Henry Vii Usurper and Pretender

Please can someone confirm to me why Richard iii is not a usurper as Edward Iv or Henry Vii?

Now I know this seems an odd question but it's something my Tudor friends often counter with. They can't explain why Henry is not a Pretender which he obviously was as his claim was thin at best. He unseated a legitimate King in battle and took the crown by force which was deemed a legal way to win the crown in the Middle Ages as God was on your side. Yeah o.k, but Henry didn't win because God was on his side but because the Stanley brothers came in on his side and betrayed Richard who had rewarded them amply for their previous service. When Richard charged they came round behind and clashed into their rear where they were now fighting on foot. Richard was unhorsed in the marsh after almost killing Henry and taking out his standard bearer. He was killed fighting for his realm and life while Henry was surrounded by 200 Welsh pikemen and Henry took the crown accordingly. He still had to be crowned, be accepted in Parliament and his marriage to Elizabeth of York brought the House of York and their support on his side. Henry faced a decade of struggle and a decade of rebellion and claimants saying they were Richard of York, son of Edward iv or Edward of Warwick, son of George, Duke of Clarence. It was not a happy or secure reign but his successful marriage gave him sons and a Dynasty.

Richard was both the brother of a King and son of the man who should have replaced the discredited House of Lancaster in the form of the mad Henry VI. He was neither a Pretender or conquer or usurper in the traditional sense. Richard didn't intend to be King and swore allegiance to Edward V. He was the Protector of his nephews and he knew what loyalty meant. He became King due to circumstances which he didn't contribute to. He was given evidence or testimony which proved his brother had married previously before he met and married EW and was still married years later. The marriage was therefore unlawful. The children were illegitimate. Richard learned the truth and the boys were formally declared illegitimate. Richard was soon afterwards offered the crown as I understand it by the 'three estates of the realm ' and accepted. He was the next legitimate male heir, not currently barred from the throne. Edward of Warwick, by my understanding was barred because of Clarence 's treason and the attainder still in force, even though it was possible to reverse such things. The body of people, some 200 plus who met and then elected Richard to the throne was presumably made up of clergy and nobles and members of Parliament and so legally able to confirm him as King. His coronation and Parliament confirmed his right to rule and unlike the common myth, he was accepted by the ordinary people and welcomed with enthusiasm.

Edward iv was forced to win the throne in battles, but he was also widely popular and welcomed and he ousted a troubled and unstable rival King and Queen. He also had a better claim. Richard of York, his father was much more suited to rule and had he not been lured out of Sandal Castle within fourteen weeks he would certainly have been King. Edward revenged his father and late murdered brother and won the throne in two magnificent but terrible battles, Mortimer's Cross and Towton. Richard was a loyal brother and a good ruler in the North. Any decision to set his children aside would be very difficult and for me puts a lie to claims that he killed them.

Is Richard iii a usurper? In that he replaced another King, but no as he didn't force his way onto the throne but was offered it. What if he hadn't have accepted the crown knowing the truth? Had the truth come out anyway, more chaos may have followed than did and Henry Tudor may have chanced his arm anyway. If only Richard had have won at Bosworth and secured England, continued his good laws and settled a peaceful land with a Dynasty, through marriage to Joanna of Portugal or Isabella of Castile.

What exactly where the three estates? Was Richard a usurper?

This question often pops up on FB and elsewhere. Usually because Ricardians object to the u-word.
To begin with, you need to define your terms. Using the OED definition, a usurpation occurs if someone comes to the throne illegally OR through force. The term is nothing to do with how one rules - whether one is a tyrant or not - but relates exclusively to how one acquired the throne. I think you would have to allow some violence in order to put down plots following accession, if that king had come to the throne legally.
So by definition anyone who claims the throne by right of conquest - that is, through violence - must qualify as a usurper.
The fact that the result of battle was seen as a judgement of God, is irrelevant in this question, otherwise the violence aspect of the definition would be redundant.
So Henry Tudor was a self proclaimed usurper.
The case with Richard III is less clear. He couched his claim to the throne in legal terms certainly, but was his accession non-violent and in accordance with the law of the time?
If you decide all the issues in Richard's favour - that the Woodvilles were plotting to kill him; that Edward V's household were legally and justifiably executed; that the precontact actually happened; that Clarence's attainder legally prevented his becoming king; and that the three estates was the proper body to decide the matter of the precontract and the succession; and that the Princes were unharmed, then you will judge Richard's accession non-violent and legal.
My view would be that the 'three estates' test fails because (however democratic it may seem) it was not the established legal form for king making.
I hope this makes senseDavid
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 at 21:06, poohlandeva<[email protected]> wrote:

Please can someone confirm to me why Richard iii is not a usurper as Edward Iv or Henry Vii?

Now I know this seems an odd question but it's something my Tudor friends often counter with. They can't explain why Henry is not a Pretender which he obviously was as his claim was thin at best. He unseated a legitimate King in battle and took the crown by force which was deemed a legal way to win the crown in the Middle Ages as God was on your side. Yeah o.k, but Henry didn't win because God was on his side but because the Stanley brothers came in on his side and betrayed Richard who had rewarded them amply for their previous service. When Richard charged they came round behind and clashed into their rear where they were now fighting on foot. Richard was unhorsed in the marsh after almost killing Henry and taking out his standard bearer. He was killed fighting for his realm and life while Henry was surrounded by 200 Welsh pikemen and Henry took the crown accordingly. He still had to be crowned, be accepted in Parliament and his marriage to Elizabeth of York brought the House of York and their support on his side. Henry faced a decade of struggle and a decade of rebellion and claimants saying they were Richard of York, son of Edward iv or Edward of Warwick, son of George, Duke of Clarence. It was not a happy or secure reign but his successful marriage gave him sons and a Dynasty.

Richard was both the brother of a King and son of the man who should have replaced the discredited House of Lancaster in the form of the mad Henry VI. He was neither a Pretender or conquer or usurper in the traditional sense. Richard didn't intend to be King and swore allegiance to Edward V. He was the Protector of his nephews and he knew what loyalty meant. He became King due to circumstances which he didn't contribute to. He was given evidence or testimony which proved his brother had married previously before he met and married EW and was still married years later. The marriage was therefore unlawful. The children were illegitimate. Richard learned the truth and the boys were formally declared illegitimate. Richard was soon afterwards offered the crown as I understand it by the 'three estates of the realm ' and accepted. He was the next legitimate male heir, not currently barred from the throne. Edward of Warwick, by my understanding was barred because of Clarence 's treason and the attainder still in force, even though it was possible to reverse such things. The body of people, some 200 plus who met and then elected Richard to the throne was presumably made up of clergy and nobles and members of Parliament and so legally able to confirm him as King. His coronation and Parliament confirmed his right to rule and unlike the common myth, he was accepted by the ordinary people and welcomed with enthusiasm.

Edward iv was forced to win the throne in battles, but he was also widely popular and welcomed and he ousted a troubled and unstable rival King and Queen. He also had a better claim. Richard of York, his father was much more suited to rule and had he not been lured out of Sandal Castle within fourteen weeks he would certainly have been King. Edward revenged his father and late murdered brother and won the throne in two magnificent but terrible battles, Mortimer's Cross and Towton. Richard was a loyal brother and a good ruler in the North. Any decision to set his children aside would be very difficult and for me puts a lie to claims that he killed them.

Is Richard iii a usurper? In that he replaced another King, but no as he didn't force his way onto the throne but was offered it. What if he hadn't have accepted the crown knowing the truth? Had the truth come out anyway, more chaos may have followed than did and Henry Tudor may have chanced his arm anyway. If only Richard had have won at Bosworth and secured England, continued his good laws and settled a peaceful land with a Dynasty, through marriage to Joanna of Portugal or Isabella of Castile.

What exactly where the three estates? Was Richard a usurper?

Poohlandevra wrote:

"Is Richard iii a usurper? In that he replaced another King, but no as he didn't force his way onto the throne but was offered it. What if he hadn't have accepted the crown knowing the truth? Had the truth come out anyway, more chaos may have followed than did and Henry Tudor may have chanced his arm anyway. If only Richard had have won at Bosworth and secured England, continued his good laws and settled a peaceful land with a Dynasty, through marriage to Joanna of Portugal or Isabella of Castile.

"What exactly where the three estates? Was Richard a usurper?"

Carol responds:

Sorry to snip most of your excellent and heartfelt post (which I challenge any of your Tudor-supporting friends to equal).

To answer your last question first, the Three Estates were the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners (mostly knights, IIRC). I disagree with David's statement regarding the Three Estates, as their petition to Richard (subsequently adopted as Titulus Regius in an official Parliament) is the reason that Richard is not a usurper. He did not seize the throne but accepted it after it was lawfully offered to him by the only people who had that authority, those who would have been members of Parliament had Edward V been crowned as originally planned.

As an aside (honoring David's distinction between tyrants and usurpers), Henry's first act as (uncrowned) king was to backdate his reign by a day and declare Richard and his supporters to be traitors. Richard's was to call the judges before him and command them that they "Justly & duly shuld mynystir his lawe withowth delay or ffavour" (Great Chronicle as quoted in "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" by P. W. Hammond and Anne F. Sutton), the first indication of Richard's concern with law and justice.

Carol

Firstly thanks, Carol for your response and explanation of the three estates. I could never really get my head around what they were, but always accepted that they were a body of people with the authority to elect Richard as King and lawfully offer him the throne. So thanks for explaining their exact status.

Secondly, thanks for your clarification on Richard's
actions on accepting the crown. I doubt believe he was a usurper but I think I was having a hard time explaining why he wasn't. Richard was a true defender of the law. His actions to preserve the peace and himself in arresting Grey, Vaughan and Anthony Woodville have to be seen in the light that as Lord Protector he couldn't allow the plots of the ex Queen and her family to threaten his own safety and authority. I don't believe he immediately intended to execute them, but the subsequent revelations of a plot to remove him as the lawful authority led to their fate. This is were the facts become murky as it depends on how you read the actions of EW and her family or if you accept that these men were guilty or not or faced a trial. Richard had the authority to try and execute traitors under the laws of arms and as High Constable of England. Summary execution was brutal and ruthless but not illegal. If you read some of the sources, then it is clear that some form of trial took place under the Earl of Northumberland. However, I don't believe these actions have anything to do with Richard making a plan for the throne as some historians claim. They were to ensure the safety of his authority as Protector, prevent chaos and to stop the young King being taken over by the Woodville clan.

I see Richard as having high regard for his obligations as a defender of the law and he was extremely aware that his actions would be judged harshly if he seized the crown. That he waited to be offered it by the lawful authority shows he was neither tyrant or usurper. Thanks again for your explanation and clarification and reference.

Hi, I agree with most of what Carol and David say but I would dispute the easy ride you give Edward IV. There's no doubt he too was a usurper who took the throne by force. Henry IV had taken the Crown by conquest so his heirs were the legitimate heirs. It was pure ambition which made ROY attempt to oust Henry VI, who had a Council, a wife and an heir. This again is Tudor/Victorian 'glossing'.
As both of them say, Richard believed he was accepting the throne (I use this word accepting carefully) because he had been endorsed by the Three Estates as legally entitled to take it as the legitimate heir of Edward IV who had taken the throne, not by legitimacy, but by conquest. And it's actually far less contentious than William of Orange in 1688 who, although supposedly 'invited' (by those who were really traitors), had amassed a huge army and fleet ready to invade anywaay. H

From: poohlandeva <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2017, 0:52
Subject: Re: Henry Vii Usurper and Pretender

Firstly thanks, Carol for your response and explanation of the three estates. I could never really get my head around what they were, but always accepted that they were a body of people with the authority to elect Richard as King and lawfully offer him the throne. So thanks for explaining their exact status.

Secondly, thanks for your clarification on Richard's
actions on accepting the crown. I doubt believe he was a usurper but I think I was having a hard time explaining why he wasn't. Richard was a true defender of the law. His actions to preserve the peace and himself in arresting Grey, Vaughan and Anthony Woodville have to be seen in the light that as Lord Protector he couldn't allow the plots of the ex Queen and her family to threaten his own safety and authority. I don't believe he immediately intended to execute them, but the subsequent revelations of a plot to remove him as the lawful authority led to their fate. This is were the facts become murky as it depends on how you read the actions of EW and her family or if you accept that these men were guilty or not or faced a trial. Richard had the authority to try and execute traitors under the laws of arms and as High Constable of England. Summary execution was brutal and ruthless but not illegal. If you read some of the sources, then it is clear that some form of trial took place under the Earl of Northumberland. However, I don't believe these actions have anything to do with Richard making a plan for the throne as some historians claim. They were to ensure the safety of his authority as Protector, prevent chaos and to stop the young King being taken over by the Woodville clan.

I see Richard as having high regard for his obligations as a defender of the law and he was extremely aware that his actions would be judged harshly if he seized the crown. That he waited to be offered it by the lawful authority shows he was neither tyrant or usurper. Thanks again for your explanation and clarification and reference.

Well said Carol
Mary

Well Henry IV took the crown by murder. By your logic then Edward IV took the crown by Conquest so it's all right. Edwards father was named the heir after Henry viii. That's what caused the trouble so Edward had a more than valid claim. Richard III was elected King basically because a mini Parliament agreed that the boys were illegitimate. That's not Usurpation. That is claiming his rights. That is why Richard is not a Usurper. The boys were set aside by Parliament. Henry Tudor had a non-existent claim. He basically forces EOY to marry him, dishonesty declares her legitimate and then becomes dictator for life. Henry VIII his son was illegitimate on both sides of the blanket.
On Aug 9, 2017 5:11 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 

Hi, I agree with most of what Carol and David say but I would dispute the easy ride you give Edward IV. There's no doubt he too was a usurper who took the throne by force. Henry IV had taken the Crown by conquest so his heirs were the legitimate heirs. It was pure ambition which made ROY attempt to oust Henry VI, who had a Council, a wife and an heir. This again is Tudor/Victorian 'glossing'.
As both of them say, Richard believed he was accepting the throne (I use this word accepting carefully) because he had been endorsed by the Three Estates as legally entitled to take it as the legitimate heir of Edward IV who had taken the throne, not by legitimacy, but by conquest. And it's actually far less contentious than William of Orange in 1688 who, although supposedly 'invited' (by those who were really traitors), had amassed a huge army and fleet ready to invade anywaay. H

From: poohlandeva <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To: @yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2017, 0:52
Subject: Re: Henry Vii Usurper and Pretender

  Firstly thanks, Carol for your response and explanation of the three estates. I could never really get my head around what they were, but always accepted that they were a body of people with the authority to elect Richard as King and lawfully offer him the throne. So thanks for explaining their exact status.

Secondly, thanks for your clarification on Richard's
actions on accepting the crown. I doubt believe he was a usurper but I think I was having a hard time explaining why he wasn't. Richard was a true defender of the law. His actions to preserve the peace and himself in arresting Grey, Vaughan and Anthony Woodville have to be seen in the light that as Lord Protector he couldn't allow the plots of the ex Queen and her family to threaten his own safety and authority. I don't believe he immediately intended to execute them, but the subsequent revelations of a plot to remove him as the lawful authority led to their fate. This is were the facts become murky as it depends on how you read the actions of EW and her family or if you accept that these men were guilty or not or faced a trial. Richard had the authority to try and execute traitors under the laws of arms and as High Constable of England. Summary execution was brutal and ruthless but not illegal. If you read some of the sources, then it is clear that some form of trial took place under the Earl of Northumberland. However, I don't believe these actions have anything to do with Richard making a plan for the throne as some historians claim. They were to ensure the safety of his authority as Protector, prevent chaos and to stop the young King being taken over by the Woodville clan.

I see Richard as having high regard for his obligations as a defender of the law and he was extremely aware that his actions would be judged harshly if he seized the crown. That he waited to be offered it by the lawful authority shows he was neither tyrant or usurper. Thanks again for your explanation and clarification and reference.

On a point of information, Henry IV did not (legally speaking) take the throne by conquest. He was specifically prevented from doing so, after Chief Justice Thirning had pointed out that this would lead to everyone's property being in Henry's hands. Technically he ruled by inheritance (on a pretended claim via his mother as well as through his father) and by the appointment of Parliament, the latter being something he did not stress. His inheritance claim was dodgy and at that time is was still questionable whether Parliament had the authority to bestow the crown on someone who was not the right heir. However, Henry's army was still in being at the time and no one argued until after it was dispersed. After that, for some years Henry's life was one long argument.
Similarly, Parliament did not allow Henry VII to claim by conquest, but established his rule on the basis of a statute that declared him king, without explanation. That was the beginning of the process, recognised by no less a person than Thomas More - in his famous discussion with Richard Rich - where Parliament established itself as a body that could make literally anyone the lawful sovereign.

Mary wrote:

"Well said Carol"
Carol responds:

Thanks, Mary. Regarding Richard and the Three Estates, right?

Carol

“mini Parliament” – perfect!

The Three Estates basically consisted of those summoned to a Parliament under Edward V’s name, until his claim was questioned.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 09 August 2017 14:07
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Henry Vii Usurper and Pretender

Well Henry IV took the crown by murder. By your logic then Edward IV took the crown by Conquest so it's all right. Edwards father was named the heir after Henry viii. That's what caused the trouble so Edward had a more than valid claim.

Richard III was elected King basically because a mini Parliament agreed that the boys were illegitimate. That's not Usurpation. That is claiming his rights. That is why Richard is not a Usurper. The boys were set aside by Parliament.

Henry Tudor had a non-existent claim. He basically forces EOY to marry him, dishonesty declares her legitimate and then becomes dictator for life. Henry VIII his son was illegitimate on both sides of the blanket.

On Aug 9, 2017 5:11 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" < > wrote:

Hi, I agree with most of what Carol and David say but I would dispute the easy ride you give Edward IV. There's no doubt he too was a usurper who took the throne by force. Henry IV had taken the Crown by conquest so his heirs were the legitimate heirs. It was pure ambition which made ROY attempt to oust Henry VI, who had a Council, a wife and an heir. This again is Tudor/Victorian 'glossing'.

As both of them say, Richard believed he was accepting the throne (I use this word accepting carefully) because he had been endorsed by the Three Estates as legally entitled to take it as the legitimate heir of Edward IV who had taken the throne, not by legitimacy, but by conquest. And it's actually far less contentious than William of Orange in 1688 who, although supposedly 'invited' (by those who were really traitors), had amassed a huge army and fleet ready to invade anywaay. H

From: poohlandeva <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2017, 0:52
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Henry Vii Usurper and Pretender

Firstly thanks, Carol for your response and explanation of the three estates. I could never really get my head around what they were, but always accepted that they were a body of people with the authority to elect Richard as King and lawfully offer him the throne. So thanks for explaining their exact status.

Secondly, thanks for your clarification on Richard's
actions on accepting the crown. I doubt believe he was a usurper but I think I was having a hard time explaining why he wasn't. Richard was a true defender of the law. His actions to preserve the peace and himself in arresting Grey, Vaughan and Anthony Woodville have to be seen in the light that as Lord Protector he couldn't allow the plots of the ex Queen and her family to threaten his own safety and authority. I don't believe he immediately intended to execute them, but the subsequent revelations of a plot to remove him as the lawful authority led to their fate. This is were the facts become murky as it depends on how you read the actions of EW and her family or if you accept that these men were guilty or not or faced a trial. Richard had the authority to try and execute traitors under the laws of arms and as High Constable of England. Summary execution was brutal and ruthless but not illegal. If you read some of the sources, then it is clear that some form of trial took place under the Earl of Northumberland. However, I don't believe these actions have anything to do with Richard making a plan for the throne as some historians claim. They were to ensure the safety of his authority as Protector, prevent chaos and to stop the young King being taken over by the Woodville clan.

I see Richard as having high regard for his obligations as a defender of the law and he was extremely aware that his actions would be judged harshly if he seized the crown. That he waited to be offered it by the lawful authority shows he was neither tyrant or usurper. Thanks again for your explanation and clarification and reference.

Which of course they tried to with Oliver Cromwell.
Yes the Henry IV thing is complex and he fudged, as explained by Ian Mortimer. That was because kings had kept 'playing' with the rules of primogeniture since Edward I 'repealed' them to push Edmond Crouchback further down the line. Had the original practice been in place, then the Mortimers would have had precedence over the children of John of Gaunt but Gaunt persuaded Edward III to change it in 1376(I wonder why?). Bolingbroke had to therefore go to the period before Edward I and claim rightful primogeniture descent from Henry III. As you say, it was all to do with the right of kings to appoint their own successors, which had gone unchanged till then. As we have no written Constitution then one could only appeal to legal precedence which is the basis of our Laws today. In the end, although Henry was going to use the Henry III argument, he essentially bullied Richard into abdicating - a bit like the display of force of William of Orange. So a conquest by any other name. Same with HT, not only had he won a battle, who would dare challenge him? H

From: "wainwright.brian@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2017, 14:20
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Vii Usurper and Pretender

On a point of information, Henry IV did not (legally speaking) take the throne by conquest. He was specifically prevented from doing so, after Chief Justice Thirning had pointed out that this would lead to everyone's property being in Henry's hands. Technically he ruled by inheritance (on a pretended claim via his mother as well as through his father) and by the appointment of Parliament, the latter being something he did not stress. His inheritance claim was dodgy and at that time is was still questionable whether Parliament had the authority to bestow the crown on someone who was not the right heir. However, Henry's army was still in being at the time and no one argued until after it was dispersed. After that, for some years Henry's life was one long argument.
Similarly, Parliament did not allow Henry VII to claim by conquest, but established his rule on the basis of a statute that declared him king, without explanation. That was the beginning of the process, recognised by no less a person than Thomas More - in his famous discussion with Richard Rich - where Parliament established itself as a body that could make literally anyone the lawful sovereign.

Hilary wrote:
"Henry IV had taken the Crown by conquest so his heirs were the legitimate heirs."
Karen responded:

"Well Henry IV took the crown by murder."

Carol responds:

Richard II was murdered after Henry IV took the throne (which is one of the arguments anti-Richard III people use to claim that he "must" have murdered his nephews because other "usurpers" had done it). However, he never claimed to have taken the throne by conquest. Instead, he and other discontented nobles deposed Richard II for his "crimes" (inept rule, favoritism, and execution of those who had opposed or tried to control him) and claimed the throne on the grounds that it was empty! Rather than claim it on the basis of his male-line descent (with his father, John of Gaunt, recently dead, he was the next person in line), he fabricated a claim through his mother, who was the daughter of Edward II's second son, Edmund Crouchback. Edmund, he pretended, was really the older son but had been set aside because of his deformity! (Whether Edmund was "deformed" or not is a moot point, but he unquestionably was never the older son or rightful king.) The reason for this charade was that Richard had chosen as his heir the eldest son of Philippa Plantagenet (daughter of Edward III's deceased second son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence) and Edmund Mortimer. So instead of descent through the female line from Edward III, the supposed usurper (a complete fabrication) Henry claimed descent through the female line from the earlier Edward I and the "rightful" king, Edmund. In any case, he tried to make a legal claim to the throne and instead of killing the Mortimer boys, he trained them to become his supporters. As for Richard II, either Henry had him executed or he died in prison.

So far as I know, Henry is usually regarded as a usurper. His son Henry V received the crown as the son of a king--his succession so far as I know was not disputed--but I believe he rejected the Edmund Crouchback story and based his claim on his descent from John of Gaunt. (I didn't research this aspect, so if I'm wrong, anyone, please correct me.)

I think if Henry IV had waited until Richard II died, the crown might well have fallen to him as the next in the male line, with the Mortimer claim (through a female branch of an older line) supported only by those few who would benefit from it. But as he took it prematurely by deposing an anointed king (in contrast with Richard III, who set aside his uncrowned and unanointed nephew) and inventing a very strange and obviously fictitious claim, he probably does qualify as a usurper. Whether the people of England benefited from his usurpation, I don't know. He did, however, manage to produce four sons, the eldest of whom succeeded him, which makes him a successful usurper and enabled him and his son Henry V to develop a strong base of supporters. (Henry VI, as you know, was another matter altogether. Thanks to his ineptitude, Richard Duke of York ultimately revived the Mortimer claim based on his mother's descent from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, not his father's descent from the fourth son of Edward III, Edmund, Duke of York.)

Carol

If the three estates were not the legal avenue then what was? What should Richard have done,? Woodville just means poisoner to me. Yes, they were after him. 
On Aug 9, 2017 12:25 PM, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:
 

Mary wrote:

"Well said Carol"
Carol responds:

Thanks, Mary. Regarding Richard and the Three Estates, right?

Carol

Yes and for explaining the difference in character between Richard and Tudor and the actions they took when they first came to the throne. So some people think that Richard was a tyrant, I don't think so.
Mary

Sorry I was writing late last night and wanted to explore this further.
Firstly this country has never had a written Constitution so we are governed by a mixture of Statute, legal precedent and custom. Nowadays the succession is governed by Statute (i.e. Parliamentary legislation) but that didn't exist until the end of the seventeenth century so there was no Law to turn to in Richard's time, just the precedence of inheritance - as determined by the previous king, or power i.e. conquest. Kings such as Henry 1V and HT couldn't have tried to prop themselves up with legal arguments if they hadn't already been in the position of ultimate power. Their heads would have been on a spike otherwise. So conquest by any other name.
Now this makes Richard's case interesting and also involves our good friend Stillington. If I were a Richard detractor I could write quite a dissertation on the fact that a Yorkshireman, whose family were in Richard's own northern circle and who happened to be not only a bishop but had the top legal mind in the land, was the one anointed by him to 'discover' and announce the Pre-Contract. I could also point to the fact that Stillington was able to buy Marylebone from William Benstead in 1485 for £300 - an awful lot of money. Incidentally, Benstead is named by Horrox as a possible 1483 rebel.
But- the problem is that nothing about Richard's accession matches the scenario in my second paragraph. He might have been Protector but he certainly didn't come South with a huge military presence - in fact he later had to send to Yorkshire for help. In the headless chicken scenario of the summer of 1483 Richard seems to have been as astonished and disorganised as everyone else. If he had been so clever to chose an ally who combined the powers of a Lord Spiritual and Temporal, then surely he, a military man above all else, would have made sure he had the appropriate power backup in place? He would have made absolutely sure that people like Hastings were on side. That, I feel, should always be the gist of our argument.
In fact has the whole Stillington thing been convoluted in the telling? As the possessor of the most astute legal mind (and of course the law at this time included Canon Law) then he was surely the one to be consulted on the ramifications of the Pre Contract revelation? Because he probably pronounced on it and wrote TR doesn't mean he was involved in witnessing the Pre Contract. So who was, and who revealed it? That, I reckon lies at the heart of this. As for Richard the Usurper, no. H


From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2017, 21:35
Subject: Re: Henry Vii Usurper and Pretender

Yes and for explaining the difference in character between Richard and Tudor and the actions they took when they first came to the throne. So some people think that Richard was a tyrant, I don't think so.
Mary

BTW the 'Three Estates' is technically the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, including senior judges, who sit in the Second (Upper) House - the House of Lords. The third is the Commons (in those days Knights of the Shire) who sit in the Lower House. They had been summoned to the first Parliament of Edward V which never happened, but it meant that most of them were conveniently in town to endorse the offer of the Crown to Richard. It was of course properly confirmed in the Parliament of 1484. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2017, 17:25
Subject: Re: Henry Vii Usurper and Pretender




Mary wrote:

"Well said Carol"
Carol responds:

Thanks, Mary. Regarding Richard and the Three Estates, right?

Carol

Mary wrote:

"Yes and for explaining the difference in character between Richard and Tudor and the actions they took when they first came to the throne. So some people think that Richard was a tyrant, I don't think so."
Carol responds:

Neither do I--in fact, the evidence to show that he tried to rule justly is quite persuasive, especially in combination with his reputation for fairness and justice (acknowledged even by Mancini) as Duke of Gloucester. It's only the Protectorate that is ever (inaccurately) described in terms of tyranny, and even that would probably be ignored if it weren't for the mysterious fate of his nephews and his defeat at Bosworth Field, which placed his reputation in the hands of Tudor, Morton, et al. Had he won Bosworth and had a son to succeed him, history would show us the real Richard, emphasizing his just rule and enlightened legislation over the four legal executions and the understandable confusion that surrounded (and still surrounds) the two short months from April to June 1483.

It isn't just his admirable legislation and his own remarks on several occasions that show his concern for law, justice, and the welfare of the English people. There's the Council of the North (copied and retained by Henry VII), the Court of Requests that he established, and the unprecedentedly kind treatment of the widows of traitors (including Hastings and Buckingham). I'm sure that there's more that I'm forgetting. I'm not including bequests to Cambridge, a chapel honoring the dead of Towton (which was fought when he was a child), or the founding of the College of Heralds, all admirable accomplishments but not indications of his justice. (Even Francis Bacon, chancellor to James I, who believed that Richard had ordered the murder of his nephews, called him "a good lawmaker for the ease and solace of the common people."

Carol

The other thing that he did was acknowledge all the men who had fought for him at Barnett and Tewkesbury. He didn't just acknowledge the nobles but all the commoners who fought as well.
Mary