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...
I. Attainder and Forfeiture, 1453 To 1509
Attainder was the most solemn penalty known to the common law. Attainder for treason was followed not only by the most savage and brutal corporal penalties and the forfeiture of all possessions, but in addition the corruption of blood passing to all direct descendants, in other words, by the legal death of the family. Before proceeding to an examination of the effects of parliamentary acts of attainder in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries it is necessary first of all to define the scope of forfeiture for treason as it affected landed property. Bracton's classic definition of forfeiture had involved for the traitor ‘the loss of all his goods and the perpetual disinheritance of his heirs, so that they may be admitted neither to the paternal nor to the maternal inheritance’. Feudal opinion had always been very much opposed to the stringency of this conception and the Edwardian statute De Donis Conditionalibus, confirmed implicitly by the treason statute of 1352, had protected entailed estates from the scope of forfeiture, thus leaving only the fee simple and the widow's dower within the scope of the law. The wife's own inheritance or any jointure which had been made for her, because they ante-dated her husband's treason, as distinct from her right to dower which did not, were not liable to ultimate forfeiture—though a married woman could claim them only when ‘her time came according to the common law’, that is after the death of her husband when she ceased to be ‘femme couvert’. This equitable principle was confirmed by a statute of the Merciless Parliament of 1388 which, however, included for the first time the rule that lands held to the use of a traitor were also included in the scope of forfeiture. Thus, by 1388, of the lands held by a traitor (as distinct from the wife's inheritance and jointure), only those held in fee tail fell outside the scope of the treason laws. This loophole was closed by Richard II in 1398 when Parliament declared forfeit entailed estates as well as lands held in fee simple and to the use of a traitor, thus reverting with one exception to Bracton's view of forfeiture.
The potential vorticity flux through the Yucatan Channel and the Loop Current in the Gulf of Mexico
Two‐year‐long time series of current and density structure measurements across the Yucatan Channel's main section allow the calculation of the time‐dependent potential vorticity flux between the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, which is characterized by alternating periods of positive (cyclonic) and negative (anti‐cyclonic) vorticity influx. Periods of negative cumulative vorticity influx are related to the Loop Current extending into the Gulf of Mexico, whereas periods of positive cumulative vorticity influx relate to a Loop Current retraction, sometimes coincident with the shedding of an anti‐cyclonic eddy.