Easter WotR Homework - Onara Perera

‘Buckingham’s Rebellion brought about the downfall of RIII.’ Assess the validity of this view.’
(25 marks)

It is most convincing to argue that it was the deteriorating status of Richard III that eventually
led to his downfall. As he began his reign as a usurper, Richard had inherently tarnished his
reputation resulting in an inauspicious start to his reign. However, we must also consider other
factors such as the increasing support for the Lancastrian opponent, Henry Tudor, as well as the
consequences of Buckingham’s Rebellion which was a major event, connecting Henry Tudor’s
appearance to Richard’s progressive downfall. Whilst some may argue that Buckingham’s
Rebellion was the most significant reason as it did highlighted Henry Tudor as a threat,
exacerbating the problematic reign of Richard as it showed many the alternatives to the
declining Ricardian era, it is more convincing to argue that it was Richard’s usurper status that
deteriorated due to undesirable actions that ultimately led to his downfall.

It can be argued that Buckingham’s Rebellion was the reason that brought about the downfall of
Richard III. This is supported by the fact that this Rebellion was ultimately a concerted attempt by not
only Lancastrians but also Yorkists to unseat Richard and identify Henry Tudor as the next king due to
the increasing disaffection for Richard. The Rebellion promoted the cause of the Lancastrians as well
as the anti-Ricardian Yorkists, which not only highlighted the lack of support for Richard III’s reign
within his own house but also the increasing and threatening amount support for the likely claimant to
the throne Henry Tudor. Furthermore, Richard’s lack of support from once his most loyal ally and the
namesake of the battle, the Duke of Buckingham is significant in highlighting the discrepancies of his
actions. Additionally, the existence of three main centres of the rebellion with different leaders at each
centre also highlight the outrage felt by many across the nation. In the traditionally rebellious county
of Kent, along with Surrey and Sussex, a rebellion was conducted under the leadership of Edward
IV’s former household servants which was significant as it was not influenced by magnates and
barons which meant that the gentry were able to wield significant influence by relying on popular
following. In the South Central of England, support gathered for Henry Tudor from the counties of
Hampshire, Dorset, Somerset as well as from those associated with George, Duke of Clarence,
including Sir Roger Tocotes and John Harcourt. Finally, in the Southwest, Thomas Grey, Marquess of
Dorset, and Sir Thomas St Leger led the rebellion. All these centres are clear indicators of Richard’s
slim power base and how instable his reign was in the South of England. However, as Richard was
well prepared to face the rebellion due to the plot leakage, he managed to prepare defences as the one
in London by arranged by the Duke of Norfolk, and face the risings at Brecon, Maidstone in Kent,
Newbury in in Berkshire, Salisbury in Wiltshire and Exeter in Devon arguably to some success. This
is supported by the executions of the Duke of Buckingham and the rebel leader Sir Thomas St Leger,
which displayed his promising kingly qualities of dynamism and authority. Furthermore, the fact that
areas such as Exeter put up no defences against Richard and the lack of support for Henry Tudor near
the end of the rebellion, arguably emphasised his ability to assert authority and so remain in his
position as king which undermines the argument that it brought the downfall of his reign. Overall, it is
clear that whilst the Rebellion highlighted the lack of support, it did not initiate his downfall as the
aim of putting Edward on the throne was not achieved from the Rebellion.

On the contrary, it can be argued that it was Richard’s status as a usurper brought about his downfall.
This is supported by the fact that he positioned himself on the throne on unclear grounds which
complicated his reign as members of the royal family such as the Woodvilles, resorted to active
conspiracy which led to many of the leading gentry, especially those in the South and West of
England, which arguably did harm him as seen in Buckingham’s Rebellion. Furthermore, this sort of
opposition within the Yorkist house is arguably a guaranteed consequence of his act of usurping.
Eventhough some historians such as Chrimes and Ross believed it was never a long-standing ambition
for Richard to occupy the throne, rather a need to a need to emphasis his loyalty to his brother Edward
IV, it can be argued that his actions of isolating Edward’s sons were acts of disloyalty to the Yorkist
house and so generated inevitable opposition to his usurpation. Moreover, Richard’s attempt to
consolidate his position as king by beginning a customary royal progress and investing in his son
Edward angered many as this was arguably seen as a banishment of the two princes who were healthy
 Easter WotR Homework - Onara Perera

heirs of Edward IV. This would have clearly tarnished his position as would have been seen as a
usurper, clearly supporting the argument that it was his own long term actions that led to his downfall.
However, we must acknowledge the importance of Buckingham’s rebellion as it did arguably further
exposed Richard’s weak reputation. This is supported by the Buckingham’s betrayal of Richard
eventhough he was very well rewarded for playing an integral part in Richard’s quest for the throne.
Yet, it is still more convincing to argue that it was Richard’s status as a usurper that ultimately led to
his downfall as it initiated many to act against him. Therefore, the long term factor of being a usurper
was more significant than a short term factor such as the Rebellion.

It can also be argued that factional rivalries were significant in the downfall of Richard III. This is
supported by the divided Yorkist elitists during his reign which meant that overt supporters were only
a handful resulting in a lack of support for his reign. This lack of support and general political activity
from the elite was a clear response to his usurpation as many saw prince Edward as the clear heir to
the throne. This also links in with the argument of his usurpation being the main reason for his
downfall. It is also arguably the division within the Yorkists that impelled Elizabeth Woodville to
conspire with Margaret Beaufort and the Marquess of Dorset to place Henry Tudor and one of
Edward’s daughters on the throne. Therefore, it can be argued that the imploding house of the Yorkists
which did not fully support Richard was the main reason for Richard to lose his throne. However, it is
more convincing to argue that Richard’s status as a usurper was the main reason for his downfall as it
was the initiator in all the opposition he faced. By usurping the throne, he allowed opposition to target
him hence allowing rivals such as Henry Tudor to gain support to replace him as seen by
Buckingham’s Rebellion. Therefore, it is more convincing to argue that Richard’s status as a usurper
was the reason for his downfall.

In conclusion, it is most convincing to argue that Richard’s status as a usurper was the long-running
reason for his own downfall. His act of usurping the throne meant that he face inevitable
consequences of opposition such as Buckingham’s rebellion which also highlighted alternative
claimants to the throne such as Henry Tudor, who had a significant support base in the South.
Therefore, whilst opposition acts such as Buckingham’s Rebellion and the existence of potential
claimants such as Henry Tudor were significant in the immediate fall of Richard III as it exacerbated
the problematic reign of Richard III, it is more convincing to argue that it was his status as a usurper
that led to him having limited support in the long run and so contains was at fault for his downfall.