The rebellion of 1483 broke out in the South and West of England. It is not totally clear whether the rebellion was in reaction to his usurpation of the throne or because the Duke of Buckingham, a strong supporter of Richard, was dissatisfied with his rewards. In spite of this short-lived rebellion, Richard's hold on the throne seemed secure as he continued to enforce the strong, sober government of his brother.
There were so few great Nobles he had killed many of them (he savaged the Woodville’s, destroyed Hastings and executed Buckingham). 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. He was not like because of his greatest limitation- his usurpation, which shadows all of his actions. He did not have a good relationship with his Nobles and his death is testimony to failure of his relationship with ay least one of his magnates.
He could not rely upon the Nobles who were involved with the government of Edward IV. He relied increasingly upon Northern gentry who he had gained the loyalty of during the reign of Edward IV. He felt the needed to place northerners in key position in the south yet this was likely to increase resentment among the nobility of the south. In effect he alienated the gentry of the southern countries. He was innovate as he didn’t entrust the North of England to a powerful magnate instead he chose to install a council of North which would be a branch of the Royal council.
He seems to be a hypocrite who contradicted himself. He was believed to have killed his nephews to get into power (without care of the law) but nevertheless appears to have genuinely wished to spread the benefits of the law to all his subjects. He even accuses his god-fearing mother of adultery for his own political ends. There are to sides to him the concerned monarch and the ruthless usurper.
His policies were almost identical to Edwards. He revived the chamber finance. He granted out the forfeited lands to supports on the basis that he had annual rent from the land. His increased expenditure and growing financial peaked in 1485 and he had request loans from his greater subjects. Commissioners were sent out to the counties with letters requesting specific sums. He did have the intention of repaying the money raised unlike Edwards’s benevolences but his request for loans were unsuccessful.
The doubtful circumstances of Gloucester’s claim to and seizure of the throne and the way he went about getting it elevated the status of Henry Tudor. Henry Tudor who was living in Brittany was receiving from the Duke if Brittany. Both France and England wanted him. The French would interpret Richard’s offer of support for Brittany as an action typical of the English enemy. He failed to prevent foreign powers from capitalising on a dangerous pretender by sponsoring an invasion of England. This failure led to his death.
He was an active and hardworking king he made a few developments in finance and administration. He tried to tighten financial administration as he soon found himself running short of funds. His continued operations against the Scots, his need to buy support and his surrender of benevolences proved expensive. The legislation passed by his parliament was used to propagate the ‘Good King Richard’ image: it declared that the benevolences of Edward IV’s reign illegal and the others were to reform abuses in the legal system. Some regulated trade all this was to help gain popularity and support.
The failure of Richards’s foreign policy allowed the invasion of Henry Tudor in 1483-5. It was unlucky that Richard gained the throne when English overseas policies were at low ebb and when relations between England’s closest neighbours were becoming more complex and unstable.
As a result of the treaty of Arras Richard inherited a conflict with Scotland. He launched a raid in July 1468. He failed and due to lack of funds for a campaign he signed a three-year truce.
He preserved the systems of government and justice, called a parliament as the appropriate body to agree to legislation, and did not try to rule by the mere force of his will. He still can be seen as a despotic ruler especially when we look at his behaviour before the usurpation. When he disregarded the law and arrested and executed River, Grey Vaughan and Hastings. Showed little respect for the law when granting away the land of rebels before they had been attainted by the act of Parliament. The most notorious act was the killing of Edward IV’s sons there is no proof but there is motive. His reliance upon his Northern supporters shows the narrowness of his power-base
Some historians have felt that Richard III’s personality remains an enigma.
It is best to have as long a reign as possible to be most effective yet he had an extremely short reign lasting only two years and two months.
He was a skilful tactician more hardworking than Edward and he tried many different things to try and court popularity.
His assumption of the crown, however, was challenged immediately from several sides. His two-year reign consisted entirely of fighting rebellions, including an early, indirect rebellion to put Henry Tudor on the throne. When this rebellion failed, Henry Tudor took matters into his own hands and directly confronted Richard. Henry had only the most tenuous claim to the throne and the Tudor monarchs would spend the next hundred years propagandising that tenuous claim. The last fight of this rebellion, at Bosworth in 1485, resulted in the death of Richard. A new usurper, Henry Tudor took the throne as Henry VII just as Europe was entering the modern period.
