A Brief History
At the time of Richard’s birth, no one could have foreseen that he would one day be king for he was the 12th of his parents’ 13 offspring and only the fourth son to reach adulthood, with two of his elder brothers having children of their own.
Digging Deeper
So how was Richard able to become king? Actually quite legally and surprisingly peacefully. Unlike his kinsmen who attained the throne through battle, conquest or even murder, Richard was asked by the citizens of London to assume the throne after they had drawn up a petition. His right to reign was then confirmed by Parliament. Why would he be so welcomed?; probably because he was an adult who had proven himself loyal to his brother, the former king, and an able military commander.
Two months before his ascension to the throne, his brother, Kind Edward IV, had died. He was succeeded by his 12-year-old son, Edward V, and Richard became the young boy’s Lord Protector, or rather regent who would rule the kingdom in his name til he reached maturity. It was initially believed that Richard would be as loyal to his nephew as he had been to his brother; however, the Wars of the Roses still loomed very much over the land and there were other contenders to the throne lurking in the countryside and on the continent who would gladly take the first opportunity to steal the throne away from the child. Children monarchs were generally viewed as weak. The reign of the last child-king, Henry VI, just twenty years before had been a disaster and allowed Richard’s family, the House of York, to gain the crown. Most likely Richard did not want to be on the losing end this time. In addition there was some question over Edward V’s legitimacy as his father may have been pre-contracted to another woman before he married his mother, Elizabeth Woodville. In those days, a pre-contract, something like a legal betrothal, was deemed as valid as a marriage. Edward VI seems to have used this ploy to bed women.
Little did he then know what consequences this would later have. An illegitimate king would have jeopardized the right of the House of York to stay in power. To maintain that right, Richard had to take the throne from his nephew who together with his brother and sisters was officially declared a bastard and his parents’ marriage null and void in an act of Titulus Regius. No one contested this because contrary to his later reputation, Richard III was initially liked and deemed the best man to rule the country at the time and to provide it with stability. There was, however, another nephew and niece ahead of him in the pecking order, but their father, Richard’s older brother, George, the Duke of Clarence, had committed treason, thus removing his children from the line of succession (this did not stop Henry VIII from later hacking (literally) the girl’s head off when she was an old woman as she was chased around the chopping block by the executioner). So, by process of (legal) elimination, Richard III was the head of the House of York and rightful king.
Now it is generally assumed that Richard III had his nephews, today known as the Princes in the Tower, murdered. The author of this article is going to put forth another, less-known, theory.
Richard had been helped to the throne by this cousin, Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham who had acted as a type of “Kingmaker”. In the 15th century, kingmakers were generally members of the royal family who had a lesser claim to the throne but who managed to consolidate money and power by backing the right “horse”, often supplying the troops the would-be king needed. Even Edward IV owed his reign to his cousin, Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, the most famous kingmaker of them all. However, kingmakers are also known to change sides when their horses prove less than cooperative. It is generally assumed that the Duke of Buckingham led the rebellion against Richard III in late 1483 because he was enraged over learning that Richard had murdered the princes in the Tower. However, this was not how leading figures in the Houses of York or Lancaster “ticked” at the time.
The Wars of the Roses were known within the houses as the Cousins’ Wars, because the wars were fought within the family with little regard to familial ties. Murdering one’s cousin or even brother was not uncommon. It was all about power, one’s own proximity to the throne and managing to stay alive. Therefore, the murders of the young princes would probably not have phased Buckingham in the slightest, but rather and more likely Richard III’s unwillingness to elevate him to an even greater position of power. To what does one then do in such a situation? One backs the next best horse with a claim to the throne better than one’s own. And who was this other horse? Henry Tudor. The Earl of Richmond, as his title then was, was however descended from an illegitimate branch of the family.
To strengthen his claim, he would have to marry a Plantagenet princess, but the most suitable ones had just been declared illegitimate as well. The corresponding act of Parliament, would of course, have to be reversed, which would also restore their brothers’ claim to the throne, making a huge mess of the entire plan. The easiest solution would be to just make the princes in the Tower “disappear”. Whether Buckingham was responsible for their murders or not, will probably never be known with certainty, and of course one might ask, why would not Buckingham just try to oust Richard in Edward V’s name himself? The answers are quite simple. To do so, he would need the support of another powerful male family member and Henry Tudor was the last of them. In addition, even if he had managed to relieve Richard of the throne on his own, he still would have had to contend with Henry Tudor. The easiest solution was to form an alliance with Henry and to do so, the princes in the Tower had to go because they would only have compromised Henry’s position.
At any rate, Richard III was too powerful, and Buckingham’s rebellion failed. Storms had prevented Henry Tudor, who was exiled on the continent, from taking part in it. In keeping up with the family tradition, Buckingham lost his head, which was probably for the better, but soon two more family members began plotting to seize the throne – this time two women.
Lady Margaret Beaufort, of the House of Lancaster and Henry Tudor’s mother, who had spent the majority of her life biding her time, knew it was only a matter of a little more time before her son would take the throne from Richard. Like Buckingham, she knew that her son’s hold on the throne was dependent on strengthening the ties with the Yorkist side of the family. She entered an agreement with Elizabeth Woodville that their children would marry once Henry assumed the throne. Elizabeth Woodville, who had lost her position as Dowager Queen, was only too happy to comply. It was due to the plotting of these two women and their ties to other powerful families in England and sympathizers that Henry Tudor was finally able to defeat Richard III in 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth where Richard died fighting, the last English king to do so.
Soon after becoming king, Henry Tudor, now Henry VII, had the Act of Parliament which declared his future wife Elizabeth of York illegitimate revoked, and the two married, finally uniting the two most powerful branches of the family into the new House of Tudor. Henry, however, made sure that everyone knew that his reign was by right of conquest and not by right of marriage, as his wife had upon relegitimization become the rightful heir to the throne.
So what about poor, maligned Richard? As the loser, his memory had to endure tarnishing and a loss of its reputation, because in order to validate his hold on the throne, Henry VII had to convince everyone that it was in their best interests to have removed Richard from power. This propaganda was especially and effectively spread by William Shakespeare in his historical play on his rise to power and short reign.
And so nowadays, Richard III is viewed not only as an envious, evil, and murderous cripple but also as a coward whose final words were ,“A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!” Although suffering from scoliosis, he was in fact a brave, fair and just man. When he died, he was only 32. This story is probably one of the best examples of the victor re-writing history.
Question for students (and subscribers): Was Richard really the villain he is depicted as by Shakespeare and others? Please let us know in the comments section below this article.
If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!
Your readership is much appreciated!
Historical Evidence
For more information, please read…
Kendall, Pauk. Richard the Third. Norton, 2002.
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="2754 http://www.crackedhistory.com/?p=2754">55 Comments
It’s crazy that even though Richard III was the second to last born in the family, he was still able to become king. It’s really crazy because all of his older brothers that had a chance to be in the throne, had children but dispite all that, everyone above Richard was illegitimate and could not take the throne.
Uuuum, you got that one wrong. All of Richard’s older siblings at the time were either dead (Edward IV, George, Edmund who was killed at the same time as their father by Margaret of Anjou, when Richard was 7 years old) or a woman, and they came after the sons, by the rules of succession. Or both. A few of his siblings died as children.
It’s interesting how Richard was part of this big family and was still able to be king, despite people not liking him that much. He was only the fourth one to make it to adulthood. Being the second to last child born, he should not have been the fourth one to make it. That would mean that most of them died or had something happen to them, as stated in the article. It did not seem as though Richard III was a good king, but it was stated that he indeed was actually not as bad as he was perceived. As stated in the article, “he was a brave, fair, and just man”.
People not liking him that much? Eh, you got that one wrong. He was respected and very popular in the north, and there’s no sign of him ever being unpopular before the polarizing events of his taking the throne, and especially the disappearance of the princes.
” surprisingly peacefully”? surprising how this article ignore the slaughther of Hastings? or the way Anthony Woodville was executed without trial? same for Richard Grey? or how Richard maligned the Woodvilles, taking illegaly their properties illegaly? don’t get me wrong, he did great things even during his very short reign, particularly in the judiciary system, and propaganda ruined him. but his ascencion to the throne was not peacefull. none of the King back then took it peacefully. we should stop this whitewashing of reputations.
Dear Valentine, What I meant by “surprisingly peacefully” is that Richard did not have to fight for the throne like his brother Edward IV had to. Furthermore, there were no unrest, rebellion or even Civil War at the time of his ascension. A rebellion did begin about four months later, but it was not successful and easily crushed. Of course, Richard did some have some political rivals executed, but that was something all British kings and queens in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance did.
King Richard, technically speaking, should have had no shot f becoming king since he was one of the youngest in the family. You would think that the older siblings would have had the opportunity along with their sons to be king before him. I guess his loyalty and respect was observed by the people and therefore became the favorite.
I am not surprised at the theme of beheading whom ever may stand in your way. History is at least consistent in that regard. More then that, I think it is silly how everyone who took a position of power changed their name. It is hard enough to remember who begot who in history, without having to remember a few names per person. I like the seemingly peaceful transition into power that Richard experienced, because as mentioned that is not a common theme throughout history.
Incredible that he ended up being King.
It is good to hear that someone was able to obtain the throne without ruthless bloodshed.
A few years ago I did a research paper on this very subject and came up with a similar conclusion to this author. Most of the sources used to prove Richard the III as a villain were either hearsay or influenced by the aforementioned famous play by William Shakespeare. While Richard may not have been a perfect king, it seems he was a much better king than history has given him credit for.
The victor always rewrites the facts in their favor. It is not surprising that the same situation occurred here.
Once again, our modern interpretation of some historical figures might have not been the greatest, especially considering a piece of literature written by Shakespeare in this instance. This is another example of how history might be a completely subjective idea to some people (subjective in that people’s interpretations might muddle the objective truth). Another reason to fact check and never take anything at face value I guess.
This is crazy how many people back then did not care about murdering family members or friends if they were to gain power. Power seemed to be the symbol for everything back then just like money seems to be today.
Power is the key ingredient for being a ruler in history. Everyone forgets what actually may be best for the people. Sad to see this happen.
It is interesting to see how much of an important role the women in the lives of these men of power play, without getting the recognition for it, negative or positive recognition. Lady Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville seemed to influence the lives of Richard III as much as anyone else. Also sad to see his legacy go down the drain when in reality he was not what he is perceived to be today.
Margaret Pole, the countess of Salisbury was not chased around the executioners block (thats a myth), but she was indeed hacked to death. Henry VIII also had her son and little grandson killed.
It would not suprise me if Margaret Buford, Stanley and Buckingham killed the princes.
I can’t believe I would kill my sibling and or their child to attain to throne. I think there is an ethics problem with that line of thinking and I feel those back then didn’t think about that. They ultimately wanted the power and the money and those combined make people do crazy things. I think it is great that this didn’t happen to Richard, he was not favored to have the throne and he just kept his head down and did what he had to.
This article makes me wonder by Richard was able to obtain the thrown before his older siblings? Additionally it is surprising that the process was rather nonviolent as well.
It surprises me that Richard took the throne so easily. Eventually he was overthrown, but at first it seemed that everyone was on his side. However, as history has shown, there were several people who were power hungry and took the throne forcefully as Henry Tudor did.
Fortunately for Richard, he had a lot of people who supported him and basically guided him to the throne. For many other rulers that we’ve learned about, ascension to throne didn’t come so easy.
Very interesting. Politics in the past were so deadly, brutal and caniving, where you could be killed because your brother was king. To make someone marry for prestige, but that was the way of the world back then. Stories like this show us how far we have come as people
It doesn’t even matter because once it was all said & done he ended up becoming the king anyways.
At least he was able to take on the throne with a ton of blood being shed. He got in easy in my opinion.
It still amazes me that they let 13 year old kids run their empires. Can you imagine the chaos that would cause in today’s world if a major nation did that?
What an interesting article. As I’ve said before, the politics of monarchs would make a good soap Also, Ian McKellen is awesome, that is all.
I wonder why so many people wanted to be king if it just put a target on their back. Also, why didn’t anyone care if the successor was the one who murdered his predecessor?
-JH!
13 year old running a nation. That would be like if my little cousin was president. That is insane.
I was surprised to learn how fast and easily he was able to gain the throne. I would’ve thought with all of his older siblings it would be much more difficult
The politics of the time are almost unbelievable. I can’t imagine living knowing that you have a target painted on your back for the throne, not to mention that your friends, family and royal advisers could decide to their back on you for one wrong move! You would be constantly worried about every step you take as king, let alone ruling a nation.
I wondered how Richard was able to attain the throne before his siblings so easily. It seems like everyone wanted him to be king though and that is probably the reason why.
Imagine how many wars and bloodshed could have been prevented if other rulers got their claim to the throne in the same way.
Being a favorite among the people, it was easy for Richard to become king due to the fact that no one would oppose him.
Interesting article… I definitely would not want to be king during this time period! — DAVID WARDLE
Alexis..The best book or TV Series to watch that deals with the Wars Of The Roses ..is definately “The White Queen” (and it’s follow up The Red Queen )…written masterfufully by Philipa Gregory .Excellent historical novels.
As I was reading this all I kept thinking was that this would make a good TV show. Looks like Shakespeare got that covered though.
13 years old and running a country, crazy to think about. Don’t know how much chaos would occur.
The amount of deaths this man caused it unreal to read about… talk about someone who is power hungry! Im astonished!
It seemed to be going okay in the beginning.
Seemed fine in the beginning
he was ok in the first part of his rule the bam.he goes off the depth end and started killing tons of people. someone wanted power pretty bad.
History is always written by the winners and often not re-analyzed until ages later. Though Henry VII was said to be one of the better Tudors, his successive dynasty would be as tumultuous as any of them.
It is hard to believe that one person could cause so many deaths, I think the power of the throne got to his head. Part of all that may have to do with the fact that he was 13 years old and ruling.
He seemed decent enough during the start of his reign, and then he caused a lot of death and destruction. Terribly sad.
how sad..
I was so happy to see a ruler that gained his power peacefully, but he ruined that for me when he caused the death of so many people.
How do you go from being seemingly OK to straight up killing a crap ton of people? Did he suddenly fall ill to something or just crack under pressure?
With great power, comes great responsibility. – Uncle Ben
And I thought I had a lot of siblings. Damn.
He started out great then become gruesome.
Another mass murdering ruler. How shocking.
Richard must have been pretty well liked to become king from a petition that was drawn up by the people of the town.
Wow. A lot of siblings.
i could nevr handle that many siblings
another example of someone changing their name and title. a lot of siblings.