Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 12th, 2012, 06:53 AM   #41

funakison's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 3,394
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Halomanuk2 View Post
He strengthened the navy and created the first dry dock and he created the worlds first police force in his Justices of the Peace.
He also traded very very well and made England a very rich country.

He did indeed do all of those. Added to which he bought peace via a succession of prudent royal marriages. He placated the Scots by marrying his daughter to James IV of Scotland, and he himself married a Woodville to offset Yorkist resentment. Henry the VII was not exciting, he was no dynamic swashbuckling warrior king . He was prudent and at entry level history that means boring.
funakison is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 12th, 2012, 07:02 AM   #42
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Pax juxta probitatem
Posts: 1,621
Blog Entries: 14

Henry Tudor was a conservative, and obviously approved of Yorkist ways. And just like Edward IV he believed that power had to be shown by wealth which wouldn't depend on Parliament or loans. Most of the royal revenue which came from fines and fiscal rights was to be paid direct into royal coffers not the Exchequer. Henry VII built up quite a fortune this way. Does he remind you of any other rich ostentatious Tudor?

His achievements apart from ending the Wars of the Roses were the Navigation Act; English goods were carried in English ships. He was also a Diplomat, keeping out of wars. He helped the Cabots in exploration, and introduced coinage; the gold sovereign and first English shilling: "The next important change in the coinage was the introduction in 1489 of the sovereign, a splendid gold coin of 240 grains, current for 20 shillings, with, obverse, Henry VII seated on an elaborate throne and, reverse, a Tudor rose with central shield of arms. Henry also issued the first English shilling, a handsome, though scarce, coin with a fine portrait, probably by John Sharp, formally appointed engraver in 1510. Henry VII altered the types of the smaller silver coins by replacing the three-centuries-old cross and pellets by a long cross and shield, while the inscription POSVI DEVM ADIVTOREM MEVM (“I have made God my helper”) took the place of the mint legend; the stereotyped bust was replaced on the groat by an excellent profile portrait and on the penny by the king seated."
coin 2012. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 12 December, 2012, from http://www.britannica.com.libezproxy...ic/124716/coin
John Paul is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 09:54 AM   #43

Darth Roach's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
From: Jelgava, Latvia
Posts: 1,325

Quote:
I think Richard was a man that had seen plenty of greed, hatred, dishonesty and scheming plots. I think all he was trying to do was the right thing for his people as they had suffered enough during the wars of the roses.
You are idealizing him too much. If he were so perfect, he'd have had support.
Darth Roach is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 10:13 AM   #44
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 282

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Roach View Post
You are idealizing him too much. If he were so perfect, he'd have had support.
while that point of view has merit, the wars of the roses were motivated by personal/dynastic ambition and the desire to protect position - Mary Beaufort wasn't telling the world her son would be a good king because she disagreed with Richards economic policy, and Elizabeth Woodville didn't offer her daughter to the Tudors because she opposed fundamentally Richards laws on the selling of cloth. this was nasty, personal stuff where the the actual merits of a King and his policies had little or no place whatsoever.

Richard was susceptable to rebellion because there were powerful people who thought they'd do better out of a Tudor/Lancastrian monarch, and he lost a battle he should have won because less than half a dozen people decided that they prefered Henry VII to Richard III - and you don't possibly believe that the Stanley's changed sides because of a principled stand over Judicial reform or the fate of two Princes do you?
Dried Fruit is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 02:07 PM   #45

Commodus's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 271

To be honest, Edward IV was such a whore monger that almost anyone would have been an improvement. Edward was perhaps one of our greatest generals, I'll admit that, but as a King he was laughably nepotistic and made enemies by ignoring his advisors and marrying a commoner on a whim.

Richard meanwhile was a man with a track record of proven honesty, a man popular in the North due to his fair governance and someone who at least attempted to make the legal system somewhat fairer.
It would be wrong to call him a 'great King' because his reign was so short. But I believe he would have been similar to men such as Tiberius or even his successor, Henry Tudor.
A humorless administrator able to keep order.
Commodus is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 02:23 PM   #46

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 6,094
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodus View Post
To be honest, Edward IV was such a whore monger that almost anyone would have been an improvement. Edward was perhaps one of our greatest generals, I'll admit that, but as a King he was laughably nepotistic and made enemies by ignoring his advisors and marrying a commoner on a whim.
Only the first part of his reign was unpopular. When he returned and defeated the Lancastrians at Barnet and Tewkesbury, and returned to the throne, his reign until death was popular.

Also, his "advisor" was only happy when things were going his way. Once Edward showed he would not be dominated by Warwick, Warwick abandoned him and joined the Lancastrians.
Mangekyou is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 02:55 PM   #47

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,990
Blog Entries: 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Paul View Post
Good, Crystal Rainbow. I get to do my study and my work from home in a great sunny space down here in Devon. I am interested in your blogs and what you have to say, no doubt we'll learn something.

This morning I was wondering, if he was involved, what Richard's motives might have been in the summer of 1483. And if some agree that a pragmatic solution happened then, and we consider all the other actors plus the question where did the princes really end up, there could be fairer analyses.

Richard's hand may have been forced by the Sanctuary Plot, or Hastings's conspiracy based on loyalty to Edward IV's family. Tyrell in his 1502 confession mentioned that the two bodies were removed from the Tower but he did not know where. If this were true then where were they brought?

For the OP, one event that you might consider is Richard turning the tables on the Wydevilles, " a greedy and troublesome lot who would have poisoned the ear of young Edward V". By taking over, and through the reforms he did make during his two year reign, he would have ended both the Wydeville hegemony and Edward IV's rotten legacy of corruption and decadence. This could be important.

And if Richard was involved in the princes' removal it was one of the most bloodless coups ever.
Its sunny up here and freezing and I have stopped cycling until it gets warmer, I fell off the bike on the ice.
The Tudors had removed all evidence about what happened in the summer of 1483 about the princes disappearance. There was something that Mancini that has been stated by him but it looks like its been messed about with as its too vague and has a political agenda.
After Hastings was removed, all the attendants that had waited on the King were debarred access to him. He and his brother were withdrawn into the inner apartments of the tower proper, and day by day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars and windows, till at length they ceased to appear altogether. A Strasbourg doctor, the last of his attendants whose services the King enjoyed, reported that the young King, like a victim prepared for sacrificed, Sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him...I have seen many men burst forth into tears and lamentations when mention was made of him after his removal from men's sight and already there was a suspicion that he had been done away with and by what manner of death, so far I have not at all discovered.
Mancini December 1483.
He only mention the younger prince Richard as only disappearing and no one grieving over his soul.
James Tyrell had confessed during torture, his evidence may not be that reliable as they only get the confession that they want. It was weird that he could not give his tormentors the place where the princes were buried.
The Woodvilles had definitely poisoned the young king towards his father Edward IV and his dad's family. He was groomed by them at Ludlow, he was also a well read young boy. I found it strange that no account has been written about when Hastings was executed and Richard had given orders to execute the three prisoners in Yorkshire that the boy king was very close to. I don't think that Richard would of done that if the boy king was still alive. Its also strange that there is nothing to say why Hastings had died, someone was hiding the truth about all that and that's for sure.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 03:06 PM   #48

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,990
Blog Entries: 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
Only the first part of his reign was unpopular. When he returned and defeated the Lancastrians at Barnet and Tewkesbury, and returned to the throne, his reign until death was popular.

Also, his "advisor" was only happy when things were going his way. Once Edward showed he would not be dominated by Warwick, Warwick abandoned him and joined the Lancastrians.
Warwick was a very ambitious man and he could be very ruthless and Edward did want this. With marrying Elizabeth Woodville and allowing her family to make marriages had made Warwick leave Edward and go to the side of Lancasterians. The marriage had caused more trouble with the nobles and was bad for the country.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 03:27 PM   #49

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 6,094
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal Rainbow View Post
Warwick was a very ambitious man and he could be very ruthless and Edward did want this. With marrying Elizabeth Woodville and allowing her family to make marriages had made Warwick leave Edward and go to the side of Lancasterians. The marriage had caused more trouble with the nobles and was bad for the country.
Warwick was an ambitious man, and after Towton he certainly gained the patronage of Edward. But he had a clear pro-French policy, which Edward did not want. I don't think the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville threatened Warwick at all. He was still the richest and most notable man after the king himself, but rather his influence with Edward seemed to be waning due to the rising influence of the Woodvilles.

Lord Rivers, although from humble origins, served very well in France, and his claimed lineage from Charlemagne. Warwick seemed to want Edward to marry the traditional "virgin princess".

One of the queens sisters married Duke of Buckingham, which Warwick wanted one of his daughters to marry. Lord Herbert also became a powerful rival to Warwick.

Imo, and certainly in some modern historians views, the main discord between Edward and Warwick was over foreign policy. Edward took the traditional aggressive stance to France, whereas Warwick took the opposite. Edward wanted a Burgudian alliance whereas Warwick wanted a French one, and things grew apart when Edward used Earl Rivers to conduct diplomacy and Warwicks influence continued to wane.

Typical power politics of the day, but Edward offered Warwick many olive branches because of his service, which Warwick refused to take. Also, for a long time, Warwick brother, ohn Neville refused point blank to rebel with Warwick, and it was only due to unfortunate circumstances that he later joined and died with Warwick at Barnet.
Mangekyou is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 12:44 PM   #50

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,990
Blog Entries: 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dried Fruit View Post
while that point of view has merit, the wars of the roses were motivated by personal/dynastic ambition and the desire to protect position - Mary Beaufort wasn't telling the world her son would be a good king because she disagreed with Richards economic policy, and Elizabeth Woodville didn't offer her daughter to the Tudors because she opposed fundamentally Richards laws on the selling of cloth. this was nasty, personal stuff where the the actual merits of a King and his policies had little or no place whatsoever.

Richard was susceptable to rebellion because there were powerful people who thought they'd do better out of a Tudor/Lancastrian monarch, and he lost a battle he should have won because less than half a dozen people decided that they prefered Henry VII to Richard III - and you don't possibly believe that the Stanley's changed sides because of a principled stand over Judicial reform or the fate of two Princes do you?
Margaret Beaufort had carefully plotted with John Morton the Bishop of Ely to get rid of Buckingham as he had a nearer claim to the throne. I think the rebellion was a set up.
I have always felt that Edward IV death was rather suspicious and I think Elizabeth and her kindred had designs on ruling through her son. The passions between Edward and Elizabeth had long died a death in the last years of Edwards life. Hastings was arch enemies with the Woodvilles and wanted Richard to come down from the north, but he was reluctant to go down. He did arrest Anthony Woodville, Thomas Vaughan and Lord Richard Grey and sent them up to Yorkshire out of harms way.
The crown jewels had gone missing with Edward Woodville and his share of crown jewels and Elizabeth Woodville in sanctuary with her share of the crown jewels. It seemed that Richard had taken on a right mess from the corruption that had been going on over the years in Edward's reign.
I think Richard was only beginning to realise what trouble lay ahead for him when he became protector. I have searched every where for the reason why Hastings was executed and its if its been removed from the pages of history.
I don't think that Richard could passed sentence on those three prisoners in the north while the boy king was alive. Hastings was executed on June 13th and the prisoners were executed a week later. Did Hastings murder the young King? Anyway the plots and the planning to get Henry Tudor on the throne was well on the way after the Buckingham rebellion.
People had no honour and it was not in Richard's nature to behave that way he did not stand a chance during his reign.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
iii, reformer, richard


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Peter the Great - Reformer or Revolutionary sources andybeesley History Help 5 November 22nd, 2011 09:13 AM
The First Reformer in Recorded Human History Satuf Ancient History 1 March 12th, 2011 10:59 PM
The First Tax Reformer okamido Ancient History 8 December 8th, 2010 09:53 AM
Medieval Serbo-Greek Empire: social and legal context, and legal transplants from Byzantine Law Soloviev Medieval and Byzantine History 1 May 30th, 2007 01:46 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.