Richard III’s Government

_________________________
Laurence Gottlieb
To the High and Myghty Prince Richard Duc of Gloucefter.
Pleafe it youre Noble Grace to underftande the Confideracon, Election and Peticion
underwritten, of use the Lords Spuelx and Temporelx, and Comons of this Reame of Englond,
and thereunto agreably to yeve your affent, to the comon and public wele of this Lande, to the
comforte and gladneffe of all the people of the fame.1

Introduction
Having stood out for over five hundred years as a reign tainted by usurpation and blood, interest
in the government of Richard III has remained secondary to the crimes portrayed in
Shakespeare’s Richard III. As one will see, what discussion of Ricardian government there is
lingers under the shrouded mysteries of that short reign. In order to look at his government one
has to see that those who have studied him, have associated Richard’s negative reputation with
his administration, as well as his accession to the English throne.
Sir Winston Churchill quite explicitly let his readers know that the English people were shocked
and dismayed at Richard’s usurpation, and they especially regarded the disappearance of the two
princes as a heinous crime. With this in mind, even Richard’s patronage, council appointments,
financial bonds and threats, (a method also used by Henry VII) which formed the structure of his
governance, could not retain cohesion, a number of these alliances failing completely at
Bosworth field. However much Churchill thought these rejections of such a prince reflected late
English fifteenth century society, Churchill, himself relied on More’s tale of Richard, a source
even he had regarded as tainted by prejudice.2 Yet he used it and quoted profusely from it. One
might mitigate such a presentation by pointing out that Churchill has been noted both positively
and negatively as a dramatic journalist and speaker who quite often did not let scholarly
scepticism get in the way of a good story.3 More to the point, his is probably one of the more
popular historiographic examples of Richard’s poor image.
Another voice supporting this popular view of Richard; that of Desmond Seward, regarded
Richard’s reign as “the unhappiest in English history.”4 This referred more to the usurpation, and
immuring of the princes than much else. Although having regarded Richard’s henchmen;
Catesby, Lovell and Ratcliff as opportunists, as well as loyal supporters of Richard, Seward
pointed out that the influence and power of such commoners was the precursor to Tudor
bureaucrats, such as Cardinal Wolsey, the son of a butcher, who influenced his king as much as
the former Ricardian servants did theirs.5 Seward mentioned that a feature of Richard’s council
was its domination by northerners, as was the case of his servants and knights of the body.
Seward pointed out that this led to fear and mistrust and bitter feeling in the south. However, like

1
Titulus Regius, An Act for the Settlement of the Crown upon the King and his Iffue, with a
recapitulation of his Title, Rotuli parliamentorum; ut et petitiones, et placita in parliamento. 6
vols. folio, [1783], and index vol., folio, (1832)
2
Churchill, Sir Winston Spencer, A History of the English Speaking Peoples, The Birth of
Britain, Bantam Books, New York, (1963), p. 353 - 367
3
Gilbert, Martin, In Search of Churchill, Harper Collins, London (1994), p. 5 – 6, Churchill’s
work was judiciously ignored by many serious academics.
4
Seward, Desmond, Richard III England’s Black Legend, Franklin Watts, New York, (1984),
p. 111
5
Seward, p. 118 - 119
1
 Richard III’s Government
_________________________
Laurence Gottlieb
his predecessors, and the Tudors who followed, Richard used these councils in his government.6
Again, as much as this was the custom and would remain so after his reign, Richard followed a
progress through his realm in order to present himself and his government to the people. On one
hand, in doing so Seward emphasized how Richard granted preferences, especially in York in
order to gain favour. On the other hand, Seward posited that Henry Percy Earl of
Northumberland resented these royal incursions into his domain, which dimmed the lights
shining on him.7 Whether this indeed was the case, Seward emphasized that Richard used
patronage to gain fidelity, a practice long a part of politics and remaining so today.
Supporting a position more sympathetic to Richard, Paul Murray Kendall addressed Richard’s
government from the time he arrived in London with his nephew Edward V. Here Kendall
showed the alacrity with which Richard formed a government, and started undoing the failed
machinations of the Woodville clan. Kendall asserted that, “Much of Richard’s policy was aimed
at fulfilling the work of his great brother; much, however, turned away from what Richard
conceived to be the errors into which Edward had been led…”8 Kendall illustrated this by
pointing to Richard’s accessibility, a characteristic lacking in the Tudors, his pursuit of
“…justice into the thickets of trivial matters as well as through the forest of high affairs.”
Kendall pointed to parliamentary statutes that freed individuals from oppression. At the same
time rather than seeking out and punishing participants in a riot in York, Kendall asserted that
Richard addressed the rioters concerning means of redressing wrongs, as opposed to these people
taking the law into their own hands.9 Unlike Seward, Kendall attributed the grants, presents and
privileges settled upon the middle classes, especially in York, not as a means of seeking favour,
but as a show of respect for their needs and social standing.10 Regarding his councillors, Kendall
attributed Richard’s choices to his wish to emulate his brother, Edward IV, choosing the ablest
and not those who would dominate the throne for self-serving purposes, to the detriment of the
realm.11
We could now address the task of ascertaining whether or not Richard formed his government to
harvest the fruits of his patronage or out of benevolence for his people and his realm, whether
Richard concerned himself with justice in order to improve the lot of his subjects, or as a means
of looking favourable in their eyes. We could also concern ourselves with the question of policy;
whether Richard had a strategic long-term plan or addressed himself piecemeal to issues as they
arose. Such tasks would marvellously remap the reign of the last Plantagenet. Unfortunately,
even ascertaining the motives of a current personality is uncertain. Relegating the motives of
Richard III to debate leaves them in the end a product of speculation.12 We can, nonetheless,
examine the structure of Richard’s government: whom he appointed to various posts and why,
and how these appointees carried out their tasks. We can, furthermore, examine what the
governing bodies did, including the monarch, his council and parliament. We can question
whether these bodies were consulted, how often, and what laws and proclamations were
produced. We can also examine Richard’s patronage and the results thereof. By doing so we will
be able to see what Richard and his appointees accomplished. More to the point, we will see

6
Seward, p. 119
7
Seward, p. 128 - 131
8
Kendall, Paul Murray, Richard The Third, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, (1956),
p. 370
9
Kendall, p. 371
10
Kendall, p. 373
11
Kendall, p. 375
12
These types of debate inevitably fall into an ad hominem net.
2
 Richard III’s Government
_________________________
Laurence Gottlieb
whether or not Richard’s government followed the feudal tradition of its predecessors, or led the
way to new precedents and conventions.
Appointments and Patronage
Desmond Seward argued that Richard’s appointment of a majority of northerners,13 to orders of
knighthood, his council, his household and the Church created a breach between northerners and
southerners. It manifested itself in feelings of mistrust and bitterness by those in the south, where
Richard now as king resided. However true this may have been, Richard, as Duke of Gloucester
had up until his brother’s death resided in the North, his affinity was there, including those who
had served him. He, like others before and after him, sought out those he knew who would serve
him well.
Richard could not trust the Archbishop of York, Thomas Rotherham, who, in some manner
trying to reassure the former Queen in sanctuary gave her the Great Seal. Shortly after, thinking
better of his act, the Archbishop recovered the Great Seal. Nevertheless, by releasing it from his
hands to the Woodville Queen, in the first place, the Archbishop had destroyed his credibility as
Richard’s liegeman. Richard “reproved” the Archbishop, relieved him of his former dignities and
appointed Doctor Russell, Bishop of Lincoln as Lord Chancellor in his stead. This appointment
left vacant the office of keeper of the privy seal, which went to Edward IV’s former servant,
John Gunthorpe, Dean of Wells. Conversely, those who had not compromised themselves, such
as “The Lorde Chaumberlayne and somme other, kept styll theyr offices that they hadde
beefore.”14
A variety of circumstances dictated Richard’s appointments. Death due to natural causes
between monarchs accounted for one posting. Richard appointed Sir John Wood as Lord
Treasurer, in place of Henry, Earl of Essex, who died in service just prior to Edward’s death.
Oliver King, in Richard’s opinion, having so loyally served Edward, Richard preferred his own
secretary, John Kendal who took the secretarial post.15 Such service to his brother when not
suspected as fixed on Edward’s line continued into Richard’s reign. Bishop of Bath, Robert
Stillington participated in Richard’s coronation. This continued service, into Richard’s reign no
doubt was encouraged when Stillington confirmed that he had officiated at Edward’s marriage to
Lady Eleanor Butler prior to Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. This pre contract could
not be mitigated because Lady Butler was still alive at the time Edward IV married Elizabeth
Woodville. This news supported Richard’s cause by confirming the illegitimacy of his nephews
and the ineligibility of any Woodville heirs seeking the throne.16 Such continuity of service
between reigns did not require an explicit favour to Richard on the part of the appointee, as was
the case with Stillington. Rather, the exigencies of government and smooth administration leant
themselves to keeping previous retainers. Of the fifty-four councillors serving Richard, twenty-
six had previously served in his brother, Edward IV’s council.17 Such appointments based on
continuity and competence did not preclude retaining and enhancing those who had previously
served Richard. As such an example, on August 14, 1483 Richard selected Francis Viscount

13
Those originating from such northern counties as Yorkshire, Cumberland, Westmoreland, and
Lancashire
14
More, Sir Thomas, The History of King Richard the Thirde, London, (1513)
15
Ross, Charles, Richard III, University of California Press, Los Angeles, (1981), p. 171
16
Mowat, A.J., Robert Stillington, The Ricardian, Essex, (June 1976), p. 24 - 25
17
Bolden, Emma J., Richard III: Central Government and Administration, The Ricardian,
England, Gemini Press, (June 2000), p. 72
3
 Richard III’s Government
_________________________
Laurence Gottlieb
Lovell, to be his chamberlain and chief butler of England.18 One may consequently conclude that
Richard did not stack his servants and government exclusively with northerners, but balanced
loyalty and service.
Obviously, among other arguments, Desmond Seward’s concerns over the predominance of
Northerners in the councils of Richard III don’t stand up. Richard did not make a clean sweep of
all incumbents who had previously served Edward IV. Since these people would have had the
function of later parliamentary cabinets or household support for a monarch or office support for
a prime minister, the opposing needs for personal familiarity and trust, as well as continuity in
governance had to be balanced. In the late fifteenth century, government was still viewed as
taking place within a council or parliament of peers, presided over by a king.19 Consequently,
Richard had to have both the loyalty of his servants as well as their knowledge of the tasks of
government, a combination that required balancing some aspects that could be at opposite poles,
but were not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Parliament and Legislation

Despite this heterogeneous government, over a very short time a certain trend regarding
legislation and its application began to emerge. The first parliamentary effort was
acknowledgement of Richards claim to the throne through Titulus Regius, an act recognizing
Richard as monarch, while denying the claims of his nephews based on Bishop Stillington’s
reports of their illegitimacy. Such confidence did Richard have in Stillington that according to
James H. Ramsay, Stillington actually drew up the Act.20 The Act itself did not have to stand on
its own. Charles Ross asserted that parliament had been suitably “…packed in the royal interest
or was in healthy fear of a king who ‘had carved through slaughter to a throne.” Of further
interest was the speaker, William Catesby, a favourite of Richard’s who had not sat in parliament
before.21 There is no doubt that Richard had assembled a parliament favourable to himself, yet J.
E. A. Jolliffe points out that a parliament weakened in Edward IV’s reign, as well as a similarly
weak council led by the previous king who took most decisions lent itself to approving Richard’s
kingship, since it could not do otherwise.22
There is more than the weakness of previous parliaments to mitigate parliamentary cooperation
with Richard. Firstly, Richard had shortly before put down the Duke of Buckingham’s rebellion.
Richard a well-respected soldier had further proved himself in the field. Challenging him would
be futile. However, beyond seeing the raw power Richard held, there is in some students of the
period an inability to look beyond the tough soldier and ruthless usurper, making the character
into a two dimensional stereotype. Usurpation and coup d’état had been the norm for the
previous hundred years. Henry IV (Bolingbroke), Edward IV, previously, Isabella and Roger
Mortimer, and then Edward III seizing the throne from his mother. One hears little of the

18
Chancery Patent Rolls, Les reports des cases en les ans des roys Edward V, Richard III,
Henrie VII & Henrie
VIII, 1483, Richard III, A Source Book, Edited by Keith Dockery, Sutton Publishing,
Gloucestershire, (2000), p. 73
19
Jolliffe, J.E.A., The Constitutionional History of Medieval England from the English
Settlement to 1485, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, (1961), p. 494
20
Kendall, p 556, footnote 20, Ramsay, James H, Lancaster and York, 2 vols, Oxford, (1892)
p. 448 and note 2
21
Ross, p. 185
22
Jolliffe, p. 491 - 493
4
 Richard III’s Government
_________________________
Laurence Gottlieb
foregoing monarchs concerned for the financial and legal security of their subjects. Edward IV
took benevolences, actual forced loans to finance his reign. Mortimer and Isabella were noted for
their self indulgences; land grabbing and expensive taste respectively. While Henry IV spent
himself into insolvency to the point that parliament had to take action against his financial
deficits.
The motivation for the act supporting Richard’s title is self-evident. The legislation, which
followed, has been looked upon as opportunistic by some, and benevolent by others.
Surprisingly, despite Richard’s psychological dominance, if not military preeminence at the time,
Jeremy Potter asserts that Richard was in no position to enact oppressive measures.23 Irrespective
of such speculation Richard addressed two issues of great importance to many subjects, taxes
and justice; measures that Richard’s predecessors had not deliberately pursued. In the parliament
of 1484 the first and last of his reign Richard passed an act in which “…his subjects and the
commonality of this his realm, from henceforth in no wise be charged by no such charge,
exaction or imposition, called a benevolence…”24 For some time at least the heavy taxes
previously exacted by his brother ceased. Of even more concern to Richard was justice. John
Rous asserted that Richard ruled his subjects “… full commendably, punishing offenders of his
laws, especially extortioners and oppressors of his commons…”25 An example of Richard’s
efforts to reward justice was the life annuity of £20.00 annually to “John Harrington, for his good
service… and especially in the custody, registration and expedition of bills, requests and
supplications of poor persons…”26 Richard even intervened on the individual level answering the
pleas of “Katherine Bassingbourne who had appealed against ill treatment.”27 Such intimate
concern with justice that Richard directly addressed has, as previously mentioned elicited
positive responses that he cared for his subjects and negative responses that this was all show to
gain favour. Such arguing is futile. Exponents of both views continue to argue them.

Conclusion
Richard’s personal involvement is obvious, not only in choosing his council, influencing
parliament, advocating for certain laws and asserting his interest in justice, but also in his
intimate concern with individual cases. Jolliffe points out that Henry VI took council advice as
he saw fit, at points during his reign. His successor, Edward IV, similarly consulted or ignored
council, while he called parliaments infrequently. To the extent that Edward used self-rule and
did not build up strong institutions, which might have opposed Richard, these weaknesses,
Jolliffe suggested, lent themselves to Richard’s usurpation.28 One can consequently only
conclude that all three kings, in succession had looked upon council and parliament as secondary

23
Potter, Jeremy, Good King Richard? Constable, London (1983), p. 53
24
Statutes of the Realm, 1484, Statutes of the Realm, 1101 – 1713, Record Commission 1810 –
1828, Dockery, Keith, Richard III: A Source book, Sutton Publishing, Gloucester, (2000),
p. 107. Unfortunately, within a short time, Richard, succumbing to financial need, abrogated
his own act and reinstated the use of benevolences.
25
Rous, John, The Rous Roll (1858, reprinted Gloucester, 1980), Dockery, Keith, Richard III: A
Source book, Sutton Publishing, Gloucester, (2000), p. 96
26
Chancery Patent Rolls, Les reports des cases en les ans des roys Edward V, Richard III,
Henrie VII & Henrie VII,1483, Richard III, A Source Book, Edited by Keith Dockery, Sutton
Publishing, Gloucestershire, (2000), p. 107
27
Sutton, Anne, The Administration of Justice Whereunto We Be Professed, The Ricardian,
Essex, (June, 1976), p. 4
28
Jolliffe, p. 490 - 493
5
 Richard III’s Government
_________________________
Laurence Gottlieb
to their direct rule. Richard had followed in this path by appointing councillors, whether from his
affinity or from the previous reign as liegemen who would follow their king’s bidding. William
Catesby, as parliamentary speaker, Robert Stillington, writing Richard’s legislation and John
Harrington administering justice indicate Richard’s personal control and patronage in
government. Richard had ruled the north by personal appointments and he continued to do so as
protector and shortly thereafter, as king. Other than his Council of the North, an extension of
Edward’s previous consular rule, Richard ruled through patronage. But even there he had still
appointed “our nephew” John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln to head the Council of the North, as an
offshoot of his own council, issuing letters under Richard’s name Per Consilium Regis.29 As had
his predecessors Richard tried to control the realm through patronage and the Buckingham
rebellion indicated the fragility of a patronage system that relied on liegemen who could turn on
their monarch. This was a risk Richard obviously understood, both through failures similar to
Buckingham’s rebellion during his brother’s reign and through successes such as his control of
parliament and victory over Buckingham. Richard expected immediate loyalty and while
requesting the Great Seal and some of the officers of the Chancery, he also wrote to the Bishop
of Lincoln, “We wolde most gladly ye came yourselff yf that ye may... and for to resyste the
malysse of hym that hadde best cawse to be trewe, and the duc of Bokyngam, thel most untrewe
creature lyvyng.”30 Richard obviously expected immediate obedience to his command, and acted
harshly on non-compliance. Ultimately Richard was still a warlord expecting the support of his
liegemen. The renaissance may have been around the corner, but Richard still lived with
medieval obligations, still a medieval king.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Chancery Patent Rolls, Les reports des cases en les ans des roys Edward V, Richard III, Henrie
VII & Henrie VIII,1483, Richard III, A Source Book, Edited by Keith Dockery, Sutton
Publishing, Gloucestershire, (2000)
More, Sir Thomas, The History of King Richard the Thirde, London, (1513)
Gloucester, King Richard III of, Letter from King Richard III to the Lord Chancellor, the Bishop
of Lincoln, (October 12, 1483)
Rous, John, The Rous Roll (1858, reprinted Gloucester, 1980), Dockery, Keith, Richard III: A
Source book, Sutton Publishing, Gloucester, (2000)
Statutes of the Realm, 1101 – 1713, Record Commission 1810 – 1828, Dockery, Keith, Richard
III: A Source book, Sutton Publishing, Gloucester, (2000)
Titulus Regius, An Act for the Settlement of the Crown upon the King and his Iffue, with a
recapitulation of his Title. Rotuli parliamentorum; ut et petitiones, et placita in parliamen,.
6 vols. folio, [1783], and index vol., folio, 1832.

29
Ross, p. 181 - 183
30
Gloucester, King Richard III of, Letter from King Richard III to the Lord Chancellor, the
Bishop of Lincoln, (October 12, 1483)
6
 Richard III’s Government
_________________________
Laurence Gottlieb
Secondary Sources:

Ackroyd, Peter, The Life of Sir Thomas More, Nan A. Talese, Doubleday, New York, (1998)
Bolden, Emma J., Richard III: Central Government and Administration, The Ricardian, England,
Gemini Press, (June 2000)
Churchill, Sir Winston Spencer, A History of the English Speaking Peoples, The Birth of Britain,
Bantam Books, New York, (1963)
Dockery, Keith, Richard III: A Source book, Sutton Publishing, Gloucster, (2000)
Gilbert, Martin, In Search of Churchill, Harper Collins, London (1994)
Jolliffe, J.E.A., The Constitutionional History of Medieval England from the English Settlement
to 1485, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, (1961)
Kendall, Paul Murray, Richard The Third, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, (1956)
Mowat, A.J., Robert Stillington, The Ricardian, Essex, (June 1976)
Potter, Jeremy, Good King Richard? Constable, London (1983)
Ross, Charles, Richard III, University of California Press, Los Angeles, (1981)
Seward, Desmond, Richard III England’s Black Legend, Franklin Watts, New York, (1984)
Sutton, Anne, The Administration of Justice Whereunto We Be Professed, The Ricardian, Essex,
(June, 1976)