• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How Far did Richard III Prove that he was a Capable and Effective Ruler?

Extracts from this document...


How Far did Richard III Prove that he was a Capable and Effective Ruler? There are various ways to interpret the above question; it is debatable whether Richard had capability to rule but what is evident is that he was somewhat ineffective. There are numerous incidences, which these statements are shown through out Richard's reign both publicly and privately. The usage of Acts of Attainder, are one way, which shows Richard's potential but ineffectiveness to rule. Punishing traitors and rebels in this way made it clear that any behaviour of that sort would not be tolerated. These people were imprisoned, sent into exile or even executed for treason, and their land was taken over. This would have been fine and a good display of authority and superiority if Richard had not made it an opportunity to give land to friends in the north. After the Buckingham Rebellion, Richard implemented Acts of Attainder on all of the people involved, but instead of giving the land to the southern nobility (which would have gained him more support in the south) ...read more.


Another indication of Richard's capabilities, were the donations and gifts, which were given to the church and certain members of nobility as he travelled around the country. Richard gave these gifts in an attempt to win over the support of the church and nobility as they held the most important positions of stature in the society. The church in particular was influential due to its connection with the law as people were told that if they did not obey the bible and live without sins (crimes) they would not have a place in heaven. This was an intelligent move by Richard as it gained him the support of the church, which could also pass on their ideas of him to the congregation. Members of the nobility were also often members of parliament therefore support from these people would mean that Richard could have more security in parliament. Though some capability was shown in these acts, Richard overlooked the consequences of extravagant money spending. ...read more.


He did not hesitate to kill to make himself king.' In this extract Pollard states that Richard was so self absorbed that he would kill his own relations just for power. In addition, just before the killing of the two princes Richard proclaimed that the children were illegitimate and therefore disqualified them from the throne. But this was a miscalculated effort as the southern public found out about the disappearance of the two princes, which made their perception of Richard go from bad to worse, presenting a capable method resulting in an ineffective outcome. In conclusion it is possible, using the evidence recorded above, to make the sound judgement that Richard was fairly capable of ruling, and at times quite cunning, however did prove to be quite ineffective in the long run. After researching and accumulating all of this evidence, it is clear to see any actions beyond the theory stage of Richard's plans were futile attempts at a decent but selfish ruling, which resulted in disaster for many but most importantly, Richard. Emma Cantrill Page 1 4/30/2007 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. How effective was Richard III as King of England?

    Therefore it was vital that he gained the support from the three remaining magnates Thomas Lord Stanley, Earl of Northumberland and John Howard Duke of Norfolk all received patronage from the King. Norfolk was his main beneficiary and he could trust him yet Northumberland disliked the King and Stanley was devious and unreliable.

  2. Discuss Shakespeare's presentation of women in Richard III. Are they convincing characters?

    Their conversation in Act 1 Scene 3, before Margaret interrupts, is laden with double meanings and subtle jabs; as she says to him 'come, come, we know your meaning, brother Gloucester.' Foreshadowing is also present in this scene. In her conversation with her kinsmen before Richard enters, Elizabeth seems to predict the harm, which Richard intends towards her family.

  1. How effective was Richard III as a king from 1483 - 1485?

    at the battle of Bosworth at a crucial time against Richard and aided in his loss of the battle. Propaganda was another weak area of Richard's kingship, which is demonstrated by the ineffectiveness of his 1484 act. This was meant to confirm the validity of Richard III's claim to the throne and act as proclamation against Henry Tudor.

  2. Warner Bros.' GoodFellas (1990) is director Martin Scorsese's stylistic masterpiece - a follow-up film ...

    I mean he actually enjoyed it. Jimmy was the kind of guy who rooted for the bad guys in the movies. Jimmy's real love is theft - during a hijacking/robbery of the driver of a trailer truck in a deserted area near the airport at night, he intimidates the man

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work