Blackboar

Here a links to the seven parts of my 'Journey to Bosworth'. It tries to talks about the Battle of Bosworth, its participants, and their motives. Hope you enjoy it!

Journey to Bosworth: Henry Percy, the failed fence-sitter.

Journey to Bosworth: John de Vere, earl of Oxford, the diehard Lancastrian.

Journey to Bosworth: Behind Henry Tudor, the hand of France.

Journey to Bosworth: Lord Thomas Stanley and Sir William Stanley, the successful fence-sitter and the unknown Kingmaker.

Journey to Bosworth: A Nation of Fence-Sitters

Journey to Bosworth: The Howards, rising stars in England

Paul Murray Kendall is very outdated as an author. i read his biographies in French.

Warwick's biography is mediocre. There is basically 30 pages on his life up to the first battle of Saint-Albans, who casually gloss over two-thirds of his life. I must say that this period is not unimportant or uneventful in his life (even if ill-documented). There is his family's rivalry with other Nevilles, and with the Percies, who basically ended in its own little civil war. There is the rising issue of Scotland, of his relationship with other magnates and the king himself, who's not addressed at all.

His father is a non-entity. Kendall presents him like a medieval Obi-Wan-Kenobi who must die for Warwick to thrive on his own. His relationship with his family isn't addressed except when it's basically impossible not to do so (with his brother John Neville and more secondary with George Neville). His wife doesn't exist.

In other words, Paul Murray Kendall talks about what he wants to talk about: the Kingmaker and his international shenanigans, his relations with Louis XI, and his kingmaking status. And even there it's deeply flawed. Kendall essentializes the War of the Roses basically saying that yup, the Yorkists are the rightful rulers. And of course, Warwick is bound to support them as his cousin (no talks of how the Nevilles deeply hesitated on their side in the 1450s). Margaret is a paranoid, scheming queen. Henry VI is hollow and unimportant as he became mad in the period it mattered. Louis XI is the master-manipulator of Neville's big ego.

I prefer a lot more Warwick's biography by Mickael Hicks, who do not gloss over his upbringing and decisive moments in the 1440s. Even though there are flaws (he might be a bit pro-Lancastrian and, on the reverse, treat Henry VI almost as if he didn't suffer from severe mental issues).

I like more his biography of Richard III more for purely sentimental reasons because it's the first I've read on the War of the Roses. It's also more balanced, considering Richard III didn't live long, which means he doesn't erase the 'unimportant' period as much as with Warwick. But even there, it's not great. Having a pro-Ricardian viewpoint is okay, but he also does not discuss Richard's strategy for becoming a powerful magnate. His biography is somewhat naive in refusing to consider Richard as he is: a skilful politician.

Well it's difficult for him to find the right bride: someone noble enough as to not make a scandal and someone who isn't a rich heir or coming from a powerful family that could back George's claim to the Neville lands.

Hence why Hastings didn't support their execution.

Hastings was in a good spot to curry the favor of Edward V. He didn't arrest any Woodvilles. He just consented to Gloucester's arrest. And his opposition to their trial/execution could ingratiate him to the king even more. Hence Gloucester's coup: their position toward the king is not the same.

Philippe de Commines tells that he is a very bad man , an extremely evil men , full of pride than english kings of last hundred years .

He did. Not a unanimous bad reputation but the disappearance of his nephews is a reputational blow that someone simply can't recover from. Ask John Lackland. However, I do think, as for John, that it didn't mean that his reign was doomed.

planned to take the throne immediately after his brother died ??

Or to save the country from a minority rule ??

Or both , blending his ambition so smoothly with the current political situation so that no one could suspect him of usurping ??

I think he did plan to push his advantage as much as he possibly can. His early actions were a huge success, so he kept pushing until he took the throne. He probably also thought, for a various set of reasons (Potential woodille revenge, death of george Neville) that usurpation was the safest couse of action for him.

This comment believes that this is the main reason for Richard III's usurpation of the throne

It's not that but indeed, George Neville play a major role in Gloucester's usurpation.

Recall that Gloucester's wealth and power come from his Neville northern lands. It's what give him a distinct power base, that he reinforced through various acquisitions in the 1470s. However, Gloucester have this estates through a dubious judicial construction. Those lands were in tail male, which means only men could inherit them. After Warwick and his brother's death, those lands should pass on to George Neville, the next male heir.

Gloucester wanted those lands but didn't want them from a royal grant that could easily be canceled. Hence why he made a weird juridic construction: he would held them from his wife, while the true heir couldn't inherit them because his father was attainted. Meanwhile, do note Warwick was never attainted, as all his lands would go back to the Crown.

So Richard held this lands through a juridical fiction who made him appear as heir. He needed George alive because if George died, the lands would come to the unattainted lord Latimer. But he needed George weak to make sure he would not challenge him, judicially or otherwise. Hence why he attempted to take his custody, manage his marriage, etc...

George dying means that Gloucester's power was endangered. He could try to make a new judicial settlement, but his position was open to attack, and any king could ally with Latimer to weaken an overmighty subject.

On the other hand, Gloucester was more powerful than ever because he was lord Protector by May and also the victor of a recent war with Scotland.

I have read her article and personally think it's false. There's a difference between what is technically legal(ish) and what the political community consider as legal/justified/acceptable.

Hastings ought to get a trial before a court of his peers, normally in a semi-public fashion. A constable's office usually executes people during wartime, which isn't the case.

Carson theorises that we are judging Gloucester through our standards, but even his contemporaries thought it was an abuse of power. He did respect some legal niceties. We don't know much, but I'm sure he managed to get 2-3 peers to back him up on a sham trial. But the swiftness and the private manner of Hastings' execution are not normal. The usual precedent would be the 1330 coup, but Edward III judged Mortimer publicly because he had legitimacy, and some accusations were true. Richard didn't because he barely had the former and lacked the latter.

I think it does, considering how little blowback their downfall had. Recall that Edward Neville tried to flee with the entire fleet and nobody obeyed him. The queen didn't attempt to flee to any power base like Margaret of Anjou in the 1450s, she took refuge in a monastery.

Hastings's faction could be decapitated with a single axe. The Woodvilles were numerous but none attempted an uprising. They only managed to wield a (secondary) role in Buckingham's rebellion through the uprising of central-west England but that was because they had a broader cause to rally men behind.

Hello,

Frankly, at this point, you know more than me on this peticuliar topic.

The committee didn't think it was a coup because Richard didn't attack them; it attacked the Woodvilles. The Woodvilles were seen as greedy and determined to monopolise royal favor and maybe even the exercise of his prerogatives until his majority. Stopping them satisfies not only Richard, but also Hastings, Stanley, Howard and many others.