Richard III: Seizure of the Throne - History PDF

RICHARD III SEIZURE OF THE THRONE Context: Edward IV died unexpectedly and it seemed as though he gave no clear indication of how the succession would be passed down to his son, Edward. Richard (and a contemporary chronicle) do claim there was a will written by Edward that said his brother would...

RICHARD III SEIZURE OF THE THRONE Context: Edward IV died unexpectedly and it seemed as though he gave no clear indication of how the succession would be passed down to his son, Edward. Richard (and a contemporary chronicle) do claim there was a will written by Edward that said his brother would become Lord Protector until Edward could rule. However, there is no evidence or record of this will BUT it is understood that this could be a possibility as Richard was very loyal to Edward and controlled the North effectively. WHY DID HE SEIZE? Perhaps the biggest motivation was fear of Woodville domination, he would lose political influence and he also believed that under the Woodvilles, the security of the realm would be threatened. Personally and politically, he had the desire to be in control- but he didn’t initially have the desire to seize power, just to fulfill his brother's wishes. He was only responsible for the usurpation due his decisions ade weeks after Edward’s death. KEY STEPS? (ALL IN 1483) April: Edward was on his way to London, where he and his party were intercepted by Ruchard and Buckingham, who arrested leading members of the Woodville family and Elizebeth sought sanctuary in Westminster Abbey, with her children (inc Richard of York). May: Richard enters London with Edward and has him paced in the tower in preparation for his coronation. This is advantageous for Richrd as Edward is under his protection and he can deny the Woodville’s access to them. The council agreed to appoint Richard as protector, but also set Edward’s coronation to be held 7 weeks from the 10th of May, at which point Richard’s protectorate would end. From May into June, Richard keeps delaying the coronation which starts to suggest he is under threat from the Woodvilles and calls troops and reinforcements to defend him as Protector. June: 13th- Richard had Hastings executed for treason at a small council meeting, he was a loyal subject of Edward but had originally supported Richard as Lord Protector (Buckingham had reportedly fed Richard’s fears that Hastings was now corresponding against him). 16th: Elizabeth Woodville was persuaded into releasing her son, Richard of York, into Richard’s custody and ‘protection’ in preparation for the coronation. 17th: Richard announced that the coronation would be delayed for 4 months. 25th: Supporters made a public statement that in the view of Edward’s illegitimate marriage, the princes were illegitimate and supported Ruchard’s claim to the throne. Earl Rivers was also executed. 26th: Richard declares himself King. July- On the 6th, he is crowned King at Westminster and his 1st parliament declared the princes as illegitimate. WHY WAS HE ABLE TO SEIZE POWER? The council agreed to make him protector (seemed obvious as he was the King’s brother, and the most loyal, strong subject in the North). The Woodvilles were not popular, and Richard wasn’t the only one concerned over the amount of influence they would have over the King. FATE OF THE PRINCES Shakespeare: Claimed that Richard murdered them, painted Richard as an evil and calculated King and that he knew all along he was going to kill and usurp. Based his view on contemporary sources. He was a dramatist likely influenced by Tudor propaganda. It was the aim to blacken the Yorkist claim and be an apologist to the Tudors. Mancini: Says there is no clear conclusion but also questions Richard morality by suggesting he corrupted people by saying the princes were illegitimate. There were also reports suggesting that Edward was doing daily confession and knew his death was near. Questions as to how much English he spoke, his sources are not really known and he admits his account is incomplete and doesn’t give any indication as to how the princes were killed. Vergil: Say Richard ordered the murder at the hands of Blackenbury but he couldn’t bring himself to do it- and so, he turned to James Tyrell (member of his retinue) who does murder the princes. Richard would have never been out of danger if the princes lived, however there was no proof of their murder and if there was, Richard would have faced immediate backlash. Used a wide range of sources and it is clear he examined them effectively, he also spent much of his life in England. He was commissioned by Henry to write a ‘History of England’, could be an account of Tudor propaganda to present Henry in a light where he is justified to take the throne and was also the morally rightful monarch. More: Richard wanted to murder them right after his coronation but delegated the task to Tyrell who then actually employed 2 others to carry out the task. Some claims are supported by Vergil, that Richard acted to protect his rule. He was only 6 years old at the time of Richard’s usurpation. Written 1513-17, Tudor propaganda? London Chronicle: Buckingham instigated the murder whilst Richard was on royal progress after his coronation. This may have been done out of Buckingham’s own intentions of advancing his own claim through his connections to the Beaufort family. But- if there was evidence Buckingham was responsible, why wouldn’t Richard blame him at his execution? Account is similar to that believed at the French court at the time. Authors are unknown, cannot judge authenticity. Doesn’t explain or justify why Buckingham would do it as he was Richard’s right hand man. Richard III Society: Richard didn’t kill them, if anyone did, then it was Henry VII. They also suggest Maragret Beaufort was behind it (she was raped by Edmund Tudor at age 12, complications made her inable to concive later on so her protection of her only son is understandable). Henry was in exile at the time of their supposed murder. If Henry had really been involved, why would Elizabeth Woodville agree to a marriage arrangement with Margaret Beaufort that Henry could take her daughter, Elizabeth of York’s hand if he took the throne. BUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION WHY? Aimed to place Henry VII on the throne. Some historians believe he had ambitions to place himself on the throne as the conspiracy behind the rebellion was already underway before Henry was revealed in the plan. Conspiracy to place Henry on the throne only came about when Woodville and Beaufort agreed to the marriage of Elizabeth of York if Henry came to the throne. HOW? Plan was to coordinate an uprising in England which would then join up on the South Coast with Henry Tudor’s forces from Brittany. Buckingham was to lead an army from Wales (est. 3000-4000 strong) and meet up with forces in Exeter to then march on London. At the same time, forces were meant to rise in Wiltshire and Kent. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS? Kent rebels rose up prematurely, which warned Richard of Henry’s invasion (which he sent troops to on the South Coast) but also of Buckinghams betrayal, he sent forces to confront him. Bad storms prevented Henry from landing; he had to return to Brittany. Buckingham’s troops fled when confronted. He was captured and executed in the Market Square of Salisbury. KEY SIGNIFICANCES FOR RICHARD’S RULE? Former supporters of Edward did not support his rule and they were prepared to place an obscure Lancastrain claimant on the throne. His popularity further decreased when he gave the land of those involved in the rebellion to his subjects in the North. Rebellion publicly advertised there was an alternative claimant and after the rebellion, discontented Edward loyalists joined Henry in exile. Suggested by some historians that Richard was aware of this danger as the act of attainder that justified the execution of Buckingham accused him of seeking the throne, partly a way of trying to ignore the Yorkists prepared to rebel with him. Around Christmas 1483, Henry announced his intention to marry Elizabeth of York, Woodville on board with it, which shows her belief that the princes are gone. MOST EFFECTIVE YORKIST MONARCH? EDWARD: Secured and established his rule during his 2nd reign, had no major challenge other than Clarence and you can see from events after his death that he inspired great loyalty. Was successful in delegating regional authority which were headed by relatives and servants, including Richard of Gloucester. Secured the dynasty with 2 sons. Took the crown through great military ability at a young age and used that ability to gain the crown a 2nd time. He restored the finances of the crown which had been left in a poor state by Henry VI, through acts of resumption and effectively exploiting customs revenues. There was no reaction to the killing of the Lancastrain Prince Edward which shows the strength of his position (unlike Richard III’s alleged murder of the princes). He adopted a less warlike policy towards France and when he did threaten war, he used it to his advantage. In 1475, he was able to obtain a French agreement which granted him a £10k a year pension if he returned his forces to England. This gave him a degree of financial independence. His marriage and patronage of the Woodvilles caused issues with Warwick and created resentment/rivalries. It contributed to the loss of his throne in 1470 and was partly possible for Richard’s usurpation as the Woodvilles were so unpopular it gave him an opportunity to grab for power. He restored finance, but some of his methods were dubious and illegal. He engaged in borrowing from wealthy subjects and did request forced loans and benevolences, debased the coinage, and taxed the clergy for a crusade that never happened. The collection of tax in the late 1460s became unpopular as not only did he keep delaying the French campaign, he only engaged in a show of force, to which he benefited a large pension from. RICHARD: Fall from power was not totally inevitable, he had no noble opposition at his coronation. He didn’t exhibit a great deal of fear outside of the Woodvilles. He went on royal progress with his wife, Anne Neville, and reports show they were welcomed wherever they went. Conspiracy against the princes was quickly squashed. Was very popular in the North. He did impose and improve justice and the law, and made a number of positive steps in finance which were popular, but some might argue this was a product of his usurpation, he promised not to collect benevolences and they were made unlawful by parliament. He was a popular, strong and effective military commander, as seen by his time as Richard of Gloucester. Took steps to improve relationship with Woodville, to the extent that she agreed to leave sanctuary with her daughters, and he promised to find them good husbands. He secured a truce with Scotland in 1484, which secured the North and improved royal finances. It was clear from the moment of his connotation that he lacked the loyalty of his southern subjects (clear through Buckingham’s rebellion). He was independent on the Northern retinue for power and used it to out down a series of minor risings 1484-85. Scandal of child murder undermined his authority as well as other rumors and scandals. When he reconciled with Wooddville, many thought it was so he could marry Elizabeth of York after his wife’s death but many thought this was a political move to stop the proposed marriage to Henry Tudor. Richard had to publicly declare this untrue and he had no intention of marrying her, and had to declare his grief for his wife as there were rumors in the North that he poisoned her which undermined his popularity. His aggressive foreign policy towards Brittany, France and Scotland were unwise in the circumstances that without French and Breton support, Henry wouldn’t have been able to land prior to Bosworth. He was always in a weak financial position due to his status as a usurper and had to avoid making heavy financial demands on his subjects. He also closed off a stream of revenue by agreeing not to request benevolences.