AH Question - Was Richard III justified in his actions

[Comte de Geneve]

As we know, politics in late Plantagenet England wasn't beanbag. It seems to me that after the premature death of Edward IV control of the realm was either going to fall to the Woodville faction or to Richard of Glouchester's faction, with the loser getting the chop. IOTL Richard gained control, chopped some Woodvilles, 'hosted' Edward V and his brother, and unquestionably arranged for their untimely demises. However, how could Richard allow Edward V to remain on the throne (and alive) since it seems likely that once he reached his majority he would take revenge on the man who offed his mother's relatives. In other words, if Richard doesn;t give Eddie and Richie the chop as kids, he gets chopped when Eddie turns of age. Therefore, was Richard justified in the murder of the princes?
Alert - I am a Ricardian.

 

[Shiva]

In the mindset of that era it was 'take as much as you can, think of the consequences later', so Richard did what anyone in that time would have done, too bad for him that the consequences involved him getting killed and the Tudors taking the English throne.

 

[RousseauX]

As we know, politics in late Plantagenet England wasn't beanbag. It seems to me that after the premature death of Edward IV control of the realm was either going to fall to the Woodville faction or to Richard of Glouchester's faction, with the loser getting the chop. IOTL Richard gained control, chopped some Woodvilles, 'hosted' Edward V and his brother, and unquestionably arranged for their untimely demises. However, how could Richard allow Edward V to remain on the throne (and alive) since it seems likely that once he reached his majority he would take revenge on the man who offed his mother's relatives. In other words, if Richard doesn;t give Eddie and Richie the chop as kids, he gets chopped when Eddie turns of age. Therefore, was Richard justified in the murder of the princes?
Alert - I am a Ricardian.

Better option:

1) Don't take the throne, remain regent

2) Try to forge a close relationship with Edward V, failing that, at least with Richard of Shewsbury as your ward. He is younger and more impressionable. Killing them is unquestionably a bad idea.

3) Govern the realm well, please the "old Yorkists", at the expense of the Woodsvilles. Redistribute their landholdings as needed. It might be a good idea to make Shrewsbury a magnate in his own right if he likes you.

3) Perhaps marry Elizabeth of York after Anne Neville dies, if not, marry her off to some foreign princes to take them out of the power game.

4) As the King comes of age, resign your position as regent, retreat to your estates, make sure you have an army and enough money that Edward V couldn't simply send in troops to arrest you.

5) At this point, hopefully the major nobles will really like you. Should the young king moves against "good Richard" on trumped up charges, or if he governs poorly, it might just be the time to make Shrewsbury Richard III against the "tyranny" of Edward V. And who knows, maybe one day sit on the throne as Richard IV if he dies childless. If not, father some kids with EoY or whoever he ends up marrying after Anne Neville and have a comfortable retirement. Start his own branch of the House of York which one day might inherit the throne anyway.

 

[mcdnab]

Depends on a number of things and has been distorted by firstly Richard's own propoganda (justifying his actions) and then by Henry VII's propoganda (justifying his actions)

Facts that aren't going to change:

1) Edward V's death leaves a political vacuum at the centre.
2) A King's will could not dictate the succession or the governance of the realm on their death - many King's will's were often ignored. In Edward's case we don't know what he said in his will we can guess based on arrangements made during his French invasion a decade earlier - in which there was no regent mentioned and that his daughter's were to receive ten thousand marks if they married with the approval and consent of their mother and the Prince of Wales' - his council on his death clearly opted to rule until at least Edward V's coronation which was pretty much the closest to precedent.
The first mention of any protectorate is Hastings' note to Richard and then later Richard's own justification that he was named protector - the council accepted it because he was already in complete charge and unchallengeable. The Queen made no attempt to have herself named Regent and the council was more than capable of running things until Edward's coronation and beyond.
3) The Woodville's - did not act as a faction nor were they especially rich or well endowed. In fact by 1483 many were dead. Your key players are the Queen, her brother Rivers and her eldest son Lord Dorset - the rest of her family (with perhaps the exception of her brother Lionel who was a bishop) were fairly absent.
4) Lord Hastings had a long standing dislike or Dorset and a poor relationship with the Queen - he probably had the most to fear from Edward's death but was loyal to Edward V but it is likely he knew his influence was at an end which in my view why he manipulated Richard to act.
5) Richard's relationship with the Queen and her immediate family was pretty good until Edward's death. He was either great at faking it or genuinely had no grievance. He also has a good reputation and was seen as loyal to his brother (in comparison to their brother Clarence) likewise Rivers had a very good reputation at home and abroad as a man of honour which is probably why he had been made guardian of the young Prince of Wales by Edward IV (not just as an honour for the Queen's family)

Richard's choices are:

1) Meet up with Rivers as he did in OTL - hail his nephew as his King (again as he did in OTL) and march into London alongside the new King and his maternal uncle and half brother - this is by enlarge what most normal thinking people in 1483 thought was what would happen.
2) Do as he did in otl - take custody of the King and remove his maternal uncle and half brother. March into London with the King and Buckingham and "humbly" accept the council's capitulation to a de facto coup.

Doing 1 He remains influential - and can probably count on considerable support on the council, maintain a good relationship with his nephew and his sister in law.
Coronation takes place as planned and remains Edward V's loving and popular uncle and a key figure in the early reign of the second Yorkist King. There is zero likelihood in this scenario of any great threat to him by anyone else. Edward V is just as likely to resent his Uncle Rivers (for a childhood telling off) as he is his uncle Dick and get rid of one or both as he ages in the short-term Richard can enjoy his good reputation in peace.
Doing 2
Means he is almost certainly on the path of taking the throne for himself and that will require removing the threats - the King, his brother, some of his maternal relatives - and handing out rewards to his intial narrow band of supporters. If he clings on then over time he can probably build enough support through patronage to secure his throne. But his reputation is seriously dented.

 

[Maniakes]

The strongest justification for Richard III's actions was the risk of another round of civil war breaking out due to weakness and conflict in a regency government.

The traditional practice in a regency was to separate the offices of Protector and Guardian. The former exercised royal powers in the King's name, while the later had physical custody of the King and oversaw his upbringing. This division protected against abuse of power by the Protector by making sure the King was beyond the Protector's reach and free to sign off on a change of regency. However, that very division was dangerous when the government wasn't stable, since it provided ready made focuses for rival factions which could not easily displace each other without a civil war.

By pushing aside the Woodvilles and seizing the guardianship of Edward V and Richard of York in addition to the Protectorship, Richard of Gloucester removed a major potential source of instability.

But as Protector to a King who was only a few years away from majority, Richard of Gloucester had a Lame Duck problem. His ability to trade favors and set up the kind of long-term political relationships needed to keep England stable was limited by the universal knowledge that someday not too far away, Richard of Gloucester would have to step down in favor of Edward V. The normal solution here, a gradual hand-off of power to the young King under supervision of the Protector, was risky because it was incompatible with the close physical custody of the King inherent in preserving the outcome of the coup against the Woodvilles. So instead, Richard found a legal pretext to declare Edward V, Richard of York, and their sisters to be bastards and exclude them from the succession.

The next problem was the risk that a rival faction would raise rebellion in Edward's name. If Richard was responsible for his nephews' deaths, it was to eliminate this problem.

The problem Richard III couldn't solve was the risk of a rebellion or invasion in favor of another rival claimant. Henry Tudor was beyond Richard's reach, the Duke of Buckingham was too powerful to take down without a civil war, and Edward IV's daughters were too numerous to either arrange plausible accidents for all of them or keep them all under close custody, especially after the political fallout from the confinement and subsequent disappearance of their brothers. Ironically, Richard's actions earlier (the coup against the Woodvilles, seizing the throne, and the perception that he'd murdered his nephews) gave him a very weak air of legitimacy, pissed off a lot of people, and required him to pay off his inner circle for their support in ways that pissed off even more people, leading directly to Buckingham's unsuccessful rebellion and the successful Tudor invasion.

If Richard's action had succeeded in creating a strong government and putting a firm end to the Wars of the Roses, you could make a good argument that they were justified. A handful of murders to prevent another round or three of civil war is a pretty good tradeoff from a cold-blooded utilitarian perspective. But he failed, and in hindsight his actions may actually have been counterproductive on this from.