WHY Did Richard III Do What He Did?

[Stolengood]

We've had a lot of discussion about Richard of Gloucester, what might've happened when, and why, with the Princes, his own heir, Edward IV, etc... it's all been trod.

But... I've always been puzzled as to the psychological reasoning behind any and all of his actions. Why did Richard make his play for the throne? He was the trusted brother of the King, and I'm not sure hatred of the Woodvilles/ambition is enough to justify his actions... so, why? Why do it? Why risk everything?

From the available evidence, it does not seem like he was that much of a metaphorical bastard, and certainly not to the extent he was later painted out to be by More/Legge/Shakespeare/Cibber/etc., so... I'm just baffled.

Why? Perhaps... you can shed some light.

 

[desmirelle]

Perhaps he'd known his brother Edward well enough to know that the bigamy story was true. Once it came out via another source, he may have thought he was doing the right thing (for England).

 

[Reydan]

You've got to remember that Edward IV's death meant a period of minority rule in a Kingdom that had seen, up to that point, almost thirty years of on-off civil war. Minority Rule was unstable at the best of times, with factions vying for influence over the child-monarch, and would have been even more scary in the 1480s. Remember the Lancastrian heir is just across the Channel.

Also don't underestimate the Woodvilles as a source of motivation. It wasn't just Richard who disliked them, many of the noble families of England resented their growing influence [they had been marrying their children into noble houses since coming to power] and they had a semi-deserved reputation for being arbitrary and nepotistic/favouristic with power. Whilst I agree with you that PERSONAL hatred probably wasn't a huge motivation, being pushed along by a wave of anti-Woodville sentiment is a different matter.

Although she has her problems, I do think Philippa Gregory gives a reasonable portrayal of Richard's motivations in her Cousins War series of novels.

 

[BBadolato]

We've had a lot of discussion about Richard of Gloucester, what might've happened when, and why, with the Princes, his own heir, Edward IV, etc... it's all been trod.

But... I've always been puzzled as to the psychological reasoning behind any and all of his actions. Why did Richard make his play for the throne? He was the trusted brother of the King, and I'm not sure hatred of the Woodvilles/ambition is enough to justify his actions... so, why? Why do it? Why risk everything?

From the available evidence, it does not seem like he was that much of a metaphorical bastard, and certainly not to the extent he was later painted out to be by More/Legge/Shakespeare/Cibber/etc., so... I'm just baffled.

Why? Perhaps... you can shed some light.

I don't know if anyone can help you on this because that requires a wonderful journey into the world of historiography. If the sources can't give you any really reliable information, then it might be up to interpretation, which means how do you reconcile pro and anti-Ricardian views to find something that resembles truth?

 

[Just a Rube]

We can't really see into the hearts of men today, much less ones from centuries ago.

I admit I tend to go with "because he wanted to be king" as a sufficient explanation, but fear of the Woodvilles was likely part of it.

Once you've rebelled (and capturing the princes and killing their Woodville guardians is pretty straight out rebellion), might as well go all the way for the crown. Would you rather your rebellion end up like Henry IV or Roger Mortimer? If you eliminate the Woodvilles and leave the Princes on the throne, you have to rely on them being willing to forgive you when they come of age, otherwise you risk ending up like Mortimer. On the other hand, Henry IV had his predecessor deposed and murdered, and died in bed, leaving the throne to his son.

I tend to be skeptical of attempts to attribute selfless reasons to Richard's usurpation; the Lancastrian threat seemed basically finished, and the kingdom was actually in a fairly good place. We see Henry VII invading a few years later, but forget that a large chunk of his forces were former Yorkists opposed to Richard. Even Oxford, Henry's best general and a devout Lancastrian, was securely imprisoned in Calais, only escaping when his jailer defected over the usurpation. Letting Edward V succeed was probably less risky for the kingdom than staging a coup and then "disappearing" the princes, but it was certainly more risky for Richard personally.

 

[Avrorrange]

We can't really see into the hearts of men today, much less ones from centuries ago.

I admit I tend to go with "because he wanted to be king" as a sufficient explanation, but fear of the Woodvilles was likely part of it.

Once you've rebelled (and capturing the princes and killing their Woodville guardians is pretty straight out rebellion), might as well go all the way for the crown. Would you rather your rebellion end up like Henry IV or Roger Mortimer? If you eliminate the Woodvilles and leave the Princes on the throne, you have to rely on them being willing to forgive you when they come of age, otherwise you risk ending up like Mortimer. On the other hand, Henry IV had his predecessor deposed and murdered, and died in bed, leaving the throne to his son.

I tend to be skeptical of attempts to attribute selfless reasons to Richard's usurpation; the Lancastrian threat seemed basically finished, and the kingdom was actually in a fairly good place. We see Henry VII invading a few years later, but forget that a large chunk of his forces were former Yorkists opposed to Richard. Even Oxford, Henry's best general and a devout Lancastrian, was securely imprisoned in Calais, only escaping when his jailer defected over the usurpation. Letting Edward V succeed was probably less risky for the kingdom than staging a coup and then "disappearing" the princes, but it was certainly more risky for Richard personally.

So why is he fearful of the Woodvilles?

 

[Stolengood]

But why do it, to begin with? Why? What sane reason could he possibly have had? It wasn't at all like his previous actions as the King's loyal brother (only loyal brother, because don't forget Clarence) to be doing that -- it boggles the mind, and I certainly don't believe the "wolf in sheep's clothing" explanation Shakespeare and the like went with. It just... doesn't jibe.

 

[Just a Rube]

Gloucester and the Woodvilles have never particularly gotten along, and the provisions of Edward IV's will make that more significant; they held various powerful posts that newly-appointed Protector Richard will want to fill with his own cronies. They belonged to different court factions, so Richard's cronies are not their cronies, and there was enough anti-Woodville sentiment around that he might use them as a scapegoat for any problems. If he doesn't maneuver against them, there's a reasonable chance that they may maneuver against him preemptively.

More broadly, Edward V has been raised by and with Woodvilles; he's naturally going to favor them during his reign, which means Richard likely gets frozen out of power when Edward comes of age. He still has significant holdings and wealth, but a lot of that rests on somewhat dodgy claims which could be challenged in court; an unsympathetic judge could cost him significantly. It's worth remembering the role that inheritance disputes had played in forming the factions in the Wars of the Roses (it's not a coincidence that before the Wars broke out, the two leading initial Yorkists, Richard of York and Warwick the Kingmaker, were both involved in legal disputes with the Lancastrian Duke of Somerset).

And as I noted, this way he gets to be king; that's been a perfectly adequate motive for any number of usurpations in the past.

 

[Tyler96]

So why is he fearful of the Woodvilles?

They tried to keep him in the dark when his brother died and tried to usurp his position as Lord Protector. They played a significant role in the demise of Clarence (though Clarence brought a lot of his troubles on himself). They're relatively lowly parvenus who don't deserve the status they've been given. He has Buckingham whispering in his ear.

Though he stayed loyal Richard may still have picked up some of Warwick's misgivings about the Woodvilles.

Otherwise...

If you're sympathetic to Richard you can claim he believed the pre-contract thing was genuine.

Richard's legal title to some of his lands was also uncertain, and becoming king was a way to guarantee he'd hold onto them.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

A very good question. In absence of any evidence one way or the other I'd say it was a combination of reasons. The Woodvilles certainly played a role in the usurpation, as did inheritance disputes, the regency itself and I suspect a bit of wanting to be King as well. As for the contracted marriage, I'd say Richard convinced himself it was real or at the least the possibility of it being authentic was real. I also can't help wondering if the execution of Clarence also played a role in his eventual decision. I mean if the Woodvilles did play a role in executing one Prince of the Blood, it wouldn't be hard to imagine them doing so to another Prince of the Blood. Could have been a bit of striking first.

 

[desmirelle]

Okay, can I get a clarification on the question: Why Richard took the throne, I get as part of the question. Are you also asking why he murdered his nephews?

 

[Stolengood]

Okay, can I get a clarification on the question: Why Richard took the throne, I get as part of the question. Are you also asking why he murdered his nephews?

Why did he do all that he did? If you think he murdered his nephews, explain why -- he did not seem particularly the "murdering" type beforehand. Let's not forget that Richard was not that old -- he'd grown up during his brother's reign. He was only in his early 30s upon being "shaved" at Bosworth Field. He was no aged schemer.

 

[desmirelle]

I was asking if YOU believed he murdered his nephews and wanted to know why. I don't believe he murdered them directly or indirectly; he had no reason. He believed he had them safely in custody, Edward's marriage to their mother was ruled invalid (and I still offer that Richard knew his brother well enough to know it COULD be true given what Richard knew of Edward); he trusted people to do their jobs (and it cost him his life in the end) so he believed people were doing their jobs.

 

[Stolengood]

I was asking if YOU believed he murdered his nephews and wanted to know why.

I never said I did. I'm just absolutely at a loss for what his motives at even thinking of taking so drastic a series of actions upon Edward's death must have been.

 

[Avrorrange]

We can't really see into the hearts of men today, much less ones from centuries ago.

I admit I tend to go with "because he wanted to be king" as a sufficient explanation, but fear of the Woodvilles was likely part of it.

Once you've rebelled (and capturing the princes and killing their Woodville guardians is pretty straight out rebellion), might as well go all the way for the crown. Would you rather your rebellion end up like Henry IV or Roger Mortimer? If you eliminate the Woodvilles and leave the Princes on the throne, you have to rely on them being willing to forgive you when they come of age, otherwise you risk ending up like Mortimer. On the other hand, Henry IV had his predecessor deposed and murdered, and died in bed, leaving the throne to his son.

I tend to be skeptical of attempts to attribute selfless reasons to Richard's usurpation; the Lancastrian threat seemed basically finished, and the kingdom was actually in a fairly good place. We see Henry VII invading a few years later, but forget that a large chunk of his forces were former Yorkists opposed to Richard. Even Oxford, Henry's best general and a devout Lancastrian, was securely imprisoned in Calais, only escaping when his jailer defected over the usurpation. Letting Edward V succeed was probably less risky for the kingdom than staging a coup and then "disappearing" the princes, but it was certainly more risky for Richard personally.

Given Richard was granted the position of Lord Protector by his father,as opposed to say Mortimer who murdered the previous king,taking the princes into his custody and executing their Woodvilles guardians is well within his rights given the Woodville's attempts to usurp the regency is definitely treason.Besides,not every regent ended in a bad way.Seems like a poor excuse for usurping the throne.

 

[Mikestone8]

Because he could get away with it?

The Plantagenets had always been a pretty fratricidal family. If he was loyal to Edward, that may just have been because, while Clarence stood between him and the throne, he had little to gain by being disloyal. But in 1483 he had a chance at the top job (and an uncertain future otherwise) so he took it.

 

[Stolengood]

If he was loyal to Edward, that may just have been because, while Clarence stood between him and the throne, he had little to gain by being disloyal.

...except he was loyal even after Clarence got his Malmsey bath, years before Edward kacked it, so clearly that doesn't wash. It doesn't jibe with the man loyal to his brother since boyhood.

 

[Avrorrange]

...except he was loyal even after Clarence got his Malmsey bath, years before Edward kacked it, so clearly that doesn't wash. It doesn't jibe with the man loyal to his brother since boyhood.

Cause he doesn't have the resources and ability to beat his older brother?Clarence's execution also showed that his brother's willing to kill him if he's disloyal like Clarence?

 

[Mikestone8]

...except he was loyal even after Clarence got his Malmsey bath, years before Edward kacked it, so clearly that doesn't wash.

1478-83 is only a five year interval - and one during which Edward was pretty secure on the throne. Hardly proof of anything.

 

[Stolengood]

Cause he doesn't have the resources and ability to beat his older brother?Clarence's execution also showed that his brother's willing to kill him if he's disloyal like Clarence?

But why do it? Obviously, it was a completely boneheaded move, but it must have made some sense to Richard beyond just "power, power, ooooh, gimme dat power!" -- this isn't the Richard of Shakespeare, here; this is a real, flesh-and-blood human being, not a goddamn pantomime villain. He could not have been that greedy as to jeopardize the entire continued stability of the House of York just to put himself on the throne -- he'd grown up during the War of the Roses, for fuck's sake!

He knew better than that -- he had to have.