Richard III’s Government _________________________

Laurence Gottlieb

1

To the High and Myghty Prince Richard Duc of Gloucefter.

Pleafe it youre Noble Grace to underftande the Confideracon, Election and Peticion

underwritten, of use the Lords Spuelx and Temporelx, and Comons of this Reame of Englond,

and thereunto agreably to yeve your affent, to the comon and public wele of this Lande, to the

comforte and gladneffe of all the people of the fame.1

Introduction

Having stood out for over five hundred years as a reign tainted by usurpation and blood, interest

in the government of Richard III has remained secondary to the crimes portrayed in

Shakespeare’s Richard III. As one will see, what discussion of Ricardian government there is

lingers under the shrouded mysteries of that short reign. In order to look at his government one

has to see that those who have studied him, have associated Richard’s negative reputation with

his administration, as well as his accession to the English throne.

Sir Winston Churchill quite explicitly let his readers know that the English people were shocked

and dismayed at Richard’s usurpation, and they especially regarded the disappearance of the two

princes as a heinous crime. With this in mind, even Richard’s patronage, council appointments,

financial bonds and threats, (a method also used by Henry VII) which formed the structure of his

governance, could not retain cohesion, a number of these alliances failing completely at

Bosworth field. However much Churchill thought these rejections of such a prince reflected late

English fifteenth century society, Churchill, himself relied on More’s tale of Richard, a source

even he had regarded as tainted by prejudice.2 Yet he used it and quoted profusely from it. One

might mitigate such a presentation by pointing out that Churchill has been noted both positively

and negatively as a dramatic journalist and speaker who quite often did not let scholarly

scepticism get in the way of a good story.3 More to the point, his is probably one of the more

popular historiographic examples of Richard’s poor image.

Another voice supporting this popular view of Richard; that of Desmond Seward, regarded

Richard’s reign as “the unhappiest in English history.”4 This referred more to the usurpation, and

immuring of the princes than much else. Although having regarded Richard’s henchmen;

Catesby, Lovell and Ratcliff as opportunists, as well as loyal supporters of Richard, Seward

pointed out that the influence and power of such commoners was the precursor to Tudor

bureaucrats, such as Cardinal Wolsey, the son of a butcher, who influenced his king as much as

the former Ricardian servants did theirs.5 Seward mentioned that a feature of Richard’s council

was its domination by northerners, as was the case of his servants and knights of the body.

Seward pointed out that this led to fear and mistrust and bitter feeling in the south. However, like

1 Titulus Regius, An Act for the Settlement of the Crown upon the King and his Iffue, with a

recapitulation of his Title, Rotuli parliamentorum; ut et petitiones, et placita in parliamento. 6

vols. folio, [1783], and index vol., folio, (1832) 2 Churchill, Sir Winston Spencer, A History of the English Speaking Peoples, The Birth of

Britain, Bantam Books, New York, (1963), p. 353 - 367 3 Gilbert, Martin, In Search of Churchill, Harper Collins, London (1994), p. 5 – 6, Churchill’s

work was judiciously ignored by many serious academics. 4 Seward, Desmond, Richard III England’s Black Legend, Franklin Watts, New York, (1984),

p. 111 5 Seward, p. 118 - 119

Richard III’s Government _________________________

Laurence Gottlieb

2

his predecessors, and the Tudors who followed, Richard used these councils in his government.6

Again, as much as this was the custom and would remain so after his reign, Richard followed a

progress through his realm in order to present himself and his government to the people. On one

hand, in doing so Seward emphasized how Richard granted preferences, especially in York in

order to gain favour. On the other hand, Seward posited that Henry Percy Earl of

Northumberland resented these royal incursions into his domain, which dimmed the lights

shining on him.7 Whether this indeed was the case, Seward emphasized that Richard used

patronage to gain fidelity, a practice long a part of politics and remaining so today.

Supporting a position more sympathetic to Richard, Paul Murray Kendall addressed Richard’s

government from the time he arrived in London with his nephew Edward V. Here Kendall

showed the alacrity with which Richard formed a government, and started undoing the failed

machinations of the Woodville clan. Kendall asserted that, “Much of Richard’s policy was aimed

at fulfilling the work of his great brother; much, however, turned away from what Richard

conceived to be the errors into which Edward had been led…”8 Kendall illustrated this by

pointing to Richard’s accessibility, a characteristic lacking in the Tudors, his pursuit of

“…justice into the thickets of trivial matters as well as through the forest of high affairs.”

Kendall pointed to parliamentary statutes that freed individuals from oppression. At the same

time rather than seeking out and punishing participants in a riot in York, Kendall asserted that

Richard addressed the rioters concerning means of redressing wrongs, as opposed to these people

taking the law into their own hands.9 Unlike Seward, Kendall attributed the grants, presents and

privileges settled upon the middle classes, especially in York, not as a means of seeking favour,

but as a show of respect for their needs and social standing.10 Regarding his councillors, Kendall

attributed Richard’s choices to his wish to emulate his brother, Edward IV, choosing the ablest

and not those who would dominate the throne for self-serving purposes, to the detriment of the

realm.11

We could now address the task of ascertaining whether or not Richard formed his government to

harvest the fruits of his patronage or out of benevolence for his people and his realm, whether

Richard concerned himself with justice in order to improve the lot of his subjects, or as a means

of looking favourable in their eyes. We could also concern ourselves with the question of policy;

whether Richard had a strategic long-term plan or addressed himself piecemeal to issues as they

arose. Such tasks would marvellously remap the reign of the last Plantagenet. Unfortunately,

even ascertaining the motives of a current personality is uncertain. Relegating the motives of

Richard III to debate leaves them in the end a product of speculation.12 We can, nonetheless,

examine the structure of Richard’s government: whom he appointed to various posts and why,

and how these appointees carried out their tasks. We can, furthermore, examine what the

governing bodies did, including the monarch, his council and parliament. We can question

whether these bodies were consulted, how often, and what laws and proclamations were

produced. We can also examine Richard’s patronage and the results thereof. By doing so we will

be able to see what Richard and his appointees accomplished. More to the point, we will see

6 Seward, p. 119 7 Seward, p. 128 - 131 8 Kendall, Paul Murray, Richard The Third, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, (1956),

p. 370 9 Kendall, p. 371 10 Kendall, p. 373

11 Kendall, p. 375

12 These types of debate inevitably fall into an ad hominem net.

Richard III’s Government _________________________

Laurence Gottlieb

3

whether or not Richard’s government followed the feudal tradition of its predecessors, or led the

way to new precedents and conventions.

Appointments and Patronage

Desmond Seward argued that Richard’s appointment of a majority of northerners,13 to orders of

knighthood, his council, his household and the Church created a breach between northerners and

southerners. It manifested itself in feelings of mistrust and bitterness by those in the south, where

Richard now as king resided. However true this may have been, Richard, as Duke of Gloucester

had up until his brother’s death resided in the North, his affinity was there, including those who

had served him. He, like others before and after him, sought out those he knew who would serve

him well.

Richard could not trust the Archbishop of York, Thomas Rotherham, who, in some manner

trying to reassure the former Queen in sanctuary gave her the Great Seal. Shortly after, thinking

better of his act, the Archbishop recovered the Great Seal. Nevertheless, by releasing it from his

hands to the Woodville Queen, in the first place, the Archbishop had destroyed his credibility as

Richard’s liegeman. Richard “reproved” the Archbishop, relieved him of his former dignities and

appointed Doctor Russell, Bishop of Lincoln as Lord Chancellor in his stead. This appointment

left vacant the office of keeper of the privy seal, which went to Edward IV’s former servant,

John Gunthorpe, Dean of Wells. Conversely, those who had not compromised themselves, such

as “The Lorde Chaumberlayne and somme other, kept styll theyr offices that they hadde

beefore.”14

A variety of circumstances dictated Richard’s appointments. Death due to natural causes

between monarchs accounted for one posting. Richard appointed Sir John Wood as Lord

Treasurer, in place of Henry, Earl of Essex, who died in service just prior to Edward’s death.

Oliver King, in Richard’s opinion, having so loyally served Edward, Richard preferred his own

secretary, John Kendal who took the secretarial post.15 Such service to his brother when not

suspected as fixed on Edward’s line continued into Richard’s reign. Bishop of Bath, Robert

Stillington participated in Richard’s coronation. This continued service, into Richard’s reign no

doubt was encouraged when Stillington confirmed that he had officiated at Edward’s marriage to

Lady Eleanor Butler prior to Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. This pre contract could

not be mitigated because Lady Butler was still alive at the time Edward IV married Elizabeth

Woodville. This news supported Richard’s cause by confirming the illegitimacy of his nephews

and the ineligibility of any Woodville heirs seeking the throne.16 Such continuity of service

between reigns did not require an explicit favour to Richard on the part of the appointee, as was

the case with Stillington. Rather, the exigencies of government and smooth administration leant

themselves to keeping previous retainers. Of the fifty-four councillors serving Richard, twenty-

six had previously served in his brother, Edward IV’s council.17 Such appointments based on

continuity and competence did not preclude retaining and enhancing those who had previously

served Richard. As such an example, on August 14, 1483 Richard selected Francis Viscount

13 Those originating from such northern counties as Yorkshire, Cumberland, Westmoreland, and

Lancashire 14 More, Sir Thomas, The History of King Richard the Thirde, London, (1513)

15 Ross, Charles, Richard III, University of California Press, Los Angeles, (1981), p. 171

16 Mowat, A.J., Robert Stillington, The Ricardian, Essex, (June 1976), p. 24 - 25

17 Bolden, Emma J., Richard III: Central Government and Administration, The Ricardian,

England, Gemini Press, (June 2000), p. 72

Richard III’s Government _________________________

Laurence Gottlieb

4

Lovell, to be his chamberlain and chief butler of England.18 One may consequently conclude that

Richard did not stack his servants and government exclusively with northerners, but balanced

loyalty and service.

Obviously, among other arguments, Desmond Seward’s concerns over the predominance of

Northerners in the councils of Richard III don’t stand up. Richard did not make a clean sweep of

all incumbents who had previously served Edward IV. Since these people would have had the

function of later parliamentary cabinets or household support for a monarch or office support for

a prime minister, the opposing needs for personal familiarity and trust, as well as continuity in

governance had to be balanced. In the late fifteenth century, government was still viewed as

taking place within a council or parliament of peers, presided over by a king.19 Consequently,

Richard had to have both the loyalty of his servants as well as their knowledge of the tasks of

government, a combination that required balancing some aspects that could be at opposite poles,

but were not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Parliament and Legislation

Despite this heterogeneous government, over a very short time a certain trend regarding

legislation and its application began to emerge. The first parliamentary effort was

acknowledgement of Richards claim to the throne through Titulus Regius, an act recognizing

Richard as monarch, while denying the claims of his nephews based on Bishop Stillington’s

reports of their illegitimacy. Such confidence did Richard have in Stillington that according to

James H. Ramsay, Stillington actually drew up the Act.20 The Act itself did not have to stand on

its own. Charles Ross asserted that parliament had been suitably “…packed in the royal interest

or was in healthy fear of a king who ‘had carved through slaughter to a throne.” Of further

interest was the speaker, William Catesby, a favourite of Richard’s who had not sat in parliament

before.21 There is no doubt that Richard had assembled a parliament favourable to himself, yet J.

E. A. Jolliffe points out that a parliament weakened in Edward IV’s reign, as well as a similarly

weak council led by the previous king who took most decisions lent itself to approving Richard’s

kingship, since it could not do otherwise.22

There is more than the weakness of previous parliaments to mitigate parliamentary cooperation

with Richard. Firstly, Richard had shortly before put down the Duke of Buckingham’s rebellion.

Richard a well-respected soldier had further proved himself in the field. Challenging him would

be futile. However, beyond seeing the raw power Richard held, there is in some students of the

period an inability to look beyond the tough soldier and ruthless usurper, making the character

into a two dimensional stereotype. Usurpation and coup d’état had been the norm for the

previous hundred years. Henry IV (Bolingbroke), Edward IV, previously, Isabella and Roger

Mortimer, and then Edward III seizing the throne from his mother. One hears little of the

18 Chancery Patent Rolls, Les reports des cases en les ans des roys Edward V, Richard III,

Henrie VII & Henrie

VIII, 1483, Richard III, A Source Book, Edited by Keith Dockery, Sutton Publishing,

Gloucestershire, (2000), p. 73 19 Jolliffe, J.E.A., The Constitutionional History of Medieval England from the English

Settlement to 1485, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, (1961), p. 494 20 Kendall, p 556, footnote 20, Ramsay, James H, Lancaster and York, 2 vols, Oxford, (1892)

p. 448 and note 2 21 Ross, p. 185

22 Jolliffe, p. 491 - 493

Richard III’s Government _________________________

Laurence Gottlieb

5

foregoing monarchs concerned for the financial and legal security of their subjects. Edward IV

took benevolences, actual forced loans to finance his reign. Mortimer and Isabella were noted for

their self indulgences; land grabbing and expensive taste respectively. While Henry IV spent

himself into insolvency to the point that parliament had to take action against his financial

deficits.

The motivation for the act supporting Richard’s title is self-evident. The legislation, which

followed, has been looked upon as opportunistic by some, and benevolent by others.

Surprisingly, despite Richard’s psychological dominance, if not military preeminence at the time,

Jeremy Potter asserts that Richard was in no position to enact oppressive measures.23 Irrespective

of such speculation Richard addressed two issues of great importance to many subjects, taxes

and justice; measures that Richard’s predecessors had not deliberately pursued. In the parliament

of 1484 the first and last of his reign Richard passed an act in which “…his subjects and the

commonality of this his realm, from henceforth in no wise be charged by no such charge,

exaction or imposition, called a benevolence…”24 For some time at least the heavy taxes

previously exacted by his brother ceased. Of even more concern to Richard was justice. John

Rous asserted that Richard ruled his subjects “… full commendably, punishing offenders of his

laws, especially extortioners and oppressors of his commons…”25 An example of Richard’s

efforts to reward justice was the life annuity of £20.00 annually to “John Harrington, for his good

service… and especially in the custody, registration and expedition of bills, requests and

supplications of poor persons…”26 Richard even intervened on the individual level answering the

pleas of “Katherine Bassingbourne who had appealed against ill treatment.”27 Such intimate

concern with justice that Richard directly addressed has, as previously mentioned elicited

positive responses that he cared for his subjects and negative responses that this was all show to

gain favour. Such arguing is futile. Exponents of both views continue to argue them.

Conclusion

Richard’s personal involvement is obvious, not only in choosing his council, influencing

parliament, advocating for certain laws and asserting his interest in justice, but also in his

intimate concern with individual cases. Jolliffe points out that Henry VI took council advice as

he saw fit, at points during his reign. His successor, Edward IV, similarly consulted or ignored

council, while he called parliaments infrequently. To the extent that Edward used self-rule and

did not build up strong institutions, which might have opposed Richard, these weaknesses,

Jolliffe suggested, lent themselves to Richard’s usurpation.28 One can consequently only

conclude that all three kings, in succession had looked upon council and parliament as secondary

23 Potter, Jeremy, Good King Richard? Constable, London (1983), p. 53

24 Statutes of the Realm, 1484, Statutes of the Realm, 1101 – 1713, Record Commission 1810 –

1828, Dockery, Keith, Richard III: A Source book, Sutton Publishing, Gloucester, (2000),

p. 107. Unfortunately, within a short time, Richard, succumbing to financial need, abrogated

his own act and reinstated the use of benevolences. 25 Rous, John, The Rous Roll (1858, reprinted Gloucester, 1980), Dockery, Keith, Richard III: A

Source book, Sutton Publishing, Gloucester, (2000), p. 96 26 Chancery Patent Rolls, Les reports des cases en les ans des roys Edward V, Richard III,

Henrie VII & Henrie VII,1483, Richard III, A Source Book, Edited by Keith Dockery, Sutton

Publishing, Gloucestershire, (2000), p. 107 27 Sutton, Anne, The Administration of Justice Whereunto We Be Professed, The Ricardian,

Essex, (June, 1976), p. 4 28 Jolliffe, p. 490 - 493

Richard III’s Government _________________________

Laurence Gottlieb

6

to their direct rule. Richard had followed in this path by appointing councillors, whether from his

affinity or from the previous reign as liegemen who would follow their king’s bidding. William

Catesby, as parliamentary speaker, Robert Stillington, writing Richard’s legislation and John

Harrington administering justice indicate Richard’s personal control and patronage in

government. Richard had ruled the north by personal appointments and he continued to do so as

protector and shortly thereafter, as king. Other than his Council of the North, an extension of

Edward’s previous consular rule, Richard ruled through patronage. But even there he had still

appointed “our nephew” John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln to head the Council of the North, as an

offshoot of his own council, issuing letters under Richard’s name Per Consilium Regis.29 As had

his predecessors Richard tried to control the realm through patronage and the Buckingham

rebellion indicated the fragility of a patronage system that relied on liegemen who could turn on

their monarch. This was a risk Richard obviously understood, both through failures similar to

Buckingham’s rebellion during his brother’s reign and through successes such as his control of

parliament and victory over Buckingham. Richard expected immediate loyalty and while

requesting the Great Seal and some of the officers of the Chancery, he also wrote to the Bishop

of Lincoln, “We wolde most gladly ye came yourselff yf that ye may... and for to resyste the

malysse of hym that hadde best cawse to be trewe, and the duc of Bokyngam, thel most untrewe

creature lyvyng.”30 Richard obviously expected immediate obedience to his command, and acted

harshly on non-compliance. Ultimately Richard was still a warlord expecting the support of his

liegemen. The renaissance may have been around the corner, but Richard still lived with

medieval obligations, still a medieval king.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Chancery Patent Rolls, Les reports des cases en les ans des roys Edward V, Richard III, Henrie

VII & Henrie VIII,1483, Richard III, A Source Book, Edited by Keith Dockery, Sutton

Publishing, Gloucestershire, (2000)

More, Sir Thomas, The History of King Richard the Thirde, London, (1513)

Gloucester, King Richard III of, Letter from King Richard III to the Lord Chancellor, the Bishop

of Lincoln, (October 12, 1483)

Rous, John, The Rous Roll (1858, reprinted Gloucester, 1980), Dockery, Keith, Richard III: A

Source book, Sutton Publishing, Gloucester, (2000)

Statutes of the Realm, 1101 – 1713, Record Commission 1810 – 1828, Dockery, Keith, Richard

III: A Source book, Sutton Publishing, Gloucester, (2000)

Titulus Regius, An Act for the Settlement of the Crown upon the King and his Iffue, with a

recapitulation of his Title. Rotuli parliamentorum; ut et petitiones, et placita in parliamen,.

6 vols. folio, [1783], and index vol., folio, 1832.

29 Ross, p. 181 - 183

30 Gloucester, King Richard III of, Letter from King Richard III to the Lord Chancellor, the

Bishop of Lincoln, (October 12, 1483)

Richard III’s Government _________________________

Laurence Gottlieb

7

Secondary Sources:

Ackroyd, Peter, The Life of Sir Thomas More, Nan A. Talese, Doubleday, New York, (1998)

Bolden, Emma J., Richard III: Central Government and Administration, The Ricardian, England,

Gemini Press, (June 2000)

Churchill, Sir Winston Spencer, A History of the English Speaking Peoples, The Birth of Britain,

Bantam Books, New York, (1963)

Dockery, Keith, Richard III: A Source book, Sutton Publishing, Gloucster, (2000)

Gilbert, Martin, In Search of Churchill, Harper Collins, London (1994)

Jolliffe, J.E.A., The Constitutionional History of Medieval England from the English Settlement

to 1485, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, (1961)

Kendall, Paul Murray, Richard The Third, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, (1956)

Mowat, A.J., Robert Stillington, The Ricardian, Essex, (June 1976)

Potter, Jeremy, Good King Richard? Constable, London (1983)

Ross, Charles, Richard III, University of California Press, Los Angeles, (1981)

Seward, Desmond, Richard III England’s Black Legend, Franklin Watts, New York, (1984)

Sutton, Anne, The Administration of Justice Whereunto We Be Professed, The Ricardian, Essex,

(June, 1976)