It is worth examining Henry Tudor a little closer at this point as it makes clear just how close Richard was to eliminating any source of opposition to his rule. Henry Tudor emerged as the last and final Lancastrian hope. On Christmas Day 1483, he stood in Rouen Cathedral and pledged to marry Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, upon becoming King of England. In so doing, he galvanised Edwardian sympathy and the Woodville faction to his own Lancastrian support and presented the last real threat that Richard needed to face.
Henry Tudor's claim to the throne was, at best, flimsy. In reality, it was non-existent. His parents had married when his mother was 12 and his father 24. His father was Edmund Tudor, maternal half brother to King Henry VI. He died of the plague in captivity before Henry's birth. Edmund Tudor's mother was Henry V's widow, Catherine of Valois, a French Princess. This meant that he possessed French royal blood, but Salic Law in France prevented female succession.
Henry's mother was Lady Margaret Beaufort. She gave birth to Henry at the age of thirteen on a stormy night at Pembroke Castle. The birth was difficult and was perhaps the reason that, despite subsequent marriages, Margaret never had another child. Henry, then, was her pride and joy. Lady Margaret was descended from John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and father to King Henry IV. However, the Beauforts were children John shared with a mistress, Katherine Swynford. When John eventually married Katherine Richard II agreed to legitimise their children in Parliament on the condition that the line was specifically barred from royal succession. Henry, then, had no claim to the throne of England.
Caught upon the wrong side of the Wars of the Roses, Henry was eventually forced into exile in Brittany with his uncle Jasper Tudor at fourteen. His mother remained in England and the separation was no doubt painful to them both. By 1483, Lady Margaret was married to Lord Stanley, an immensely powerful baron owning swathes of the north west and able to call upon a vast force of men at arms. It is perhaps Margaret who saw, or created, the opportunity for her son. She held him up as the last Lancastrian, the last alternative to Ricardian rule. She negotiated with Elizabeth Woodville in sanctuary for the marriage of their children to unite the Houses of York and Lancaster behind her son.
Buckingham's Rebellion began with the intention of freeing the Princes in the Tower but quickly changed its aim to placing Henry Tudor on the throne. If the fate of the Princes became known to Elizabeth Woodville, it is possible Margaret Beaufort told her to galvanise Woodville backing. It is even possible that she told Elizabeth of their fate without actually knowing it, banking on the lack of information that would be reaching the former queen.
Henry evaded Richard in 1483 and returned to Brittany. Richard opened negotiations during 1484 to have Henry handed over in return for the supply of English archers to assist Brittany in fending off France. Word of the plan reached Tudor and he managed to slip away over the French border. The French court, under Louis XI's son Charles VIII, welcomed Tudor. The French possibly remembered Richard's burning desire for battle on French soil and saw Tudor as a welcome alternative, or at least a diversion. Henry set up a faux court and die hard Lancastrians and disaffected Yorkists flocked to him. When the captain of the Calais garrison defected, he took with him John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford who had been his prisoner. The Earl was the most experienced Lancastrian military commander alive, a formidable opponent. The sheep now had a tame wolf in their midst. The unthinkable was becoming inevitable.
King Richard III held only one Parliament, in 1484. His legislative programme is fascinating because of the promise that it held and also the problems it could create. It is possible to view Richard as an early social reformer. He championed the cause of the common people during his time in the north and did not shy away from trampling on the ancient rights of the nobility either. To do this on a national scale, though, was a whole different matter. The nobility of England had a vested interest in the status quo. It kept them rich, powerful and comfortable. They were unlikely to welcome any rocking of the steady ship of feudal England. Perhaps Richard saw in this structure the cause of civil conflict and strife. Maybe he sought to sow the seeds of change, but if he did, he would have a battle on his hands.
The first striking thing about Richard's Parliament is that its Acts were published in English. The law in England had always been the preserve of the wealthy and educated, the Church and the nobility who could read Latin. Richard published his laws in English so that all may have access to them. Accepting that literacy was not yet high, this still opened access and understanding of the law to the common man. Their law was in their language. It must have felt more like their law, their possession, than it ever had before. With this gift to the commoners came a removal of a long guarded privilege of the nobility and Church and they were likely to resent it.
Parliament passed 33 statutes in total. Titulus Regius detailed Richard claim to the throne. It formally declared the children of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville illegitimate and identified Richard's son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales as his heir. Other private acts attainted those involved in the rebellion for treason, settled some inheritance claims and provided benefits for individuals.
Benevolences, which Edward IV had used widely and successfully but which were deeply unpopular, were abolished. The Act stated that 'The subjects of this realm shall not be charged with any benevolences'. This was popular within the nobility and within the merchant class, who felt more able to invest their money in growth without the threat of being forced to provide a gift to the Crown. It was also viewed as a statement of Richard's intent to manage Crown finances responsibly so that he would not need to resort to benevolences.
Richard's Parliament made several reforms to the judicial system to deal with corruption, including the prevalent bribing of juries. The system of bail was extended and reinforced to prevent a person from being imprisoned before trial and protect their goods from seizure before they were found guilty. A malicious, false charge could previously see a man in jail with all of his goods seized. Even if he was found innocent, his goods did not have to be returned to him. Richard's Parliament corrected the injustices the King saw here, perhaps before his ducal courts whilst in the north.
Further Acts protected English merchants and tradesmen from foreign competition to the delight of London in particular and sought to abolish the widespread fraud in transactions of land. The wool trade was also freed from abuse that had hounded it. One area that was protected, even from the anti-alien legislation, was the flourishing printing and book industries. Parliament ensured that this burgeoning trade in learning was preserved and books flowed out of London as well as in from the Continent.
It is impossible to know how far Richard may have taken his reforms given time, but it is striking the instant impact that he sought to make in his first Parliament. It is argued that the Acts of Richard's Parliament cannot be wholly attributed to him as the machinery of government existed to deal with these matters, but this was still very much a time of personal monarchy when the King ruled as well as reigned. In addition, we can see much of Richard's ideas and ideals from his time in the north translating to the national stage.
When Cardinal Wolsey attempted to extract benevolences from Londoners on behalf of Henry VIII forty years later, the mayor and aldermen of London confidently referenced Richard's statute outlawing them which had never been repealed. When Wolsey berated them for quoting the laws of a usurper and murderer, the men supposedly replied 'Although he did evil, yet in his time were many good Acts made'. Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor to King James I and a respected Parliamentarian later described Richard III as 'A good lawmaker for the ease and solace of the common people'. It seems that the one thing even Richard's detractors agree upon is that he was a maker of good laws for the benefit of his people.