#God-given victory in battle; divinely ordained triumph etc

[wonder-worker]

“Edward IV was never the sole, undoubted representative of the kingship before I47I. The crowned, anointed and, most important, de facto king of nearly forty years standing, was still alive, never abdicated and was never deposed; he was free until I465 and safe thereafter so long as his heir was beyond Edward's reach ... Barnet, Tewkesbury and the prompt murder of Henry VI, the moment it was safe to do so, alone changed all this and secured Edward's de facto kingship at last. The 'first reign' was in fact the road to the throne.”

- B.P Wolffe, review of “Edward IV” by Charles Ross

#edward iv #english history #that's a really good point I think #Edward IV was definitely in a wildly different and far more vulnerable situation from other 15th century usurpers #Henry IV and Richard III both had the usurped kings in their control and both Richard II and Edward V were childless so their usurpers #didn't have to worry about direct heirs #Henry VII defeated Richard in battle and was thus not only able to avoid the stain of regicide but was also able to gain added legitimacy #God-given victory in battle; divinely ordained triumph etc #Richard III also didn't have any legitimate heirs & hadn't formally declared anyone else his heir either #(and was himself viewed as an usurper himself by many) #So without discounting their difficulties they were all ultimately 'de-facto' kings from the beginning. Meanwhile Edward IV lacked that #across his 'first reign' and still somehow managed to get through which I think is actually pretty impressive imo? All things considered? #Ofc that's not to say that the circumstances were totally neat-and-clean for Henry IV Richard III and Henry VII - that's laughably untrue #But it was fundamentally different and more 'secure' in comparison to *Edward IV's* specifically #(John Guy talks about this in 'Tudor England' as well) #That's not even getting into how Edward IV was so much younger than the other three usurpers (he was 18 to their 32 30 and 28 respectively) #when he ascended the throne. So ultimately I think that his first reign was certainly very different and more vulnerable #which I definitely think this should be kept in mind when evaluating it - particularly if the evaluation is comparative in nature #(eg: in terms of internal opposition; foreign opposition; support; room to make mistakes etc) #On the flip-side it's also VERY indicative where Richard III is concerned. Because however morally distasteful his usurpation may have been #on a personal level - he WAS ultimately the de-facto king and the best option for dynastic continuity. And was clearly attempting a #policy of pardon and reconciliation where his brothers' followers were concerned. So it speaks volumes that despite that - despite #having nothing to gain and everything to lose - so many people rebelled against him or defected to a rival claimant who could #at that point offer them no such manifest advantage whatsoever