Was Richard III’s seizure of the throne ‘greedy ambition’ or ‘self-
preservation’?
The debate regarding Richard III’s seizure has been centred on 2 conflicting lines of
arguments: either if the throne was captured merely because of Richard III’s greedy
ambition, his long-held desire to become king or simply self-preservation, a series of
circumstances that compelled Richard to either take the throne or face destruction.
There is much support for the second claim that Richard had seized the crown out of panic
and self-preservation; he was actually seen as smart since he was doing what was best for
him in a dangerous situation. Contemporary writers have written on subject to Richard III’s
behaviour, C. Carpenter argued in his passage in 1997 that there are 2 logical ways of
looking at the usurpation: “either it was the ruthless act of a man who saw his opportunity
and took it, or it was an act of panic”. Despite Richard’s countless ruthless behaviour there is
not much to suggest that Richard was plotting on seizing the crown from as early as 1471;
since he was anything but loyal to Edward IV before his death. There is also no evidence to
prove there was any animosity between Richard and Elizbeth Woodville, while he was duke,
however despite this there are allegations that Richard III had spent most of his time during
Edwards second reign in the north away from court; this if taken into consideration and
looked into thoroughly may have led to the suspicions that Richard has been planning on
capturing the crown earlier then portrayed.
In spite of this, there has been however ample evidence proving that Richard and Elizabeth
Woodville did not trust each other and were both manoeuvring to try and exclude the other
as much as possible from power. In addition to this after Richard had made his initial move
to preserve his position as reagent, Richard was then faced with prospect of the same
Woodville threat that Edward V once faced during his majority rule, due to Edwards favour
of the Woodville’s at stony Stratford in relation to his uncle and half-brother this was a
sharp contrast between his relationship with his other uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester
who he hardly knew which meant he was reluctant in trusting him. This was highly likely to
have been a huge problem for Richard since Edward was in his way and in a few years,
Edward would probably replace Richard with the Woodville’s; who may have the potential
in taking their revenge and destroying him. Therefore, it was a matter of self-preservation
that Edward needed to be removed and for Richard to become king
On the other hand, there is also much support for the first claim that Richard was greedy for
power and had long held desire to be king. Contemporary writers have written regarding to
the mass support the first claim has. Dominic Mancini wrote of Richard as having an ‘insane
lust for power’. There is potential that Dominic Marcini’s passage are highly likely since he
was in England at the time of the usurpation of Richard III and he wrote his account of this
event before the end of 1483 and also the fact that he wrote objectively as the events
unfolded. To add on, the execution of Hastings looks extremely suspicious to those who
view the event deeply and thoroughly, the execution looked like being part of a long-term
plan to take the throne. Other contemporary writers; like M.Hicks wrote in relation to the
greedy ambition that Richard III had towards claiming the throne he writes that Richard
preservation’?
The debate regarding Richard III’s seizure has been centred on 2 conflicting lines of
arguments: either if the throne was captured merely because of Richard III’s greedy
ambition, his long-held desire to become king or simply self-preservation, a series of
circumstances that compelled Richard to either take the throne or face destruction.
There is much support for the second claim that Richard had seized the crown out of panic
and self-preservation; he was actually seen as smart since he was doing what was best for
him in a dangerous situation. Contemporary writers have written on subject to Richard III’s
behaviour, C. Carpenter argued in his passage in 1997 that there are 2 logical ways of
looking at the usurpation: “either it was the ruthless act of a man who saw his opportunity
and took it, or it was an act of panic”. Despite Richard’s countless ruthless behaviour there is
not much to suggest that Richard was plotting on seizing the crown from as early as 1471;
since he was anything but loyal to Edward IV before his death. There is also no evidence to
prove there was any animosity between Richard and Elizbeth Woodville, while he was duke,
however despite this there are allegations that Richard III had spent most of his time during
Edwards second reign in the north away from court; this if taken into consideration and
looked into thoroughly may have led to the suspicions that Richard has been planning on
capturing the crown earlier then portrayed.
In spite of this, there has been however ample evidence proving that Richard and Elizabeth
Woodville did not trust each other and were both manoeuvring to try and exclude the other
as much as possible from power. In addition to this after Richard had made his initial move
to preserve his position as reagent, Richard was then faced with prospect of the same
Woodville threat that Edward V once faced during his majority rule, due to Edwards favour
of the Woodville’s at stony Stratford in relation to his uncle and half-brother this was a
sharp contrast between his relationship with his other uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester
who he hardly knew which meant he was reluctant in trusting him. This was highly likely to
have been a huge problem for Richard since Edward was in his way and in a few years,
Edward would probably replace Richard with the Woodville’s; who may have the potential
in taking their revenge and destroying him. Therefore, it was a matter of self-preservation
that Edward needed to be removed and for Richard to become king
On the other hand, there is also much support for the first claim that Richard was greedy for
power and had long held desire to be king. Contemporary writers have written regarding to
the mass support the first claim has. Dominic Mancini wrote of Richard as having an ‘insane
lust for power’. There is potential that Dominic Marcini’s passage are highly likely since he
was in England at the time of the usurpation of Richard III and he wrote his account of this
event before the end of 1483 and also the fact that he wrote objectively as the events
unfolded. To add on, the execution of Hastings looks extremely suspicious to those who
view the event deeply and thoroughly, the execution looked like being part of a long-term
plan to take the throne. Other contemporary writers; like M.Hicks wrote in relation to the
greedy ambition that Richard III had towards claiming the throne he writes that Richard
