Looking for an informed opinion

In an article in The Ricardian, I've just run across this footnote.

For a discussion of Richard's financial position overall, see Hicks, Richard III as duke of Gloucester', pp. 247-81; Ross, Richard III, pp. 24-26

Has any member of this august group really digested what these authors have to offer?

Is the work trustworthy or flawed? If the latter, what are the major problems.

A J (who doesn't have a financial bone in her body)

Hi AJ I can't help on Hicks but I do have the Ross. He was of course anti-Richard, but he was a very thorough historian and things have come to light in the years since he died. In the pages quoted he builds up to the fact that Richard was, after the death of Clarence, the most wealthy man in England and he of course quotes acquisition of Warwick's lands, swaps with Clarence, and those of the Countess of Oxford (we now know that Richard was probably acquiring these for Edward to stop her funding her son).
Ross went on to write a book on Edward which is far more balanced and, I think, one of the best books so far which sees Edward as he really was, rather than the golden king. In this he criticises Edward for never losing his nobleman mind-set, and for acquiring land himself (e.g. the Mowbray lands) - something which should be below the remit of a king. He continues to take the odd swipe at Richard (for example about the Scottish wars) but he is equally hard on Edward. Taking all this into account then it's not surprising that Edward chose to make his deputy, Richard, the custodian of a great deal of land. Both had led a very uncertain life and who knew what fortune could throw at them again? And, as the much-maligned Josephine Wilkinson says, Richard had had two occasions in his childhood/youth when he had lost everything, so who could blame him for squirreling what he could? To summarise, it's all about Richard's acquisitions in the North, taken from the Stanleys and Percy; but he omits to say that Percy had been in the Tower for collusion in the Hungerford plot of 1469. So if you were Edward who would you choose? H
(who is not at all august, but did do a bit of finance in the past :) )


From: "ajhibbard@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 February 2016, 17:04
Subject: Looking for an informed opinion

In an article in The Ricardian, I've just run across this footnote.

For a discussion of Richard's financial position overall, see Hicks, Richard III as duke of Gloucester', pp. 247-81; Ross, Richard III, pp. 24-26
Has any member of this august group really digested what these authors have to offer?
Is the work trustworthy or flawed? If the latter, what are the major problems.
A J (who doesn't have a financial bone in her body)

Thanks Hilary.
Probably this issue, like so many, will have to go on "the pile" - by now a very tall one - of things that I'll have to look at for myself, before making up my mind.
My take away from the article that suggested these 2 sources is that we can criticize Richard for acquiring lands, and we then we can turn around & criticize Richard for selling off.
On the other hand, I tend to view it as a management issue. The 2 most basic requirements for any successful enterprise (according to Gallup which studied thousands of successful & not so successful companies in the US) is to make sure people understand what their jobs are & have the resources to do them. So I tend to view Richard's land acquisitions. given after all mostly by King Edward, as necessary to his successful performance of his job. When he became king, disposing of some of these earlier acquisitions may have been in the interests of doing the "job" of king.

A J

Exactly AJ. Richard was for a long time deputy to the King, and Ross uses that very word. This could mean in Edward's head that Richard could hold land, in reserve if you like, whilst he, as King, was supposed to oversee its distribution. In the CPR he also gave quite a lot of land to people such as his mother, not just the Woodvilles.
It did strike me overnight that Richard is the only king I can think of who had a term as deputy - that's if you discount Henry V who fell out with his father, and the Prince Regent, who was hardly in the Richard mould. And, as I said earlier, Ross criticises Richard for acquiring land, but goes on to do the same with Edward in a later, more rational book. This was a time of traitors who were being attainted on a fairly regular basis. What was supposed to be done with their land?
I do wonder what Ross would have made of Henry VII, Empson and Dudley! H

From: "ajhibbard@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016, 7:13
Subject: Re: Looking for an informed opinion

Thanks Hilary.
Probably this issue, like so many, will have to go on "the pile" - by now a very tall one - of things that I'll have to look at for myself, before making up my mind.
My take away from the article that suggested these 2 sources is that we can criticize Richard for acquiring lands, and we then we can turn around & criticize Richard for selling off.
On the other hand, I tend to view it as a management issue. The 2 most basic requirements for any successful enterprise (according to Gallup which studied thousands of successful & not so successful companies in the US) is to make sure people understand what their jobs are & have the resources to do them. So I tend to view Richard's land acquisitions. given after all mostly by King Edward, as necessary to his successful performance of his job. When he became king, disposing of some of these earlier acquisitions may have been in the interests of doing the "job" of king.

A J