Richard III Plantagenet, King of England - Direct blood relatives of Richard III

Pity poor you, having to be descended from the person directly responsible for Richard's death! :-O

Richard the 3rd is my 17th great uncle. I am descended through George, Duke of Clarence

Richard III is my 18th great-uncle, through his brother Edward. Of course, Maven, Henry VII would have had no reason to overthrow Richard III had Richard not usurped the throne from his nephew.

@Richard 111 Plantagenet of England is my 4th cousin 15 times removed i am a descendent through Alianore(The Elder)Holland,Countess of March, Baroness Cherieton Judy Rice

Don't be silly, Emily - Henry would have made his move anyway. He just got handed a much better excuse than "save the kingdom from a long minority".

Richard III of England is your fourth cousin 17 times removed.

It wasn't just to Henry VII that Richard III gave the perfect excuse: he gave it to the nobles as well. The nobility is less likely to respect a king if he usurped the throne from the legitimate heir, as in Richard's case. Henry VII would never have been successful in his conquest had others not thought it acceptable to betray Richard. Had Richard III not stolen the throne from his nephew, Henry would have had no supporters, and he never would have been able to defeat Richard at Bosworth.

And if Edward IV had thought with his big head instead of his little one, none of it would have happened anyway. He needed to - in THIS order:

1) Come clean about his pre-contract/marriage to Eleanor Butler
2) Get a proper annulment on whatever excuse he could ("consanguinity" was always easy to find when a VIP wanted out)
3) THEN marry Elizabeth Woodville Grey *with* the knowledge, if not the blessing, of the Church.

He'd still have had a lot of trouble, including from Warwick the Kingmaker (who was trying to match him up with a French princess) - but there wouldn't have been *any* excuse to pass over his sons.

Unfortunately Edward thought he could get away with everything by keeping it all on the down-low. HE did - but his sons, his brother, and the kingdom all paid a very heavy price.

Are you sure Edward IV actually was pre-contracted to Eleanor Butler? I always thought that was just Ricardian propaganda. It wasn't like the Woodvilles were the most popular family in the kingdom, and Richard III really, really wanted to be the king. It would only have been too easy for Richard to say his brother had pledged himself to another woman, as Edward IV didn't exactly have the best reputation with things like that. I don't know, pulling up Eleanor Butler always seemed too convenient for me to believe. And besides, if you are with a person for nineteen years and have ten children with them, does that not constitute a marriage?

I personally think that Richard should have remained the Lord Protector for his nephew, Edward V. Then he could have still defended the kingdom and wielded power for the duration of Edward's minority. I think it was Richard's usurpation that hurt England, as again, usurpers never have easy reigns.

It fits Edward's pattern, frankly - he was the biggest royal lecher pastward of Charles II. If he fancied someone and couldn't have her for the asking, he'd do whatever it took, including a "secret marriage". (He may actually have pulled that one *three* times, but the third lady was deceased before he got involved with E. Woodville IIRC.)

Having a rushed and secret marriage to E. Woodville was, in fact, part of the problem - the Church wasn't about to forgive being cut out of the loop like that. Once he'd created the mess, there was *nothing* Edward could do to fix it. Except to hope that it never came to light.

But of course it did.

I wouldn't say usurpers "never" have easy reigns - William the Conqueror didn't seem to have any more trouble than the Saxon kings had. But then, he had his mailed fist and no hesitation in bringing it down when and where necessary.

Henry II was not exactly a "usurper", since he had a negotiated agreement to be Stephen's successor. But again, he had no hesitation in enforcing his power.

Isabella of France got away with murder, perhaps literally, because she was a woman and England was not yet ready to treat women criminals as brutally as men. Her lover and co-conspirator was executed, but Isabella was merely banished from court.

Henry IV didn't have a quiet reign, but his conscience gave him more trouble than his subjects did. He wallowed in guilt until the day he died.

I wouldn't day that conscience gave Henry IV more trouble than his subjects. Were there not three Percy rebellions against him? If it hadn't been for his son Henry V, Henry IV would never have been able to defeat them. There was also a Welsh rebellion, as well as another rebellion incited by henry IV's English nobility. I'm sure Henry IV felt terrible for what he did to Richard II, but he had a horribly tumultuous reign, and it's a miracle that Henry V was his son, as otherwise Henry IV may have been deposed in favor of the Mortimers.

I agree with what you said about Isabella, but the fact that her husband, Edward II, was the most despised king to wear the English crown certainly adds to the lack of problems faced by Isabella and Roger. They invaded with a small army, as they knew that the English people would join them once they arrived-- and they did. Everyone hated Edward II, was happy to see him go. That has always been why I thought Isabella and Roger succeeded in their deposition. Also, once Edward III grew up, he could hardly execute his mother the way he could with Roger Mortimer. That does not make for good press.

Henry II was not a usurper-- Stephen was, and Stephen had easily the worst reign of any usurper to sit upon the English throne. Stephen's reign, "the Anarchy," was defined by the constant civil war between he and his cousin, Henry II's mother. As the conflict went on for more than a decade, no one can say that it was at all a peaceful reign. By the time Henry II came along, everyone was happy to see the wars end, and Stephen named him his heir. Henry II then inherited the throne, which can hardly be called usurpation. Henry II was given no trouble at all by Stephen's son, William, who readily accepted Henry II's reign.

Over all, I believe that most usurpers do not have easy reigns due to the fact that they usurped the throne, at least throughout English history. Poor Richard III was certainly no exception, as he only lasted three years before being deposed, which in itself is sort of a wonder as there were numerous conspiracies against him that whole time.

(I'm sorry for the slight rant. I am a nerd, and this sometimes happens.)

Henry II didn't get the throne by making nice, either - he kicked Stephen's butt on the field, repeatedly. Being named Stephen's heir was one of the conditions for a peace treaty.

I notice we haven't mentioned Henry VII, who was plagued by pretenders for most of his reign - just as Boris Godunov in Russia was to be, a century or so later. But unlike Boris, Henry didn't attract the attention of any major opera composers. :-)