#ie: the problem isn't that discontent existed with a few specific nobles (that was normal) the problem was how Richard took advantage of it

[wonder-worker]

It is difficult to argue that [Edward IV] was wrong in what he did. His advancement of [Richard of Gloucester] can be criticized only by those who believe that the only good nobleman is an impotent nobleman. Medieval kings did not think in these terms. Gloucester’s power was valuable because it ensured royal control of a significant and troublesome part of the country. Nor can Edward be blamed for not foreseeing the ends to which Gloucester might put his power. The duke had been a loyal upholder of the house of York, a central figure in Edward’s polity*; there was no obvious reason why he should not occupy the same role under Edward V. In this respect, precedent was on Edward’s side. Previous minorities had seen squabbles over the distribution of power, but no young king had ever been deposed. Even royal uncles traditionally drew a line at that, something which explains why Gloucester’s actions seemed so shocking to contemporaries and, perhaps, the reason why he got away with it so easily in the short term.

In the immediate sense, Gloucester must take final responsibility for what happened in 1483. However one explains the motives behind his actions, things happened because he chose that they should: there is nothing in the previous reign which compelled him to act as he did.

-Rosemary Horrox, "Richard III: A Study of Service"

*Richard was also, yk, Edward's own brother who had been entirely loyal during his life. The problem wasn’t that Edward trusted Richard, the problem is that Richard broke that trust in a horrible and unprecedented way to usurp a 12-year-old. Please understand the difference.

#wars of the roses #edward iv #richard iii #edward v #my post #The arguments of Ross and Pollard (et al) are so profoundly unserious and ahistorical #casting an unforeseeable turn of events as a predictable ('structural') one as David Horspool rightly puts it #Ross specifically is entirely dependent on his own horrible view of Elizabeth Woodville and her family as the basis of his analysis #but anyway. as Horrox points out later in the book: #''although earlier events [during Edward's reign] cannot be said to have caused the crisis they did have some bearing in how it developed' #namely Edward's legacy of forfeitures in the 1460s; manipulation of property descents; and fluctuating royal favour. #the most prominent and politically important of all of these were the manipulation of the Mowbray and Howard family fortunes #This is often used to enhance the unserious and ahistorical arguments of historians like Ross and Pollard that Edward doomed his son #But as Horrox points out: Edward's reign did not exist in a vacuum and needs to be analyzed by actual historical context. #from a broader perspective his actions were not especially transgressive as far as English kings were concerned #NO MONARCH (Edward III; Henry VII; etc) died with every single one of their nobles 100% content and supportive #they weren't living in Disney movies and there's no point holding Edward IV to fairytale standards that did not exist. #More importantly Horrox points out that Edward's actions (eg: the Mowbray and Howard cases) need to be put into actual perspective #They were not perceived as problems and did not cause problems during his own reign. #They did not cause problems after he died before Edward V arrived in London. #They only became problems after Richard decided to seize power and deliberately exploited them as bribes for political support #Had Richard decided to support his nephew or work with the Woodvilles - Edward's actions (@ the Mowbrays and Howards) would be irrelevant #(It's also worth pointing out that we don't know WHEN Richard decided to usurp. It if it was a more gradual desire then his depowering #of the Woodvilles by exploiting Mowbray & Howard discontent would not have not affected *Edward V's* ascension or prospects) #ie: the problem isn't that discontent existed with a few specific nobles (that was normal) the problem was how Richard took advantage of it #In theory this sort of thing would have been a potential threat for ANY heir to the throne whether they were a minor or an adult #In itself it's not really unique to Edward and it's silly when historians criticize him and him alone for it. It was more or less standard. #(if anything the fact that he was able to do them so successfully is an indication of his authority) #We come back to Horspool's point: 'Without one overriding factor' - Richard's initiative and actions - 'none of this could have happened.' #which is where this analysis of Horrox's comes in :)