15th century raw power

`Might is right' is the saying. The Stillington precontract
allegation illegitimising Edward V and his siblings may've been true
or it may've been a convenient fabrication.

I have to ask myself: `If the precontract story wasn't there, what
would Richard III have done? Would Richard have tolerated a
Woodville dominated Edward V regime?' The answer is a
resounding `No!' The Woodvilles, according to Croyland, were widely
reviled as grasping, greedy, ex-Lancastrian parvenus: disliked by
Richard, Hastings and Buckingham, who had been forced into marriage
with them, so Richard had, with or without a legal excuse, to get rid
of them. This was typical of the age. How many attainders were made
and reversed to suit the powers that be? If you read the developing
crisis between the monarchy and parliament during the reigns of James
I (1603-25) and his son Charles I (1625-49) the same issue of raw
power over finance and armed force took precedence over legality,
which was very widely differently interpreted. Of course the outcome
was that Charles lost his head and the power of the Crown was never
the same again.

A parallel is the Iraq war where the US/UK and others perceived
Saddam as an enemy and they'd decided on regime change. I'm sure you
know that whether international law through the UN and the proper use
of intelligence were observed is highly controversial, but military
power used against a perceived enemy can't afford to debate legal
niceties too long, but must act, once a decision has been made: the
reasons may be military or economic.

Richard knew the overweening vicious Woodvilles were a threat: they
had engineered Clarence's death, and with or without legal sanction,
they had to go, so the Stillington precontract story was of secondary
importance. Richard could thank his slovenly brother Edward IV for
allowing the situation to develop.