Richard III AND Henry Tudor Both Die on Bosworth Field: Who Becomes King?

  TheRomanSlayer,

  Interesting question.  Probably difficult to achieve as once one claimant died their supporters generally lose heart so really needs both to die in pretty short succession and also both deaths to be known. 

  Likely to be a further period of chaos and conflict with assorted powerful figures struggling for power.  Assuming that the son's of Edward IV were actually killed by Richard, which is the accepted story but some doubt has been raised on this then Edward's daughter Elizabeth, who Henry VII married after his OTL victory is probably the primary prize. Likely to be one of the big players would seek to secure and to cement their position and perhaps claim the throne themselves if they married her.  If the princes are still alive then Richard's claim of their illegitimacy may be ignored/rejected and they become pawns of someone, who seeked to control them and become regent for the older prince Edward.

  I agree its likely to end with a member of the Yorkish line on the throne, albeit if the princes are dead it might be something like the Tudor situation with Elizabeth married into whoever's family wins out in the following power struggle. 

  Digging down a bit when Edward's children were declared illegitimate and Richard III took the throne, as he had no offspring his designated heirs were the children of his dead brother George Duke of Clarence.  As such they could also be 'claimants' or more accurately tools of others I suspect.  He had four children, two of which died young so the primary heir here would be his son Edward, who was 10 years old at this point.  If the worst comes to the worst you could have factions fighting in the name of both Edward and Elizabeth, which might prolong the war further.

  Steve

  TheRomanSlayer,

  Afraid I can't really advise on that.  My knowledge is limited and I came up with what I said via some quick Wiki reading to refresh my knowledge.  Probably whichever noble who fancied his chances or who could get hold of her or make a deal with her - or possibly her family, not sure who was still alive and powerful.  Some of the names you mentioned, such as the Howard's, Stanley's or Percies might be up there but there might be others.

  TheRomanSlayer,

  Well to a degree the monarchy was elected prior to 1066 as the monarch was formally selected by the grand council.  This was normally a member of the Wessex dynasty or a Danish conqueror a couple of times but Harald II got the role as both the most powerful noble and an experienced military commander when England faced multiple external threats, and came close to saving the country.  However that was pretty much ended when William managed to seize power and the monarchy the Normans brought in, while often restrained by powerful nobles when the king was weak, was fundamentally autocratic in a way that the Anglo-Saxon period was not.  Given that the main players are the same powerful noble families their probably unlikely to welcome any restrictions on their power, either as nobles or as prospective kings by Parliament or other bodies.  Plus the previous tradition had been lost for several centuries here so it could be difficult to get recognition of the idea.  Possibly the HRE could be a model here but then given the tension that generated between the ruler and the Papacy that could be a bad idea.

  I think parliament was starting to regain some power and had important powers in some control of tax raising, hence the king needed it for waging foreign wars.  However it was still pretty weak and seems to have been under the control of powerful monarchs such as Henry XIII and Elizabeth I for much of their reign with little restraint.

  Steve

  TheRomanSlayer,

  I think the key question is how unpopular Richard was as while a number of nobles did ultimately play a major role in deposing him a lot of the hostility toward him may have been a result of later Tudor propaganda against him to discredit both him and hence the house of York.  Henry Tudor's claim to the throne by blood, as opposed to conquest, was fairly flimsy so that could well have been a factor.  [Hence as you said in the last point Henry did fear a Yorkish restoration].  Also the bloodshed had been so bad among the assorted claimants that other than Henry I don't think there was a Lancasterians claimant left so if both died the only people with a blood claim to the throne were Yorkists.  Either the princes, if still alive, their sister Margret or their cousins, the children of the Duke of Clarence.

  My own feeling is that a husband for Margret is more likely to be one of the English nobles, although they would have to win the support of at least some of their rivals.  A foreign husband, who would be seen as king even if there was some agreement trying to limit his powers - as I believe happened later when Mary married Philip II of Spain - and could be seen as unpopular for that reason while I'm not sure what a Scottish noble could offer for such a match.  [Other than as possibly a compromise candidate because none of the powerful English nobles would allow one of their rivals the post.]  However I could be wrong as like you I'm checking up on a lot of the details and if you start a thread its your story to tell.

  Steve

  TheRomanSlayer,

  Sorry, yes Elizabeth.  My error.   That could definitely be a complication if she was married to a major Scottish noble as not only would there be questions on how well the English accepted him but how upset the Stewarts/Stuarts would be at one of their rivals becoming king or at least prince consort of England.

  Steve

  TheRomanSlayer,

  Good question.  If one of his main nobles and potential rivals has married Elizabeth of York and become powerful in England he's not likely to marry an English wife.  Unless possibly he married Margaret, the surviving daughter of George, Duke of Clarence, which would give him a significant claim to the English throne himself and possibly trigger another round of conflict, however involving both England and Scotland with claimants to both thrones on both sides.  That would be a potential for an even greater mess. 

  France has always liked good relations with Scotland as a way of posing a northern threat to England, especially since the English monarchy still has a claim, albeit weak by now, to the French throne.  That was probably partly why James's OTL daughter Mary Queen of Scots was married 1st to the French heir, so this could happen a generation earlier with France providing a French wife for him, possibly even a royal princess, although I don't know who would be available.

  James might look further afield, possibly towards Scandinavia as there are some historical links [although not always friendly of course] and trade with some of then.

  Steve

  TheRomanSlayer,

  Sounds like you are planning even worse times for both my countries [England and UK].   If that pair of dynastic marriages did take place and a result new round of wars encompassing both England and Scotland in civil wars it could be very nasty and probably increase long term distrust.  It might lead to a somewhat earlier union if one side wins quickly but that could be unstable with continued rebellions - as with the Wars of the Roses - and with two separate nations with long established identities any such union is far less likely to last than OTL.  Ireland may be less unsettled until the reformation comes along as the sizeable number of Catholic English settlers in the Pale especially and the duration of the Norman/English presence probably means its more accepted than later when religious division were added to the boiling pot.

  Given the status of the Catholic church there are bound to be calls for reform.  We're already had Jan Hus and the Husssite wars and there will be further unrest.  Unless the Papacy is willing to give up a number of corrupt practices and sales of indulgences were a major source of wealth sooner or later there will be more rebellions.  Once someone puts together the idea that a corrupt Catholic church makes it morally acceptable to seize church lands then its likely that a lot of rulers will start finding such ideas far more attractive as well so its not just a moral issue.

  Didn't know about the attack on Stanley but if he had been killed I wonder if Richard would have moved against the other Stanley's because they would be hostile to him?  As such they may be defeated and supplanted by allies of Richard before Henry Tudor makes a bid for the throne.  True you could still see their supporters rising up if/when Henry still makes a bid but it might make for a more chaotic situation.  Possibly this could be a factor in getting to your scenario in that Richard's forces have defeated Henry's and the latter killed when a Stanley's follower who has appeared to be loyal manages to assassinate Richard?  [Not quite the same but similar to when the defeated Serbian general taken as a prisoner to the Ottoman sultan manages to kill him after the Battle of Kosovo.]

  The nobles might look further afield for a husband for Elizabeth Tudor, possibly a German prince or noble, but I suspect their more likely if they can come to a compromise, settle for one of their own number.  A foreign will have less support but being male would have a claim for kingship so might manage to undermine their position.  Especially with a population increasingly tired of continued conflict and upheaval. 

  Steve