32
Given the chance and under better circumstances, Richard III had the potential to be a good king. During his brother Edward’s reign, he had shown himself to excel at diplomatic relationships as well as military leadership. By all accounts, Richard III was a loyal and obedient servant to his brother, King Edward IV, even after their fallout in 1478 after George’s execution. Richard never showed any signs of disloyalty to Edward until after his death. That’s when Richard made the colossal mistake of setting aside Edward’s sons just so he could prevent the Woodvilles from taking control of government. If Edward’s children were found to be illegitimate, that would place Richard next in line to the throne, giving him much more power than the Woodvilles. The consequences of this move were not well thought out by Richard. His reputation went down the drain and popular support for his cause dried up. Even his closest allies pulled away from him and flipped to Henry Tudor’s side.
Was Richard III really a usurper? Of all the famous usurpers throughout history, this is the easiest one to analyse. To be considered a usurper, one would have to win the throne either by conquest or by illegal means. Although Richard was placed on the throne legally by parliament he never ordered an investigation into Edward’s marriage contract to Eleanor Butler, and therefore the truth of the rumour was never sought.1 For Richard to press on with his coronation without finding the truth stank of desperation. He obviously lacked the evidence to prove it and that’s why he rushed through his own coronation as King Richard III of England.
The non-investigation of Edward’s marriage contract combined with the murder of two royal princes can certainly be classified as criminal. Murder was illegal during medieval times, and even if Richard hadn’t killed the boys with his own hands, their deaths were most likely carried out on Richard’s command.2 Some writers have put forth other theories as to the two princes’ disappearance, including the idea that they were secretly smuggled out of the Tower and raised abroad, but there is no evidence for that whatsoever.3 It is much more likely that the newly crowned Richard began viewing his nephews as rivals to his throne. It is not far-fetched to imagine Richard decided to snuff them out, just as he and Edward had put Henry VI to his death on the night of Edward’s second coronation. Although the Ricardian Society aims to restore Richard’s reputation as a goodly king, there is no doubt that Richard III was a usurper who illegally stole the crown from his two young innocent nephews in the worst possible way.