Richard III discussion

In the R3 Society Forum, this comment was set out for dicussion:

"In David Hipshon's new book "Richard III and the Death of Chivalry"
the writer compares Richard with his father in three ways. I'm not
sure I'd agree. What do others think?

Both Richard and York his father were impatient with opposition; self
righteous; had the inability to calculate the self interest of the
leading magnates."

BTW: this book has not been released in this country yet but that really has no bearing on the topic. Did Richard share these traits with his father? And were they eventually fatal weaknesses in both men?

Richard III and the Death of Chivalry

Amazon UK

I have read a comment about York recently in either Blood and Roses By Helen Castor or Ralph Griffiths' book on Henry VI. I can't recall which.

Anyway, it was to the effect that by becoming a champion for 'popular grievances' York alienated himself from more conservative nobles, who frankly didn't care about that agenda.

I think York was a reformer - though it's important not to get dewy-eyed about this. He was no Galahad. But maybe a conservative radical, in our terms, or even a 'one nation Tory'. (Wholly anachronistic, and I apologise for being so unacademic.)

To continue the analogy, I think reform was the 'York Party' ticket for the elections of 1461. There was huge expectations for Edward IV, who was going to be a sort of King Arthur, and he didn't deliver. Hence the discontent of his first reign and repression of his second.

Richard III was a chip off the old block. His excellent record of administration and 'good lordship' in the north is often underestimated. What is most remarkable is that he went into what had been a Lancastrian area (and a deeply conservative, insular society, suspicious of outsiders) and won it to his cause. (Cf his father's record in Ireland, possibly the best of any English ruler of any era.)

As king I believe he would have continued the reform agenda - he did so as far as it went. But the power lay with the big noble families at this time, not the commons. Reform did not grease the right wheels or 'calculate the self interest of the leading magnates.')

I don't know enough about them from a "personal" aspect to say whether or not they were impatient. I think that Richard of York was impatient with Margaret and Henry IV because of the fact that they showed favoritism shown to Somerset even after he lost lands in France and Richard of York fought hard to keep them and was pretty much blamed for the lose of the lands.

I think Richard of Gloucester didn't suffer fools gladly. He was always spoken of highly when it came to justice, did it make him self righteous, I don't think so. I never got the impression from any reading.

I don't think Richard of Gloucester could have been around Edward's court and not noticed the self interest of the various parties. You'd have to be blind. Given his childhood and everything that happened, I don't think he was that naive. I just don't think he was the tactician Edward was and as blood thirsty as other's.

Jenn wrote: "Richard III and the Death of Chivalry

Amazon UK"

Better deal at The Book Depository. Free shipping and almost three dollars cheaper than Amazon.

Brian, have you read the Hipshon book? I would be grateful for your opinion on it.

Ikonopeiston wrote: "Brian, have you read the Hipshon book? I would be grateful for your opinion on it."

No, Ikon, not yet. It's one of several I need to catch up on. My library may be getting loan request forms for a few soon.