Richard may have commanded a wing at the battle of Barnet in 1471, aged eighteen, and he led armies against the Scots in the early 1480s, whereas Henry had never been on a battlefield and had spent the years 1471–84 as a minor diplomatic pawn of Duke Francis of Brittany, lodged under watch in his castles and at risk of being extradited to England. Henry’s uncle Jasper Tudor had military experience from the 1460s, as a long-standing Lancastrian commander in Wales who had held out at Harlech Castle for years after defeat by Sir William Herbert in 1461. The senior Lancastrian commander at Bosworth, Oxford, had commanded Warwick’s left wing at Barnet in 1471 before years in exile; having failed to stir up revolt in Cornwall from his base on St Michael’s Mount in the mid-1470s, he had been arrested by Edward IV and spent years more in prison near Calais before escaping. Richard faced a potential for treachery by Lord Stanley, the commander of the Lancashire and Cheshire area levies, as Henry Tudor’s stepfather and a pardoned participant in the nebulous ‘Hastings plot’ of June 1483–he had refused to take his troops to join Richard’ s forces on the field. His brother Sir William Stanley was also strategically positioned with his levies near the battlefield (at what site is unclear), and joined his brother in attacking Richard when the King got into difficulties–and in 1495 was to be executed by Henry Tudor for apparent links with the Yorkist pretender Warbeck.
There was allegedly a warning to Norfolk beforehand that Richard was to be betrayed, presumably by the Stanleys. It is also uncertain if the Earl of Northumberland, commanding his north-eastern levies as part of the royal infantry, held back from following Richard down Ambien Hill into the melee out of cowardice or treachery. It should, however, be pointed out that the risk of commanders of the sections of a mid-fifteenth century army defecting to the opposition in the middle of a battle was not a special problem unique to Richard. At Barnet the Marquis of Montague, Warwick’s brother, was found to be wearing the enemy colours under his armour when he was killed, possibly indicating an intention to defect when opportune; a few weeks later chaos among the Lancastrians at the battle of Tewkesbury allegedly led to one commander having his brains dashed out by another who feared he had been suborned by Edward IV.62
The battle of ‘Bosworth’, in fact of Sutton Cheney or Stoke Golding, is still contentious as it is not clear what positions the rival armies held and where. The battle took place adjacent to a ‘marsh’, which has since dried out, and scholarly argument has raged over which way the armies were facing. Richard was apparently to the north-east or north of Henry, who had marched out from Atherstone on Watling Street. But enough is agreed by the sources to make it clear that Richard had to attack Henry by moving west or south-west down from a hill–traditionally seen as Ambien Hill, though the latest finds of cannon-shot and royal badges are enough to cast this in doubt. It started poorly for the royal forces when Howard was killed leading the royal vanguard. The Stanleys did not yet join in on Henry’s side and merely continued to disobey orders to move to the King’s support It is unclear why Northumberland did not move his troops forward to aid Norfolk’s men in breaking Henry’s line, and it may have been due to geography rather than intended treason. Was the ground too marshy or the hill too steep for an advance on the royal army’s right to reinforce the vanguard–or did Northumberland fear a Stanley attack on his flanks?
The two vanguards were left engaged on approximately equal terms in the centre, without Richard’s forces being brought fully into action. Richard’s were the more experienced and thus likelier to prevail in a long combat. But the King attempted to put the issue beyond doubt by a personally-led cavalry charge downhill against the pretender, presumably to pre-empt a Stanley advance to rescue the rebels. His frontal attack with his Household knights could have won the day–he got close enough to Henry to cut down his standard-bearer, Sir William Brandon, and several others who would have been near the invaders’ leader. But, as would have been feared, both Stanleys then attacked Richard in the rear and he was surrounded and hacked down. Allegedly, he refused to escape in the few minutes available. But if the Stanleys had delayed for a few more minutes, Northumberland had moved into the fight with Richard to give him the advantage of numbers and thus dissuaded the Stanleys from intervening, and Richard had had the luck to reach Henry in time, the outcome of a personal combat between them would have been in little doubt. Those magnates who had hung back from the battle to see which way it went would have had no option but to hasten to the King’s assistance with assurances of their support. Lacking a broad base of support and with his main general Norfolk dead, Richard would not have been able to risk punishing them for fear of causing more rebellions–Stanley controlled much of Lancashire and the Isle of Man, and Northumberland was head of the powerful Percy clan and crucial to the safety of the Border now Richard himself had moved south to London. Richard, like Henry VII in1485 and 1487, would have had to make the most of what support he had among the peers and seek to establish a secure regime with the passive quiescence of men he knew he could not trust.
Richard had sought to project an image of himself as a man concerned with his subjects’ welfare since 1483, acting swiftly to carry out justice, dealing with concerns raised in Parliament, and pointing out his moral standards and piety in contrast with the ‘luxury’ and immorality of his brother’s reign. His use of moral issues in his propaganda was noted, with foes who had been known for their wild living at Edward IV’s luxurious court (e.g. the Marquis of Dorset) being placarded as immoral and Edward IV’s ex-mistress Elizabeth/Jane Shore having to do penance as a whore. Richard’s sympathetic biographers, Paul Murray Kendall (1955) in particular, have paid extensive tribute to his abilities, public-spiritedness, and hard work as king. His critics have, however, noted his obsessiveness with sin and his extensive founding of chantries, and analysis of his personal ‘Book of Hours’ has pointed out the hints at a sense of guilt–and a personal devotion to St Julian who had killed his relatives. His loss was particularly lamented in York, the centre of his power, where the Council records paid him a generous tribute.63
Richard III’s policies after Bosworth: would he have been more insecure than Henry VII?
As unchallenged king from 1485 Richard would have continued these policies, sincerely or not, and with Henry Tudor dead or in flight to France he would have faced no major challenges for at least several years. The unusual and disquieting circumstances of his removal of a legitimate sovereign meant that, like the similarly-placed Henry IV, he would not have been secure from a series of potential challenges even after one crushing victory. The continuing acquiescence of Elizabeth Woodville and powerlessness of her 1483 southern English allies could not be taken for granted, and it is indicative of Richard’s sense of this dynastic threat that even before his ailing wife died in winter 1484–5 the idea was floated that he should marry the Princes’ sister Elizabeth. It is unclear if he was ever serious or just raising the issue to see if this drastic solution to his dynastic illegitimacy was possible, but the fact that it was considered despite the ‘sin’ of incest involved indicates his (or his supporters’) sense of weakness and need to neutralize Edward IV’s children as a threat. The marriage would have been rare for medieval Europe and particularly since the introduction of Church canon law, the main known examples of a similar uncle-niece dynastic alliance having been in Rome (Claudius and Agrippina) and Byzantium (Heraclius and Martina). Unfortunately, neither had ended well –Agrippina had murdered Claudius and some of Martina’s children by her uncle had been born disabled. The next outbreak of uncle-niece marriages was to occur among the Habsburgs, as a measure to keep their vast inheritance within the family–Philip II married his niece, Anne, in the 1570s. (The Church did not seek to prevent this ‘incest’, but its champion Philip was in a stronger position than Richard III was in 1485.) Marriage among first cousins was more normal, and was common practice among the Spanish and Portuguese royalty. Richard and his brother George of Clarence both married their first cousin’s (Warwick) daughter
s, Anne and Isabel Neville. Reaction at court and among the ‘political nation’ to any idea of his marrying Elizabeth of York was so hostile that Richard was forced to deny that it had ever been seriously considered. Some modern writers also think that the apparent enthusiasm of Princess Elizabeth for a marriage–and her appeal to Howard for support–refers to a planned Portuguese marriage, not to her marrying her uncle.64 His return to the idea after a victory at Bosworth was possible, given his ruthlessness and the fact that the possible rebellion that Catesby and Ratcliffe had warned could follow the marriage was now impractical.
After Bosworth he would have been unwise to have dared to carry out the marriage even to consolidate his links with the ‘legitimist’ cause represented by his nieces and to prevent more Edwardian Household loyalists plotting to raise a pretender against him as Elizabeth of York’s next fiancé. Any foreign prince who was married to Elizabeth could now be a target for plotters seeking to use him to depose Richard. All of Edward IV’s daughters could not be removed as political threats by putting them in nunneries; logically, the best solution was to marry Elizabeth to Richard’s own chosen heir John, Earl of Lincoln (about two years her senior). Richard, like Henry after 1485, would have been marrying off Edward IV’s daughters to his own loyal supporters as they became old enough–probably mostly northern magnates. The Duke of Norfolk’s grandson Thomas Howard (born c. 1478), married to Elizabeth of York’s sister Anne in real life, would have been one obvious candidate. The girls would have made better matches than they did under Henry VII, though foreign marital agreements would have been more difficult than under Edward IV as the issue of their ‘bastardy’ had now come into the open, which would have made foreign suitors conscious of rank wary of marrying them.
The English Crown, unlike the Scottish, had not passed by female descent since the twelfth century (1135, aborted by a challenger, and 1154), although Edward IV could claim descent from Edward III in female as well as male lines. When Richard II had named his heir as Edmund Mortimer in 1398–9 that had legitimized female descent, as Edmund was the grandson of the daughter of Edward III’s second surviving son Lionel; but Henry IV’s accession had overturned this. Edward IV’s father Richard of York had returned to the Mortimer claim as his excuse for usurpation in 1460–and been opposed in the House of Lords by most of the nobility. Once Richard III’s son Edward died in 1484 he was left with the choice for heir of his attainted brother Clarence’s young son Edward, born in 1475–who may or may not have been weak-minded–or his sister Elizabeth de la Pole’s eldest son John, born around 1464, and chose the latter. Indeed, it has been argued recently that Richard’s marriage in (?) 1472 to Anne Neville, within the proscribed degrees of dynastic affinity, did not have an adequate legal permit so his son’s succession could have been challenged if the latter had lived. Is it possible that if Prince Edward had not died in 1484 and Richard III had died in the 1490s or 1500s, the new King would have been open to challenges about his legitimacy? Richard III’s actions in dragging up obscure legal claims to justify a naked ‘power-grab’ in 1483 would then have come to haunt his dynasty as his son faced a challenge on similar grounds–perhaps by John, Earl of Lincoln.
Richard III would need to re-marry as soon as possible to produce his own heirs, and would be advised to choose a foreign princess, which would mean a long delay during diplomatic arrangements. In the meantime John, Earl of Lincoln, would succeed if he died suddenly. The succession of John as King John II would have been unusual though as ‘legitimate’ as the Yorkists claiming the throne in 1460–1 by female descent from Edward III’s second son Lionel or as Richard II naming Lionel’s great-grandson as his heir in 1398. It was possibly capable of touching off a revolt by a rival who could also claim royal descent, such as a member of the Stafford and Bourchier families (descendants of Edward III’s younger sons) or a supporter of Clarence’s son.
Rival heirs: Clarence’s son and Edward IV’s daughters
Edward Earl of Warwick, born in 1475, was the focus of the initial Yorkist plots against Henry VIII and was to be kept in the Tower for twenty-four years and finally executed on a trumped-up charge of plotting to escape with Perkin Warbeck in 1499. The execution may have troubled Henry and was widely seen as unjust; in terms of ‘realpolitik’ it halted Yorkist threats on Warwick’s behalf and may have been secretly insisted on by the sovereigns of Aragon and Castile, Ferdinand and Isabella, as part of their marital alliance with Henry. It is unclear if Warwick was really feeble-minded in 1499 or only naïve from long incarceration in the Tower, but as an inexperienced youth lacking military experience he could not have been a serious threat to the veteran Richard in the 1490s–or even to Lincoln as the new king–except as the puppet of disgruntled nobles. It is unclear if Richard had ever seriously considered Warwick as an heir in 1484, the sources being contradictory, and in practical terms Lincoln was older and thus more able to succeed securely if Richard died before any new royal offspring of a second marriage reached maturity. Lincoln had already had some administrative experience as head of the Council in the north, and would have continued to acquire titles and offices into the 1490s–possibly in the role of chief supporter in the north that Richard had held under Edward IV. In due course similar powers could be given to his younger brothers Edmund and Richard, born around 1466–70, and other royal stalwarts should have included Norfolk’s son Thomas, Earl of Surrey (born c. 1445).
There is the possibility that the question of Edward IV’s marriage would have continued to hang over the English Crown, with Elizabeth of York’s husband a potential threat to Richard or his heir unless she had been sent abroad to an allied prince. The Yorkist ally Maximilian of Habsburg, stepson of Richard’s sister Margaret of Burgundy, had a son (Philip, born 1478), but he was twelve years younger than Elizabeth and is unlikely to have been a candidate given his father’s prior concern with a Spanish alliance. Her original engagement to Charles VIII of France had already been broken by his father, and a cordial Franco-English rapprochement is unlikely given their probable clashes over Brittany around 1488. Elizabeth Woodville could have continued to intrigue against Richard unless she had been found to have encouraged Henry Tudor in 1485 and been pensioned off minus her income to Bermondsey Abbey as in real-life 1487. Even if her eldest daughter had been married to Lincoln or some accommodating foreign prince, Elizabeth Woodville could have encouraged another daughter’s husband to depose Richard and take the Crown–or overcome her probable enmity to Clarence’s family to attempt to marry one of her daughters to Warwick. Any forced reconciliation between a politic Richard and a chastened Elizabeth Woodville after 1485, with her son the Marquis of Dorset recalled (if not killed fighting for Henry Tudor) and an attempt to win back Edward IV’s disgruntled ex-Household men, might have led to attempts to press for the legitimization of Edward IV’s daughters–who foreign princes would be reluctant to accept as wives if they were illegitimate. The King could then have legitimated them as personal concessions rather than by having to cancel his contentious law Titulus Regius that had bastardized them, while making it clear that they had no legal claim on the Crown–as the Beauforts were legitimated in 1396 but barred from the succession. The death of Lincoln preceding Richard’s cannot be ruled out, possibly in battle on Richard’s behalf against the Scots or French, and in that case Richard would have had to make a choice between Lincoln’s next brother Edmund de la Pole and the younger Warwick, Clarence’s son, as his heir. Reinstating Warwick would have necessitated reversing his father’s attainder of 1478.
Would Richard marry again after 1485?
Richard was only thirty-two in August 1485, and had plenty of time to marry again and father heirs who could be adult before he died. Assuming that he did not dare to solve the conundrum of Edward IV’s delegitimized daughters by marrying Elizabeth of York himself, he would have been looking for a foreign princess to cement an alliance after the diplomatic isolation that had afflicted England since the rapprochement between Louis XI and Maxim
ilian of Burgundy (Habsburg).There were no Scots princesses available, quite apart from James III’s hostility towards Richard for the 1482 invasion, and the young Charles VIII of France’s sisters were married. The daughters of Ferdinand and Isabella were too young (the eldest, born in 1470, was ear-marked for the more important King of Portugal), as was Margaret, the daughter of Maximilian and Mary of Burgundy, born in 1480. As of summer 1485, a marriage between Richard and the Portuguese princess Juana (b. 1452) was being explored as part of the ‘deal’ that would have married off Elizabeth of York to Prince Manuel–with the ubiquitous Sir Edward Brampton as the ‘go-between’. The devout Juana, later to be known as ‘the ‘Holy Princess’, would have shared Richard’s strong and ostentatious morality.65
The War of the Roses Page 21