| Abstract: | To Tudor historians Richard III was a quintessence of tyranny. This belief was derived from the informed opinion of many who had experienced his brief reign. To them a tyrant was one who came to the throne without right or who governed against the interests of the political nation. There can be little doubt that Richard usurped the throne: it is also the case that in one important respect his government alienated a significant section of the nobility and gentry. Following the revolts of late 1483 Richard systematically placed trusted northern adherents in control of the unreliable and hostile southern counties. This action transgressed the unwritten law that the rule of the counties lay in the hands of their native élites. Its highhandedness was recognized by the author of the Croyland continuation and its pattern can be reconstructed from the record of grants from the Crown during the reign. Not only does the settlement of 1483-4 provide dramatic evidence in support of the Tudor tradition, but its circumstances also suggest an explanation for the continuing controversy surrounding Richard's reign. What was thereby tyranny in the south was good lordship to the loyal north. It is conceivable that the conflicting interpretations of the last Plantagenet spring from this regional division. |
