▲ 15 points
back
57 comments
In case there is any doubt on what the article says the answer is, this is the 2nd paragraph:
> Surely Richard was the least successful of English kings. His reign was brief (1483-85) and he left no legitimate issue and no political heirs. He destroyed his immediate Yorkist family and indeed the whole Plantagenet dynasty. He plunged England back into civil war. He re-started the Wars of the Roses that had ended with Yorkist victory in 1471; the conflict raged on for another 20 years. Richard’s principal achievement, albeit inadvertent, was to make feasible the vestigial claim of the obscure Henry Tudor and to create the Tudor monarchy. His regime was catastrophic.
The article really really wants to put a positive spin on Richard III, but in Dictator's Handbook terms he clearly failed at building an effective coalition to rule England. The people whose opinions counted in 1485 mostly did not want Richard III to be king.
> That many allies of his brother, Edward IV, supported Henry Tudor speaks to Richard’s inability to command widespread loyalty. Richard’s rule failed because too few people supported him
The established figures who had supported his brother rebelled against Richard.
> Richard’s subjects and foreign observers were stunned by his brazen betrayal, his swift execution of Lord Hastings, and the disappearance of his young nephews, all of which undermined efforts to stabilise the kingdom in the two years that followed. Further resentment and anxiety festered when Richard misjudged regional politics and redistributed southern property among his northern affinity.
Richard was redistributing southern property to northerners because he couldn't find southerners that would support him.
On the plus side, Richard III ended the War of the Roses by convincing all the Yorkist supporters (who had supported his brother) that they had to cast their lot with the last Lancastrian candidate (Henry Tudor) in order to get rid of Richard.
Certainly a bonafide loser on Crusader Kings.
Reading history I'm surprised at how many kings were bad kings even on monarchists terms of what's a good king. You'd think they would at least be somewhat good at "reducing conflict related to succession", but then they go and do things like murder their heir in a fit of rage or abolish hereditary monarchy in favour of appointing their own successor, then dying before bothering to do it.
There's a very good book called The Dictator's Handbook. It covers why these conflicts are inevitable. IIRC it boils down to zero-sum power distribution in such systems.
Murdering your heir is probably a case of 'who moves first'. Kings dying because someone was tired of waiting is a recurring theme in history. Other candidates are leaders of the military and extended family.
I was thinking of Ivan the terrible. I don't think he was terribly rational about it. If he was, it didn't work, since it led to a period of civil war and the eventual end of his dynasty.
For the longest time there was the theory that he died of syphilis, but that appears not to be the case, however, he did have an excess of mercury in his body and that was used back then to treat syphilis. So he may well have suffered from the disease and that in turn plus the mercury itself could well have resulted in him being less than rational.
The real life Macbeth appears to fall into the "military leader" category:
> Richard was forced to deny to his council that he had poisoned [his ex-wife in order to] marry his niece, Elizabeth
Quite the start to a character reference
The successful CV should focus on positive achievements, and avoid negative language.
Successfully developed new and innovative union methods, replacing old legacy systems.
I've recently read Josephine Tey's novel "The Daughter of Time" and enjoyed it immensely. It has a fictional detective, laid up in hospital, investigating how true the terrible tales and crimes of Richard III were and comes to the conclusion that it was almost certainly a stitch-up. Great book.
I have loved that book, but I seem to remember that it was based of historical research that has since been revised.
Another good book that takes the side of Richard III is the historical novel "The Sunne in Splendour" by Sharon Kay Penman (1982).
This classic comedy song about Richard III summarizes most of the misconceptions
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XL2se6BzIHk
I highly recommend this video and TV series for those who are interested in history and comedy
He was a king, so yes