Oh gosh contention…ok we’ll go wiiith…reigns of Richard III vs. Henry VII in Discourse:
Personally, I don’t really feel like…comfortable comparing their two reigns? Mainly because I feel like it can’t be an equitable comparison; because Richard’s was only two years and Henry’s was ‘round twenty-four years.
B.I.G. said ‘Mo Money, Mo Problems’, and I say…mo time, mo opportunities to…uh…fuque up?
It’s kind of similar to how I feel about the statement that Mary I’s title as “Bloody Mary” is ‘unfair’ because overall she had less executions during her reign than her father had in his own.
Like…for sure that is technically true (about overall numbers), but also Mary’s reign was only five years, and H8′s was nearly forty years. So that was kind of inevitable; and also likely she would’ve continued religious persecutions had she lived and ruled longer.
Anyway…if I had to I would say that– as far as policy (especially considering Richard’s enduring legacy and policy in Northern England), that I’d say Richard’s reign was overall more successful, and he was more successful as king.
But again, talking about hypotheticals again and how there are kind of inherent issues in posing them (esp. with history)…he certainly could have become a worse king with time (or conversely, a better one). We don’t really know. It’s a lot easier to grab power than it is to maintain it, ultimately. And he may have been able to, but even if he had won at Bosworth there could’ve been a future rebellion that deposed him– it is, again, hard to know.
Site Title 