Congratulations to the British people...

Lincoln:

Yes, Henry Tudor's claim to the throne was shaky, but not much shakier than Edward IV's (Richard's brother) until Henry VI had been killed off. He was as much an usurper as Henry Tudor (especially if, as has been argued, he couldn't have been a Plantagenet at all but was the result of his mother's dalliance with an English archer while hubbie was on campaign).

Richard was certainly not Shakespeare's monster, but he was a ruthless operator. Though entirely loyal to his brother while he lived, as soon as brother had died, he eliminated (had executed) the people most loyal to his brother's young sons and so it's very likely he did later and more discreetly eliminate the sons. Henry and Richard were both playing by the ruthless rules of the time.

As for the Bosworth Field, the involvement of the French is entirely reasonable as French soldiers had fought for the Lancastrians in previous battles, some as followers of Henry VI's widow Eleanor of Aquitaine. French at this time of course could still mean under English rule. Moreover, I don't know the actual numbers, but Henry Tudor's army was also full of Welsh who were not only rather taken with the idea of a part-Welshman being king but were acting in keeping with a longstanding Welsh allegiance to Lancaster rather than York.

You're right indeed if Stanley hadn't betrayed him, Richard might well have won. Richard was an excellent warrior and his army considerably outnumbered Tudor's. That Henry was an able monarch and showed diplomacy as well as ruthlessness in ending the Wars of the Roses I'll agree with. Richard, though, was an able administrator whose conduct of the Council of the North won him continuing loyalty in the North, Yorkshire particularly - though his treasury was badly in debt by the time he died. I remember as an undergraduate reaching the conclusion that some of Richard's administrative measures foreshadowed the Tudor dynasty's later successful measures.

Anyway, I go with the Scots defying Edwards I and II and with the Levellers. They were all illegitimate anyway since the robbery with violence at Senlac.

Yes indeed! No surprise there. His ex-Highness has a good chance, though, of having the decision overturned on appeal in about 8 months' time when it is grudgingly accepted that having been dead for 527 and a half years does suggest a genuine unfitness for work, except perhaps in Minister Egove's Education Department, where they really wouldn't notice.

Ouch!! Eleanor of Aquitaine Henry VI's widow? Go to the back of the class BH! She was married to Henry II ! Henry VI's wife was Margaret of Anjou.

The man who started the usurping was Henry IV who got rid of Richard II. So any claims to legitimacy by any monarch were open to challenge. As you rightly say, Richard III was very highly regarded in the North and the City of York Council showed great courage in issuing a document bewailing the loss of Richard when Henry VII had come to power.

Although I cannot quote chapter and verse I believe the story about Edward IV's birth being as a result of a dalliance of his mother with an archer has been discredited, which must be a source of some comfort to the present Royal Family!

Woops on the first point. These medieval Frenchwomen all sound the same to me.


Henry IV undoubtedly usurped the throne, but as Richard II, his victim, had no children, one can argue he was the rightful king once Richard had been disposed of. Being a murderer is no bar to being king. I accept that the case of Edward IV and Henry VI is similar.

I'd heard that theory about Edward IV had been discredited, but unless they've analysed his DNA, I don't quite see how. I 'd think the present royal family would only be bothered about that little matter if it gave people ideas the same might have happened more recently, though presumably not with an archer.

It bugs me that historians continue to reject the proof concerning the reign of Richard III's nephew - Richard IV (followed by the very brief reign of his second son Edmund Plantagenet, Duke of Edinburgh). The way that Henry VII was able to white wash the whole thing is a testimony to the power of the British throne,

John

You could say that the whole usurping racket was started in England by William I (1066-1087), aka The Conqueror, bastard son of Robert Duke of Normandy, who gained the English throne by defeating (and killing) the rightful king, Harold II, at the the Battle of Hastings - or even by his Danish predecessors, Sweyn Forkbeard and his son Canute. But in those days a good many monarchs got where they were by fairly dubious means. As Barrett says, "Being a murderer is no bar to being king."