I don’t believe for one second the nobles who turned against Richard the Third did it because he “killed” his nephews. After all, when Richard took Lord Stanley’s son hostage during Bosworth, sending Stanley a message that he would kill his son if he didn’t throw in with him, Stanley replied: “I have other sons.” Those nobles were cold! (Richard did not kill the kid, by the way.)
The nobles, especially the Stanleys, changed sides constantly. They were never satisfied with what they had and so always threw in with the “usurper.” Richard apparently did not do enough for some of these guys; that’s why they turned against him.
Richard, of course, in his short tenure, was an excellent king as he had been a duke. He legislated that all laws were to be written in English rather than Latin, set up courts of justice for poor people and established the Royal College of Arms.
Henry VII, was a miserly, reclusive monarch who gave the world the horrible Henry the VIII.
Agree with you about the nobility of the period. A pretty dishonorable bunch.
The nobles, however, were leaders. Couldn’t accomplish much of anything if large numbers of people chose not to follow.
After Bosworth the nobles appeared to lose their ability to mobilize sufficient popular support to launch effective armed rebellion. Didn’t stop noble intrigues and such, but it moved to another level. Generally competition for the favor of the king rather than competition against him.
Of course there are alternate explanations for the loss of aristocratic independence. My personal favorite is artillery. As long as effective armies consisted largely of mobilizing men, horses and personal weapons, the aristos (if enough of them got together) could go one on one with the King.
When an effective army required efficient artillery, they lost this potential. Artillery cost too much for local lords. And even if you could get the guns and men together, you couldn’t practice with it in secret. And effective artillery requires a lot of practice.