The tyranny of Richard III
To Tudor historians Richard III was a quintessence of tyranny. This belief was derived from the informed opinion of many who had experienced his brief reign. To them a tyrant was one who came to the throne without right or who governed against the interests of the political nation. There can be little doubt that Richard usurped the throne: it is also the case that in one important respect his government alienated a significant section of the nobility and gentry. Following the revolts of late 1483 Richard systematically placed trusted northern adherents in control of the unreliable and hostile southern counties. This action transgressed the unwritten law that the rule of the counties lay in the hands of their native elites. Its highhandedness was recognized by the author of the Croyland continuation and its pattern can be reconstructed from the record of grants from the Crown during the reign. Not only does the settlement of 1483-4 provide dramatic evidence in support of the Tudor tradition, but its circum...
The Scale of the Wars
Sir Thomas Smith pictured an England in the later-fifteenth century in which the country was running with blood and almost half the population killed. Reaction against such exaggeration has led twentieth-century historians to play down the length of the wars, the level of involvement even in the highest ranks of society and the extent of disruption. Certainly there was a tendency for contemporaries and early historians to dramatise the impact of the wars. But it is possible to go too far in the direction of minimising the scale of the wars. They were not insignificant.
Aristocratic Century: The sinews of power: political
In his excellent book on the Secretaries of State, Mark Thomson offered ‘the paradox of continuing domination of the aristocracy and the simultaneous insignificance of the House of Lords, per se ’. It is true that, by the beginning of the eighteenth century, the supremacy of the House of Commons in financial matters was a wellestablished convention. The claims of the Commons to an undisputed control over money matters, which had been urged before the Civil War, were resumed immediately after the Restoration and a protracted dispute with the House of Lords began. In 1661 the Lords resolved that there were no precedents in history for this new claim by the House of Commons. In 1671, the Commons retorted that taxation ought not to be questioned by the Lords and in 1678 they reiterated that supply was ‘the undoubted and sole right of the Commons’ and ‘ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords’. The Lords' attempt in 1692 to assess their own taxes was also abandoned, though they retired under cover of a rather insubstantial smoke-screen that they maintained their power of amendment to be a ‘fundamental, inherent and undoubted right from which their lordships can never depart’. That established, they departed. Geoffrey Holmes quotes a nice example from 1702 when the bishop of Carlisle found himself the only peer answering to a money bill, ‘no other lord in the House regarded what was doing, this being only (pro forma) to preserve a seeming right to dissent from, or amend, any part of a money bill’.