Search results
Jul 7, 2023 · Ultimately, Richard failed as a king, losing his crown and his life at the Battle of Bosworth. How he died was unfortunate and speaks to his courage and bravery. Seeing Henry Tudor on the field, Richard charged, presumably in the hope of killing his enemy and ending the battle instantly.
- Overview
- Usurpation of Richard III
On April 9, 1483, Edward IV unexpectedly died. He was succeeded at once and without question by his eldest son, Edward V, a boy of 12. His uncle Richard, designated lord protector in the late king’s will, swore allegiance to the new king at York. However, the royal council, dominated by the dowager queen’s family, the Wydevilles (also spelled Woodville), decided to crown Edward V at once, which rendered any protectorate unnecessary and probably would have enabled them to rule on his behalf. They overrode the opposition of, among others, Edward IV’s former chamberlain, Lord Hastings, who enlisted Richard as his ally. The Wydevilles mistakenly believed that Richard was their friend, and the queen’s brother Earl Rivers arranged to meet with Richard and the duke of Buckingham en route from Ludlow (Shropshire) to London.
Richard staged his first coup d’état on May 1, 1483, at Stony Stratford (Northamptonshire). He seized Edward V, dismissed his household, and placed Rivers and Edward’s half-brother Lord Richard Grey in custody. Asserting his loyalty to Edward, Richard escorted him to London and was recognized by the royal council as lord protector. Henceforth he was head of government. The queen, her daughters, and Edward’s younger brother, also called Richard, took refuge in Westminster Abbey. Most people’s fears were allayed by Richard’s respectfulness to the king and by his continued preparations for the coronation. On June 13, however, Richard had Hastings executed (his second coup), allegedly for treasonable conspiracy but more probably to remove Edward’s most devoted supporter. On June 16 he secured possession of the younger Richard on the pretext of ensuring that the boy would attend Edward’s coronation. With both princes in his power, Richard publicly declared his claim to the throne, and on June 26 he usurped it. The usurpation was backed by the northern army, which overawed London from its camp at Finsbury Fields. King Richard III and Queen Anne were crowned at Westminster Abbey on July 6, 1483.
Although modern historians reject the allegations of Thomas More and William Shakespeare that Richard planned his usurpation well before Edward IV’s death, they debate precisely when he made up his mind and why. Probably this will never be known with any certainty. Was Richard motivated by personal ambition, by self-defense because he feared the Wydevilles, or by what he honestly considered his duty? His own justification was that he was the rightful heir because Edward IV’s children were illegitimate and therefore disqualified from the crown. According to the so-called precontract story, Edward IV had betrothed himself to Lady Eleanor Butler—an obligation as binding as marriage at this time—and thus had not been free to marry his queen, Elizabeth Wydeville; any children by Queen Elizabeth, therefore, were illegitimate. However, Lady Eleanor was deceased by 1483, and there is no independent or contemporary evidence from the 1460s to support the claim of betrothal, which was never adjudicated by a competent church court. In any event, the betrothal would not necessarily have invalidated Edward V’s kingship once he had acceded. It was also rumoured that Edward IV himself was illegitimate, an allegation which had been made twice before and which is not wholly incredible. (The children of Richard’s elder brother George were supposedly disqualified by his condemnation.) Such arguments may have been invented at the time and were probably pretexts to justify a usurpation on which Richard had already decided.
Perhaps some of Richard’s contemporaries believed the precontract story, but many did not. This invalidates the argument that Richard had no need to kill the princes because they posed no threat to him owing to their illegitimacy. The two princes were obvious focuses for conspiracy. They were sure to become more dangerous as they grew up and progressed from pawns to active plotters. Just like earlier deposed monarchs, they had to be eliminated. Even though there is no reliable evidence, it seems certain that they were killed sometime in 1483—in the summer, when they disappeared, or in the autumn, when their deaths were rumoured. Henceforth politics operated on the assumption that they were dead, which Richard never denied. Although some sources implicate Buckingham, most blame Richard, who had the princes in his power and who evidently decided to conceal their fate.
On April 9, 1483, Edward IV unexpectedly died. He was succeeded at once and without question by his eldest son, Edward V, a boy of 12. His uncle Richard, designated lord protector in the late king’s will, swore allegiance to the new king at York. However, the royal council, dominated by the dowager queen’s family, the Wydevilles (also spelled Woodville), decided to crown Edward V at once, which rendered any protectorate unnecessary and probably would have enabled them to rule on his behalf. They overrode the opposition of, among others, Edward IV’s former chamberlain, Lord Hastings, who enlisted Richard as his ally. The Wydevilles mistakenly believed that Richard was their friend, and the queen’s brother Earl Rivers arranged to meet with Richard and the duke of Buckingham en route from Ludlow (Shropshire) to London.
Richard staged his first coup d’état on May 1, 1483, at Stony Stratford (Northamptonshire). He seized Edward V, dismissed his household, and placed Rivers and Edward’s half-brother Lord Richard Grey in custody. Asserting his loyalty to Edward, Richard escorted him to London and was recognized by the royal council as lord protector. Henceforth he was head of government. The queen, her daughters, and Edward’s younger brother, also called Richard, took refuge in Westminster Abbey. Most people’s fears were allayed by Richard’s respectfulness to the king and by his continued preparations for the coronation. On June 13, however, Richard had Hastings executed (his second coup), allegedly for treasonable conspiracy but more probably to remove Edward’s most devoted supporter. On June 16 he secured possession of the younger Richard on the pretext of ensuring that the boy would attend Edward’s coronation. With both princes in his power, Richard publicly declared his claim to the throne, and on June 26 he usurped it. The usurpation was backed by the northern army, which overawed London from its camp at Finsbury Fields. King Richard III and Queen Anne were crowned at Westminster Abbey on July 6, 1483.
Although modern historians reject the allegations of Thomas More and William Shakespeare that Richard planned his usurpation well before Edward IV’s death, they debate precisely when he made up his mind and why. Probably this will never be known with any certainty. Was Richard motivated by personal ambition, by self-defense because he feared the Wydevilles, or by what he honestly considered his duty? His own justification was that he was the rightful heir because Edward IV’s children were illegitimate and therefore disqualified from the crown. According to the so-called precontract story, Edward IV had betrothed himself to Lady Eleanor Butler—an obligation as binding as marriage at this time—and thus had not been free to marry his queen, Elizabeth Wydeville; any children by Queen Elizabeth, therefore, were illegitimate. However, Lady Eleanor was deceased by 1483, and there is no independent or contemporary evidence from the 1460s to support the claim of betrothal, which was never adjudicated by a competent church court. In any event, the betrothal would not necessarily have invalidated Edward V’s kingship once he had acceded. It was also rumoured that Edward IV himself was illegitimate, an allegation which had been made twice before and which is not wholly incredible. (The children of Richard’s elder brother George were supposedly disqualified by his condemnation.) Such arguments may have been invented at the time and were probably pretexts to justify a usurpation on which Richard had already decided.
Perhaps some of Richard’s contemporaries believed the precontract story, but many did not. This invalidates the argument that Richard had no need to kill the princes because they posed no threat to him owing to their illegitimacy. The two princes were obvious focuses for conspiracy. They were sure to become more dangerous as they grew up and progressed from pawns to active plotters. Just like earlier deposed monarchs, they had to be eliminated. Even though there is no reliable evidence, it seems certain that they were killed sometime in 1483—in the summer, when they disappeared, or in the autumn, when their deaths were rumoured. Henceforth politics operated on the assumption that they were dead, which Richard never denied. Although some sources implicate Buckingham, most blame Richard, who had the princes in his power and who evidently decided to conceal their fate.
Oct 4, 2016 · Richard would have been seen as a king struggling to contain the ambitions and rivalries of his barons – as his predecessors had done. He would have been recognised as a ruler whose legitimacy and divine vocation sanctioned bloody acts – just as they had for his forbears.
May 26, 2024 · In death, Richard III‘s historical reputation would be blackened by the Tudor victors and, most memorably, by William Shakespeare. In his play Richard III, Shakespeare immortalized Richard as a diabolical hunchback, a murderous usurper who butchered his way to power.
Despite extensive investigations, no concrete evidence has been found to confirm Richard's guilt or innocence. Some theories even suggest that the boys may have been murdered on the orders of Henry Tudor, who would later become Henry VII, to solidify his own claim to the throne. © History Skills.
Oct 19, 2024 · Richard III presented himself as a reformer committed to justice and morality who would remedy the supposed misrule of Edward IV’s last years and the sexual license of his brother’s court. His signet registers reveal plans to improve the management of the royal estates and the north.
People also ask
Was Richard III a reformer?
Was Richard a successful King?
Did Richard III have a bad reputation?
Was Richard III a good monarch?
Why did Edward choose Richard as a protector of his son?
Was Richard a hunchback?
Mar 11, 2021 · Rejecting the ‘Tudor myth’ of a calculating schemer who revels in evil, they nevertheless point out that while Richard may not necessarily have been a bad man, he was certainly a bad king whose actions ultimately led to the destruction not only of himself but also of the Yorkist dynasty.
