Richard III and His Usurpation of the Throne of England

Introduction

The death of Edward IV on 9 April 1483 marks the initial event of a short period of less than three months, at the end of which Richard Duke of Gloucester became king of England on 6 July the same year, surprisingly replacing and supposedly murdering his nephew Edward V who was originally designated to the throne.

From a modern point of view, one is looking on a complex and labyrinthine time in late-medieval England, full of unforeseen and sometimes brutal acts involving real and alleged plots, where sometimes even agreeing on the so-called historical facts seems to be difficult if not impossible. The sum of the deeds carried out, not only by Richard but by every other person involved, the conditions, the atmosphere of suspicion and distrust and not to mention the tenuous circumstances of the sources cause a situation where questions after the actual happenings or motives are open to interpretation.

Nonetheless, since almost the death of Richard on 22 August 1485 historians are trying to shed light on this person, the motives he was possibly driven by and the circumstances of his reign. Whereas especially Richard's way to the throne, those crucial three months mentioned above, were and still are a highly disputed part of Yorkist history. Primarily the fact that Richard was not forfeited to damnatio memoriae but consequently demonised and villainised by the succeeding Tudors seems to be the reason why Richard remains a most attractive focal point for historians interested in late-medieval England.

Whereas the picture of Richard as one of the villains of English history endured unquestioned until the eve of the 20th century, the last 100 years of historiography have seen new theories on Richard, defending him and his cause, immediately provoking themselves counter-theories.

In particular one question appears to be both most attractive and difficult to answer: When exactly did Richard decide to take the throne and which were motives he was driven by? Michael Hicks puts this historical dilemma felicitously in a nutshell, stating that there are as many answers as there are historians. This is not least due to the rather tenuous body of source material. However, the case is not that simple. Colin Richmond goes even to such lengths to state that even in case of new evidence the matter will remain inconclusive. Why is that? Before I touch on this question I want to formulate my own point of departure, thereby ignoring such irritating statements.

Axiomatic and definitive answers apparently are not to be expected, however, dismissing the whole topic as insolvable cannot be the solution. Thus the discussion of the question if Richard planned to seize the throne to the disadvantage of his nephew from the very beginning, which is the concern of the following lines, will be put on a basis of plausibility and probability. Generally, this approach will rest for the greater part on the available contemporary sources, that is to say on the accounts of Dominic Mancini and the Crowland Chronicler. This procedure has been chosen for the following reason: The causa Richard III has always given cause to an embattled controversy: Seldom a dichotomy has been clearer, either it has been dealt with from a point of view which wanted to see in him the ultimate villain or from one which passionately defended his character as being sincere and chivalrous and the circumstances of the time left him no other choice to act as he did. However, both antagonistic points of view fall victim to circular argument as they mistake conclusions for premises. In contrast to that, the present essay will try to consider attentively the historical facts first and then deliver a verdict in a second step. Arguably, this might prove to be difficult. However, for lack of a reasonable alternative this seems to me being the sole possibility left, if one wants to meet scholarly requirements. The fact that the authors of both sources mentioned above promote their own personal motives, which might have biased their accounts, makes it necessary to take a closer look on the sources themselves before bringing their actual content into focus. Thus this essay will be broken up in two major parts. The first part comprises a critical assessment of the accounts of Dominic Mancini the Crowland Chronicler. The second part then will tackle the crucial question mentioned above. In addition to the contemporary sources, modern secondary literature, such as the works of Michael Hicks, Anthony Pollard and Charles Ross will be taken into account. All in all I will focus exclusively on the facts and assumptions which are necessary in order to unfold the mainline of the events as an essay limited to approximately 6000 words cannot do justice to every single detail worth mentioning.

I. Critical assessment of the major sources

In this chapter the two most important contemporary sources for the usurpation of Richard III, that is to say Mancini's De Occupatione Regni Anglie and the Crowland Chronicle, will be closely examined, compared and in a concluding sentence appraised due to their reliability. Besides, the question of the authorship will be of interest as well.

I. 1 De Occupatione Regni Anglie - Strengths and Weaknesses

The facts concerning the authorship of De Occupatione can be quickly summarized. It was written down on 1 December 1483 by Dominic Mancini, a descendent from a well known Roman family. As a member of a religious order, he probably was an Augustinian monk, he frequented theologian circles in Paris in the early 1480s and found himself amidst a late-scholastic dispute deeply disturbing academic life in Paris between 1474 and 1482. Apart from that, Mancini experienced some praise for the composition of moral and theological works and although not among the most famous intellectual celebrities, his works earned him enough reputation to guarantee him access to higher clerical circles. Taken together we are facing an educated man, who was leading his life according to high moral standards and who dedicated himself to a Renaissance tradition of writing: He appropriated to himself the title of a poetus laureates.

There is no evidence apart from this work about Mancini's sojourn in England to this time. About the reasons why Mancini went to England in first place one can only speculate. Reasonable enough is the assumption that he was sent there on the behest of Angelo Cato, the French king's physician. Most probably his journey had the character of a correspondent mission.

For the period of Mancini's sojourn in England we merely have a terminus ante quem: He himself stated having England left on 6 July 1483, which in addition is the point where Mancini's account of