than change history. I wanted to explore what I thought his character would become had he lived longer. Another reason I didn't extend his life in his own time was because I didn't want to change history. If I had chosen to do that, I would have created a fictional world where someone like Richard would have won that battle.

One of my long-term projects is an alternative history novel on this very thing; but the way things are going I may not live long enough.

My theory is that Richard would have wanted a crack at France, partly to avenge the aborted expedition under Edward IV, partly to get revenge for their assistance of Tudor, partly because it would have made him popular. (The English always liked wars with France, until the bill was presented.)

He would have married Joanna of Portugal first.

I suspect Richard would have discovered why Edward had decided not to fight, that the French in the late 15th century were militarily superior. I think he would have lost, and quite possibly got himself and half the nobility killed. I envisage something more like Castillion than Agincourt.

Joanna might then have had a chance to shine as Regent for their son, as it's unlikely there would have been an adult royal male available. Lincoln, maybe, if he survived.

As in Scotland, the reformation would probably have come later, and been (even) more bloody and destructive when it did come.

Just to add, it would be almost worth writing the novel just to describe the execution of the Stanleys!

Sir Thomas Pilkington would be Earl of Derby. Francis Lovel, Earl of Oxford. Bishop Stillington translated to Canterbury on Bourchier's death, and Morton translated by the Pope to partibus infidelium. Elizabeth of York to marry the Duke of Beja, and Dame Elizabeth Grey to retire to Portugal in her company.

Brian, I love really well-thought-out alternative histories. When you finish this project, you will certainly have an eager reader in me!

Bibliophile wrote: "Brian, I love really well-thought-out alternative histories. When you finish this project, you will certainly have an eager reader in me!"

Me too. Although I'd be happy as a clam just to have the current WIP done and published :)

So, Richard as Talbot redux? Interesting!!
I tend to agree with you re France. We know that Richard was an intrepid and able soldier; we know that he was willing to take risks. While not bellicose for the sake of it, I don't think he was in Edward's way of thinking -- that peace, stability, etc. are the greatest goods to pursue.

Two HF ideas, one alternative, one not. A novel from the POV of Joanna of Portugal, from the time she leaves to marry Richard post the revised outcome of Bosworth; the second about the Bureau brothers, whose tactical skills were, if I recall correctly, greatly responsible for the sudden return to effectiveness of the French military in the 1450s or thereabouts (and helped with Castillon...)

Hi Suzanne,

That's a great idea about Joanna of Portugal! (She was a very saintly lady, so would probably have got on well with Richard's mother.) Hers would be an interesting POV.

The Bureau brothers I know little about, but France had done a brilliant reorganisation of its armies (full time professionals with lots of guns) and Charles VIII went through Italy like a knife through butter. Much would depend on how shrewdly Richard played his cards, because in the late 1480s/early 1490s there were still potential allies like Brittany. But I have this idea he would not back down like Edward did - and I don't criticise Edward there, I think he was wise. Edward was a brilliant general - I'm less sure that Richard was. It's a big step up from divisional commander to commanding general, more so when you've got all the political stuff to weigh up as well as the military side.

The English (Calais garrison apart) were essentially amateur soldiers heavily reliant on archers, and tactics hadn't notably evolved since Talbot's day. I find it very hard to 'see' an English victory in a pitched battle, and I don't see Richard accepting a settlement that avoided one!

Charles VIII went through Italy like a knife through butter

Was some of that not also due to the conflicts between and within the Italian city-states? Savonarola was pro-French, of course, but others were not. And Gonzaga and the Holy League beat Charles eventually, though of course not as badly as the Spanish beat Francois I at Pavia.

The one thing about Richard that would have hindered him as a monarch is, I think, what you've just described. He didn't compromise a lot; it simply didn't seem to be in his nature. I see Edward as the ultimate pragmatist (perhaps his hedonistic lifestyle as monarch was a reflection of that); Richard as more of an idealist. "Why should I accept a negotiated end to the conflict when I'm right?" Was he a skilled political leader? The events of his reign give a mixed picture. He trusted a lot of people who later betrayed him (vs Edward, who withdrew his trust from Warwick and never trusted Clarence...) and had little experience of negotiating with foreign leaders except via warfare (Scotland, etc.)

Jean Bureau commanded the French forces at Castillon -- he was the guy who really transformed the French army by helping them incorporate firearms effectively while the English still relied on the bow & arrow. He went from being a master gunner to a junior nobleman, if I recall correctly! Would be a fascinating rags to riches kind of story, but a heck of a lot of research.

Maybe my comment about Charles and Italy was a little simplistic, I may even be over-correcting for what I find to be a common assumption among my compatriots (at least) that any English army can beat any French one. People from Thomas of Woodstock onwards have believed this! There's a succession of them right through 14/15th century history, with Richard being one. It's a very dangerous assumption.

In a nutshell France could afford to lose a battle, but if something like Edward IV's 1475 expedition had come to grief it would have been disastrous for England, what Flodden was to Scotland.

Suzanne, I wonder about Richard as a political leader. In some ways, for example his success in the north, I actually think he is underestimated. In other ways (dealing with Stanley for example) he seems a tad naive. Well, everyone has to learn and maybe he would have done, would have 'grown into the job.'

Interesting stuff about Jean Bureau. The French monarchy was well served at this time and although some nobles were discontented the king always seemed well on top. I think in modern terms they had made a step change, when you compare to the chaos that reigned under Charles VI.

Brian, re France -- exactly -- and what Crecy and Agincourt were for the French. They had learned from those defeats. English power on the European mainland (the Continent) had been eroded since Henry II, but they had never really faced a decisive defeat pre-Castillon. And I think those who criticize Edward for his decisions in 1475 forget the fact that it was probably informed by the vivid memory of Castillon. (How often do you hear that battle even mentioned these days??? vs Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt???) It must have been a bit like negotiating at Munich with the memory of WW1 to the forefront. (And Castillon had cost the life of the Marlborough/Wellington of the 15th century, too...)

Brian, following up on this...

I was just looking at my library of NF books about this era, and stumbled over a volume in the 'brief history' series; "A Brief History of Medieval Warfare". It's the subtitle I thought my interest you: the Rise and Fall of English Supremacy at Arms, 1314-1485", which neatly encapsulates the period we've been talking about. Not much there about Bureau, but it's comprehensive and seems (to me as a non-specialist) reasonably authoritative and sans agenda.

Thank you Suzanne. Sounds like a useful book.

If Richard had imprisoned his nephew, Edward of Warwick then executed him aged 24 when a suiter for his son and heir comes up, probably Catherine of Aragon again, he would have done it with a heavy heart no doubt ad he might have been fond of the boy. It was thought he had learning disabilities..

Had Richard been defeated but survived instead of being killed, he would have been enraged on hearing about his adversary putting young Warwick in the Tower then having him executed later. To him, Henry Tudor was just a commoner and his nephew a royal prince and that possibly only a royal prince himself could treat him that way.

Quite possibly he might have confined the boy but he would have been stupid to put him in the Tower, if he was not behind the disapparence of the King Edward's boys. If he had any sense he would not have repeated that mistake. Princess Margeret of Clarence would never have forgiven her uncle because unlike King Edward's boys who disappeared, his treatment of George of Clarence son would have been out in the open if it was similar to what Henry VII did do to Edward of Warick in real life. .

He couldn't afford to damage his own reputation still further having young Edward of Warwick disappearing so better to execute him as an adult on a trumped up charge like Henry Tudor did.in real life. Just maybe Richard would not have done any of this. Because of his tarnished reputation concerning the Princes in the Tower, the best course of action would be is not to imprison his younger nephew at all, let alone having him killed.

There are rumours that besides John de la Pole, he had thought of making Clarences's son an heir as well until he marries again and has children of his own. Well we will never know. We can only speculate.

Before Richard's death at Bosworth, the boy was well treated. He might have let his nephew live in his household for his wife Anne as she was the boy's aunt. She would have objected her sister's child being housed in the Tower along with the 'Woodville' boys. But Edward of Warwick was also Richard's brother's child. Perhaps men in those days saw things differently. It could be the reason why they avoided reigning Queens because the male dominated society of those times believed female rulers would put relationships and emotional ties before protecting the throne for themselves and their heirs.

Wow, a lot of 'what-ifs' in that posting. Claire, you could write a great historical fiction with your imagination! IMO, had Richard won the battle of Bosworth, he would have remarried quite quickly to secure the succession. He had already been in negotiations for a bride, from what I've read. Lancastrian hopes would have likely died with the defeat, whether Tudor was killed on the field or later executed for treason. There weren't many die-hards left at that point, except maybe for the Earl of Oxford, but since he led Tudor's forces, he would have been tried and executed for treason as well. Oxford didn't have any sons - so possibly the title might have been awarded to one of Richard's loyal supporters. If Richard was smart, he would have locked up Margaret Beaufort and thrown away the key! Ditto for Elizabeth Woodville - although if he had provided great matches for Elizabeth's daughters, preferably on the continent, she could have gone with them to their new royal (?) homes and been out of Richard's hair. As long as she could 'lord it' over someone she would be happy. Her daughter, as queen in some other country would have been just as satisfying, probably more so, that marrying a noble in England and having to take a back seat. Just my thoughts ...

But then we would never have had Elizabeth I

We might still have had a great queen - just not a Tudor one.

It had been only a matter of time when a Queen would reign in England in her own right, whether Henry Tudor or Richard III won the victory. Unlike France, England did not have Salic Law which barred women to the throne, It might have been avoided to some extent but not considered impossible either.