The New Murrey and Blue blog

In some ways, it is surprising that Edward IV is not usually denounced by historians as a ‘tyrant‘. He had, after all, a key qualification, as he was neither a Lancastrian nor a Tudor.

Edward also summarily executed the Earl of Oxford and his son after a brief ‘trial’ before the Constable. And some of the tricks he played with other people’s lands! Richard II is excoriated for his alleged seizure of the Lancastrian estates but Edward IV repeatedly did far worse (largely for the benefit of his family) but he scarcely receives any criticism for it. His second reign, in particular, can only be described as arbitrary.

One factor may be the long-established tendency of historians to blame the evil deeds of Edward IV on Richard of Gloucester. The execution of the Lancastrians after Tewkesbury? Richard’s fault. Henry VI‘s murder? Richard did it. Of course he did! Edward IV had planned to send Henry to a nice retirement home in Bognor but the evil Richard overruled him. One might almost be forgiven for thinking that Edward was a mere puppet of his younger brother, or that the pair played a sort of good cop/bad cop routine on the English nobility.

Richard III was of course a real tyrant. He seized the throne. (Even though he was petitioned to take it by the Three Estates. Even though, unlike Bolingbroke, he did not have a huge army at his back to discourage any opposition. Even though Parliament could have rejected his claim just as they did that of his father in 1460.) He killed his nephews. (Though there is no proof that he did. Their bodies were not put on public display as those of Richard II and Henry VI were after their murders. No one really knows what happened and it’s quite possible they survived.)

If Richard passed good legislation through his Parliament it’s because that Parliament forced it on him because of his weakness. The same Parliament that passed Titulus Regius because it was terrified of the scary King.

I believe Richard would have been a very positive King for England had he survived Bosworth. His track record in Yorkshire strongly suggests that he would have been benign. Of course, no one can prove that. But we all know exactly what the Tudors did. And it’s not pretty.

The peculiar thing is that the Tudor dynasty is generally seen as a Good Thing. It’s very rare that they are denounced as tyrants. Instead, they are seen as ‘strong rulers’. (This is what you call a tyrant when you approve of him/her. Just as ‘statesman’ means ‘politician with whom I agree.’) The truth is that Henry VIII in particular makes Richard III look like Gandhi and Richard II like Francis of Assisi.

Richard III certainly did not murder his nephew, Warwick. That was Henry VII. Though of course, he gave the unfortunate Warwick a ‘trial’. This apparently makes it OK. What they don’t say is that the current opponents of President Putin get fairer trials in Russia than Tudor ‘traitors’ ever received.

It would be tedious to relate all of Henry VII’s oppressions, but he is unique among English sovereigns in that his subjects literally celebrated his death. It is a remarkable distinction. Charles I brought the country to civil war, but not even his bitterest foes celebrated his death. But of course, Henry VII was not a tyrant but a ‘strong ruler.’

Then we come to his delightful son, Henry VIII. Astonishingly, this English version of Idi Amin is celebrated by many historians and the general public and he is rarely called a ‘tyrant’. One could fill a book with his appalling crimes, but let us forget the thousands he had executed. Consider instead the damage he did to England’s architectural, artistic and cultural heritage. It is unparalleled. By contrast, the Luftwaffe barely inflicted a scratch. Yet we are to celebrate this man? This wife murderer? This killer of old women? This torturer of both Catholics and Protestants alike?

The man did not even run a tight ship. Despite having revenues undreamed of by any previous English king, he left the country bankrupt, the currency debased, and the poorest of his subjects in grinding poverty that was no longer relieved by monks and nuns.

But he was not a tyrant, like Richard II and Richard III. No, for many people, he is an icon.