#'Without one overriding factor - the actions of Richard Duke of Gloucester after he took the decision to make himself King Richard III -
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
wonder-worker · 11 months ago
Note
Didn't edward iv leave his brother Richard in lots of financial difficulties though?
No, he did not. I really don't know where this myth has originated from other than the persistent need to victimize Richard.
Firstly, Edward IV didn't leave Richard anything. Whatever he left was for his own son and heir, Richard's nephew, who Richard usurped.
Secondly, Edward IV was literally one of the rare few medieval kings of England to die solvent. He had managed to break the vicious cycle of plummeting debt and inefficiency that had plagued pretty much every single ruler till then. It doesn't really matter how much money the crown actually had left at the time of his death*, because the fact that he died solvent meant that whoever his successor was (in this case, Richard III), they were going to begin their reign with a financial advantage that no English monarch had enjoyed for the past 200 years. I don't know Richard's fans have convinced themselves that he inherited financial difficulties instead.
As stated by David Horspool, Richard's own historian:
"(Richard III) would try to differentiate himself from his brother, whose ‘unlawful invencions and inordinate covetise, ayenst the lawe of this roialme’ he would later denounce in an Act of Parliament. In fact Edward had managed to set royal finances back on an even keel after the disastrous waste and inefficiency of Henry VI (and all former kings post Henry II), Richard was, initially, the beneficiary of the better practise instituted by Edward IV.”
(The contemporary Croyland Chronicle mentions a main reason that Richard was better prepared to defend his kingship was "because of the treasure which he had in hand—since what King Edward had left behind had not yet all been consumed". They may have exaggerated the money Edward left behind, but either way it shows how contemporaries were aware of Richard's comparative advantages. It's highly ironic that what should have been used to uphold Edward's son was now being used to uphold his son's usurper instead).
Thirdly, Edward IV had presided over a highly effective and innovative combination of financial policies. These included the elevation/increase of royal chamber finance, the enlargement of the crown lands (Steven Gunn calls it "the most extensive royal demesne in medieval English History"), and an increase in royal feudal rights towards the end of his reign, among others**. Most importantly of all, he was actually successful, meaning that whoever followed him would have the huge benefit of having his established and well-attested precedent to continue from. Indeed, Charles Ross has noted how "Henry VII had the great advantage of being able to build upon the foundations laid by his father-in-law". Richard III, who seized the throne just a few months later, would have had the same advantages, as Horspool also notes.
Richard III, in fact, seems to have (temporarily) reversed some of his brother's well-established policies which could be used to gain money. Eg: he abolished benevolences; and he repealed Edward IV's newly established wardships and marriages act in the Duchy of Lancaster "notwithstanding that he conceiveth the said act to be to his great profit … having more affection to the common weal of this his realm and of his subjects than to his own singular profit". If you deliberately reverse policies with immense potential for revenue-raising, I don't know how you can then go on to complain that your brother left you nothing.
In conclusion: no, Edward IV did not leave Richard in financial difficulties. If anything, he left Richard with financial advantages that no king had had in over 200 years.
(Also, just to clarify: the Woodvilles did not steal the treasury. We know for a fact that Elizabeth Woodville did not have any money in sanctuary. The story of a theft was only mentioned by Mancini and either originated in gossip or, more likely, from Ricardian propaganda aiming to vilify them in 1483 by positioning them against the crown.)
*We know for a fact that Edward IV died solvent, but from what I understand, the exact money he had is impossible to know because of his missing chamber records. Contemporaries like Croyland did believe he had substantial money and treasure; on the other hand, Rosemary Horrox has analyzed how his cash reserves were probably relatively low due to international conflicts the previous two years. Either way, like I said, the main thing is that he was the first king in over 200 years to die solvent, which was massively advantageous to his successor. **While his policies were clearly innovative, they weren't all completely original. However, their combination certainly was; they were modified to actually work better; and they were initiated from the beginning of his first/second reign and widespread across the royal lands (rather than in smaller pockets), meaning that they were clear systematic policies. They were also, like I mentioned, actually successful - meaning that they would be the proven precedent that his successors would turn to.
#ask#richard iii#edward iv#this is the same logic as people who hail Richard for his 'peaceful' administration and reign#without understanding that he a peaceful country *from Edward IV*#it was already peaceful when he took over - he can't really be given the credit for making it peaceful on his own lol#Or claiming that Edward IV let a rivalry develop between Richard and the Woodvilles which 'forced' Richard to usurp the throne#when there is no evidence of any hostility between them and all indication of cooperation#and *Richard* was the one who provoked fear/hostility by arresting them and forcibly seizing the young king#Or claiming that Edward IV left great naval tensions with France with he died - when he had already begun making efforts to alleviate those#tensions and preserve his truce - something *Richard* chose to ignore to try and instigate France for no reason instead#Or claiming that Edward IV's manipulation of landed estates somehow led to his son's usurpation - conveniently ignoring how they were#successful during his life and would have been successful during his son's as well. Without *Richard* actively inflaming and exploiting#them to gain political support they wouldn't have mattered (Edward was not the first nor the last king to do this)#Or claiming that Edward IV's policies complicated matters for Richard / Richard III was reforming them when in fact we know that#Richard mostly tried to *follow* his brother's policies (with some exceptions that usually backfired)#or when historians (Pollard; Ross) blame Edward IV for failing to pass his crown successfully to his son#Conveniently ignoring how literally everyone expected and wanted Edward V to be crowned soon#And minimizing how the only reason that Edward V was usurped because his own uncle *Richard of Gloucester#decided to usurp him* and took active steps to make that happen#Somehow Richard's agency is always downplayed. Just look at Ross saying: 'Nor should Richard's own forceful character be overlooked'#at the very END of the list of reasons for a potential usurpation#Richard's 'forceful character' is literally the main reason the usurpation happened. If he had supported his nephew instead#none of this would have happened. This is ridiculously simple; HOW is it so difficult to understand?#Horspool says it best: 'Edward IV had not left a factional fault line waiting to be shaken apart. Richard of Gloucester's decision to usurp#was a political earthquake that could not have been forecast on April 9 when Edward IV died'#and#'Without one overriding factor - the actions of Richard Duke of Gloucester after he took the decision to make himself King Richard III -#none of this would have happened'#It's a very consistent pattern I've noticed. Edward IV is somehow held more responsible for Richard's usurpation than Richard himself
3 notes · View notes
wonder-worker · 7 months ago
Text
"The feast of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist being appointed as the day upon which the coronation of the king [Edward V] would take place without fail, all both hoped for and expected a season of prosperity for the kingdom."
-Excerpt from the Croyland Continuator / David Horspool, Richard III: A Ruler and Reputation
Even though Edward IV’s death was unexpected, after twelve years of peace there need not have been too much of a sense of foreboding about the succession. The great dynastic wound from which the Wars of the Roses had grown had not so much been healed as cauterized by the extinction of the House of Lancaster. There was no rush for London, as had happened in earlier, disputed successions. The royal party didn’t set out from Ludlow for ten days after hearing the news of Edward IV’s death, while Richard took his time, too. And the new king had [his mother the dowager queen and] two uncles to support him: his mother’s brother, the sophisticated, cultured, highly experienced Earl Rivers; and his father’s, the loyal and reliable Duke of Gloucester, to whom Edward IV had entrusted unprecedented power and vital military command.
... [Richard of Gloucester] had achieved his goal by a mixture of luck and ruthlessness, and if he made it appear, or even believed himself, that destiny played a part, this only made him a man in step with his times. Modern historians have no time for destiny, but sometimes the more ‘structuralist’ interpretations of the events surrounding the usurpation can come close to it. When we read that ‘the chances of preserving an unchallenged succession were . . . weakened by the estrangement of many of the rank-and-file nobility from . . . high politics, which was partly a consequence of the Wars of the Roses and partly of Edward IV’s own policies’, it is hard not to conclude that an unforeseeable turn of events is being recast as a predictable one. But without one overriding factor – the actions of Richard, Duke of Gloucester after he took the decision to make himself King Richard III – none of this could have happened. That is, when the same author concedes ‘Nor can we discount Richard’s own forceful character’, he is pitching it rather low*.
Edward IV had not left behind a factional fault line waiting to be shaken apart. Richard of Gloucester’s decision to usurp was a political earthquake that could not have been forecast on 9 April, when Edward died. After all, Simon Stallworth did not even anticipate it on 21 June, the day before Richard went public. We should be wary of allowing hindsight to give us more clairvoyance than the well-informed contemporary who had no idea ‘what schall happyne’. This is not to argue that Richard’s will alone allowed him to take the Crown. Clearly, the circumstances of a minority, the existence of powerful magnates with access to private forces, and the reasonably recent examples of resorts to violence and deposition of kings, made Richard’s path a more conceivable one. But Richard’s own tactics, his arrest of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, the rounding up of Hastings and the bishops, relied on surprise. If men as close as these to the workings of high politics at a delicate juncture had no inkling of what might happen, the least historians can do is to reflect that uncertainty [...].
(*The author who Horspool is referencing and disagreeing with is Charles Ross)
#wars of the roses#edward v#richard iii#edward iv#my post#I'm writing a post on this topic but I have no idea when I'll finish it so I figured I should post Horspool's epic analysis#or should I say epic takedown? <3#friendly reminder that Richard's usurpation happened primarily and decidedly because of Richard's own decisions and actions#we need to stop downplaying his singular agency and accountability by casting the blame on others#most of all Elizabeth Woodville and her family but also the bizarre interpretation of historians like Ross and Pollard (et al)#who somehow hold Edward more responsible (through a 'structuralist' view as Horspool says) even though that literally makes no sense#also friendly reminder that actual contemporaries did not view Edward V's minority as a sign of worry and potential discontent#quite the opposite - they expected him to have a prosperous reign. which made sense since Edward IV left his son a far more stable#country than any former minor king (and most other adult kings tbh). The irony is that it was his son's usurper who benefitted from it.#also I added Elizabeth Woodville to the list because Edward V himself specifically said that he trusted the governance of the country#'to the peers of the realm and the queen' as quoted by Mancini (likely relayed to him by John Argentine)#and this is supported by evidence. After Edward's death the Croyland Continuator substitutes Elizabeth's role in the council#for that of the King: 'the counsellors of the king now deceased were present with the queen'#we know Elizabeth presided over all the council's decisions and initiated proposals (the size of her son's military escort) on her own#She was clearly the one with the most authority in the council (who were described as being present with *her* not anyone else)#Hastings made demands but he couldn't enforce them at all (and was in fact worried). It was clearly Elizabeth who had that power.#She was likely going to play a very prominent role during her son's minority and imo it's problematic to assume otherwise#(Lynda Pidgeon assumes otherwise but she's based her assumption on objectively false information so I don't think we should take her#seriously)(see: she claims that EW lacked influence compared to her male relatives in royal councils when EW HERSELF WAS IN ROYAL COUNCILS)#That's not to go too far the other direction and claim EW tried to dominate and tactlessly exclude others - we know she didn't#The impression we get by this first council and by Richard's own actions indicates that she Richard and Anthony would likely#work *together* when it came to governing the realm#I do find it frustrating when people disregard the fact that based on the impression we have she would've had a very visible#and powerful role
11 notes · View notes