#I'm sure there were people who disliked both Edward and Henry for usurpations but that hardly matters - | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

wonder-worker · 5 months

Text

Any judgement on (Richard III)’s reign has to be seen as provisional. The critic of the reign only has to consider how the Tudors would now be regarded if Henry VII lost at Stoke, to realize the dangers of too many assumptions about the intractability of Richard’s problems. But it would be equally unrealistic to ignore Richard’s unpopularity altogether. The fact that he generated opposition among men with little material reason for dissent, and that the disaffection then continued to spread among his own associates, says something about what contemporaries regarded as the acceptable parameters of political behaviour. There is no doubt that Richard’s deposition of his nephews was profoundly shocking. To anyone who did not accept the pre-contract story, which was probably the majority of observers, the usurpation was an act of disloyalty. Gloucester, both as uncle and protector, was bound to uphold his nephew’s interests and his failure to do so was dishonourable. Of all medieval depositions, it was the only one which, with whatever justification, could most easily be seen as an act of naked self-aggrandizement.

It was also the first pre-emptive deposition in English history. This raised enormous problems. Deposition was always a last resort, even when it could be justified by the manifest failings of a corrupt or ineffective regime. How could one sanction its use as a first resort, to remove a king who had not only not done anything wrong but had not yet done anything at all?

-Rosemary Horrox, "Richard III: A Study of Service"

#r*chard iii #my post #english history #Imo this is what really stands out to me the most about Richard's usurpation #By all accounts and precedents he really shouldn't have had a problem establishing himself as King #He was the de-facto King from the beginning (the king he usurped was done away with and in any case hadn't even ruled);#He was already well-known and respected in the Yorkist establishment (ie: he wasn't an 'outsider' or 'rival' or from another family branch)#and there was no question of 'ins VS outs' in the beginning of his reign because he initially offered to preserve the offices and positions #for almost all his brother's servants and councilors - merely with himself as their King instead #Richard himself doesn't seem to have actually expected any opposition to his rule and he was probably right in this expectation #Generally speaking the nobility and gentry were prepared to accept the de-facto king out of pragmatism and stability if nothing else #You see it pretty clearly in Henry VII's reign and Edward IV's reign (especially his second reign once the king he usurped was finally #done away with and he finally became the de-facto king in his own right)#I'm sure there were people who disliked both Edward and Henry for usurpations but that hardly matters -#their acceptance was pragmatic not personal #That's what makes the level of opposition to Richard so striking and startling #It came from the very people who should have by all accounts accepted his rule however resigned or hateful that acceptance was #But they instead turned decisively against him and were so opposed to his rule that they were prepared to support an exiled and obscure*#Lancastrian claimant who could offer them no manifest advantage rather than give up opposition when they believed the Princes were dead #It's like Horrox says -#The real question isn't why Richard lost at Bosworth; its why Richard had to face an army at all - an army that was *Yorkist* in motivation #He divided his own dynasty and that is THE defining aspect of his usurpation and his reign. Discussions on him are worthless without it #It really puts a question on what would have happened had he won Bosworth. I think he had a decent chance of success but at the same time #Pretenders would've turned up and they would have been far more dangerous with far more internal support than they had been for Henry #Again - this is what makes his usurpation so fascinating to me. I genuinely do find him interesting as a historical figure in some ways #But his fans instead fixate on a fictional version of him they've constructed in their heads instead #(*obscure from a practical perspective not a dynastic one)#queue

27 notes · View notes