Richard III, Anyone?

[Garrette]

Quite some years ago I read two books regarding Richard III and whether he was the villain portrayed by most historians and by Shakespeare in his play. The contention was that he was an okay guy and an okay king who didn't kill the princes but got framed for it by his successor after losing the battle of Bosworth Field.

One book was non-fiction and called, I think, The Princes in the Tower.

The other was mystery fiction, set in the present day and involving a detective who does research while convalescing in hospital.

I'll try to dig up links, but wondered what others think of this question.

As for me, the two books are convincing, but perhaps only because I've done no research to counter them.

I've heard there are Richard III societies out there whose goal is to fix his reputation.

Are they woos or loons to be classified with the Velikovskyites and the Graham Hancock believers?

Or do they have a legitimate case?

[kookbreaker]

As I understand it, they do have a case, but that case is for the most part "Richard III was not worse than any other of the hideously inbred monarchs."

One society promoting R3 would be:

http://www.richardiii.net/begin.htm

Whose Mission Statement reads:


In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the role of this monarch in English history.


Which is basicly saying "no proof". Doesn't put them in the realm of Velikovsky, but does seems to lead to some underreporting of some events (such as the declaration of bastardization). But on the other hand, a lot of the maligning of Richard is patently obvious propaganda and puts a most of the claims against him under suspicion.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Garrette
Quite some years ago I read two books regarding Richard III and whether he was the villain portrayed by most historians and by Shakespeare in his play. The contention was that he was an okay guy and an okay king who didn't kill the princes but got framed for it by his successor after losing the battle of Bosworth Field.Actually, Richard probably was responsible for the deaths of the princes. But he was almost certainly not responsible for other monstrosities that Shakespeare attributed to him.

For example, take the death of Richard's older brother George (known in the play by his title, Clarence). Shakespeare comes right out of the chute with Richard's well-known "Now is the winter of our discontent" speech, and that very speech also has Richard (identified by his title at the time, Gloucester) saying "Plots have I laid," particularly a plot to have George destroyed because he stands between Richard and the crown (held at the time by the Edward, eldest brother of George and Richard). Based upon a prophesy rumor instigated by Richard, innocent George is thrown into confinement, and there is killed.

Historically, the one responsible for George's confinement was George himself. He was far from innocent. He was a double-crosser who took sides against the Yorkists and his older brother, King Edward IV, (even though George was himself from the House of York), but reconciled with his older brother after it became clear that the Yorkists were going to prevail. Although reconciled, George could not be trusted.

Richard had been faithful to his brother, King Edward IV, throughout.

Richard was also noted to be an exceptional warrior. Even Shakespeare makes mention of this. And yet, Richard could hardly be a skilled fighter if he were as deformed as Shakespeare makes him out to be.

A very informative source that describes differences between real history and Shakespeare's stories is Isaac Asimov's commentaries on Shakespeare.

[TragicMonkey]

The detective book is "Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey.

[Garrette]

Thanks, Brown. I'll dig into that a bit, later on.

Thanks, also, TM. That's the book. I liked it a lot as a mystery; as non-fiction, I'll have to wait to decide.

[Tanja]

I also read "The Daughter of Time" couple of years ago, which led me to buy The Princes in the Tower through Amazon. I was totally gripped by the subject for a while, and enjoyed reading about it.

I think we are several centuries to late to find out the real truth about RIchard III.

I come from the Former Yugoslavia. It has only been 14 years since the war started there, and unlike at Richards times we have the television, the newspapers, the internet. Still there are people who are considered by the Serbs to be war heroes and by Croats to be war criminals, and the other way around. In most cultures and most wars, one side's hero is another side's traitor and criminal, and all throughout the history, the history is written by the victors. In my opinion most political and military leaders are not black or white but different shades of gray.

[headscratcher4]

Daughter of Time was a very enjoyable read...I highly recommend it. The thing about Richard III is that bad though he might have been (and it is relative, given the times), Henry the VII had even less of a claim to the crown than did Richard. In addition, he and Henry VIII spent a whole lot of time taking care of cousins with better or equal claims than their own -- so murder (judicial or otherwise) was not a strategy limited to the Yorkists.


My point is that the picture of Richard as a monster must be incontext. Monsters were ok, it would seem, as long as they were the winners and wrote the histories...a'la the Tudors. Whatever Richard might have been, he was a bad King, in the end, not because of the murders, but because he couldn't build a consensus around his "stabalizing" rule sufficient to rally enough support to fend of the Tudors and save his throne. Henry Tudor was, essentially, a nobody and found enough support to defeat the state...which should tell you somehting about both Richard and the Yorkist.

Henry, on the other hand, was a strong, vengeful and skilled politician and almost modern ruler who began building a ver successful police state to keep the country, people and nobels in check. So good, in fact that his Son and Grand-daughter Elizabeth, held it together for over 100 years.

Anyway, the topic is facinating and I couldn't put down the novel (though, in the end, it might be as historically correct as a Dan Brown book...).

[TragicMonkey]

Not to mention that more than just history is written by the victors. Shakespeare could have portrayed Rick 3 as a good guy...if he didn't mind irritating Hank 8's daughter Liz, who was a crosspatch with a penchant for executions.

[Brown]

History is often written by the victors, but in the case of Richard III, there is also history written by sources that were neither overtly anti-Lancastrian or anti-Yorkist. The English weren't the only ones writing history.

Shakespeare nevertheless adopted an overtly anti-Yorkist stance. No doubt this would have contributed to the popularity of his plays as well as his standing (and perhaps his well-being). He relied on anti-York accounts, but he also made up facts on his own (arguably for dramatic effect), which were defamatory to the Yorkists and which had no historical basis at all.

[Tanja]

For any UK posters interested in Richard III, on Thursday 12th May at 9pm, Channel4 is showing a programme about Richard III and the princes in the tower. I first thought it was a documentary, but it seems to be a drama. From Channel4 website:

The mystery surrounding the disappearance of the boy King Edward V and his younger brother Richard has been the cause of speculation and fascination for over five centuries. This gripping drama is an account of the final interrogation of a man who sought to change the course of British history.

[RSLancastr]

The man was a freakin' York!

What else do you need to know?

[Brown]

Originally posted by RSLancastr
The man was a freakin' York!

What else do you need to know? Spoken like a true Lancaster.

[Ian Osborne]

I saw a re-enactment of the Battle of Bosworth at the site of the original battle last year. It was great! If anyone from the UK is interested, there's a medieval festival at the battle site in Leicestershire every year, on the weekend closest to the anniversary of the actual battle (22nd August). I definitely recommend it.

This year's re-enactment (http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/community/community_services/environment_and_heritage/country_parks/country_parks_bosworth/country_parks_bosworth_reenactment.htm) is on 20th/21st August.

[bigred]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Daughter of Time was a very enjoyable read...I highly recommend it. The thing about Richard III is that bad though he might have been (and it is relative, given the times), Henry the VII had even less of a claim to the crown than did Richard. In addition, he and Henry VIII spent a whole lot of time taking care of cousins with better or equal claims than their own -- so murder (judicial or otherwise) was not a strategy limited to the Yorkists.
Cripes. Were there ANY truly good kings?

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by bigred
Cripes. Were there ANY truly good kings?

Henry V. Amazing man.

[Garrette]

I'd have gone with Alfred.

[Giz]

Originally posted by bigred
Cripes. Were there ANY truly good kings?

Charles I. Set a rather good precedent.

[Soapy Sam]

James the Sixth. The wisest Fool in Christendom.
(For a certain meaning of "good").


His influence on Shakepeare was potent too.
"Out, damned spot"!
("WOOF!")

[Pacal]

Henry V. Amazing man.

If you were French you might disagree. Considering that Henry led a pillaging invasion in support of his super dubious claim to the French throne and after pillaging, and sacking his troops and tax gatherers proceeded to suck dry the population they ruled like an organized crime gang. Of course Henry was also the son of an usurper who had overthrown and then murdered the previous King (Richard II). Henry's claim to the throne of England was very dubious, (there were several claimants with better claims). and his claim to the French throne even more so. But he chained his country and his son to this dubious aggressive war to force the French to accept Henry and then his son as French King whether they liked it or not.

Of course one could also mention the mans priggish self regard and his capacity for cruelty with a large dollop of sheer hypocrisy. I could mention some of Henry's atrocities, which are made worst by his sanctimoniousness. Well there is the burning of the Lollard in the barrel, or his comment about war without fire was like sausages without mustard, when someone complained about his troops burning and destroying villages leaving the inhabitants to starve.

Henry V brought brutal devastaing war to France and emeshed England in a costly and ultimately unwinable war to impose through a war of conquest / agression a unwanted foreign King on the French. The man was vicious and brutal like his age but with a extra dollop of hypocrisy and sanctimony. HJe was amazing alright and the French and English paid for him being so amazing in spades!

[Rincewind]

The man was a freakin' York!

What else do you need to know?

Thank you Robert.

Ever the voice of calm, considered comment...

:)

[lionking]

Thank you Robert.

Ever the voice of calm, considered comment...

:)
Even more than 5 years down the track. ;)

[Vic Vega]

Quite some years ago I read two books regarding Richard III and whether he was the villain portrayed by most historians and by Shakespeare in his play. The contention was that he was an okay guy and an okay king who didn't kill the princes but got framed for it by his successor after losing the battle of Bosworth Field.

One book was non-fiction and called, I think, The Princes in the Tower.


If you're talking about Alison Weir's book called "The Princes in the Tower", you aren't remembering it correctly. She most certainly does feel that Richard was guilty of authorizing their deaths and she makes a good case for it. She also goes into quite a bit of detail that paints him in a very negative light.

If you want to read a GREAT historical novel that deals with Richard and his siblings and paints Richard in a positive light, check out Sharon Kay Penman's "The Sunne in Spendour". Fabulous book. I can't recommend it highly enough.

[dudalb]

Richard The THird was not the total Villian of Shakespeare's play, but not the innocent that the Ricardians portray him as.
He was probably no more ruthless then most Medieval Monarchs were.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I never saw Richard I or Richard II, so don't spoil anything for me.

[HistoryGal]

If you want to read a GREAT historical novel that deals with Richard and his siblings and paints Richard in a positive light, check out Sharon Kay Penman's "The Sunne in Spendour". Fabulous book. I can't recommend it highly enough.

This.

Also, Penman claims that Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, was responsible for the princes' deaths.

Is it weird that I have a portrait of R3 in my living room?

[headscratcher4]

Cripes. Were there ANY truly good kings?


There were more or less successful kings...good? It depends on what you mean by that.

Henry II was a very successful king for much of his reign but he lived too long. Henry V was off to a good start as a successful king, but died to young. Henry VII very successful at consolidating a strong rule and great financial manager. Elizabeth was a very successful monarch for most of her reign and I think Charles II wasn't too bad...but left the succession in quite a mess and that should detract from his effectiveness. I don't think George III was all bad, though the insanity and blindness at the end undermines his place in history.

[headscratcher4]

oops double post

[TragicMonkey]

Is it weird that I have a portrait of R3 in my living room?

Only if he's playing poker with a bunch of dogs.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Only if he's playing poker with a bunch of dogs.

Or Elvis

[Vic Vega]

Is it weird that I have a portrait of R3 in my living room?


Maybe a little?

;)

[HistoryGal]

Only if he's playing poker with a bunch of dogs.

Ew.

Or Elvis

Double Ew.

Maybe a little?

;)

I'll take it.

The rest of the living room artwork is Art Deco, but I've been a Ricardian since I was a teenager.

[lionking]

There were more or less successful kings...good? It depends on what you mean by that.

Henry II was a very successful king for much of his reign but he lived too long. Henry V was off to a good start as a successful king, but died to young. Henry VII very successful at consolidating a strong rule and great financial manager. Elizabeth was a very successful monarch for most of her reign and I think Charles II wasn't too bad...but left the succession in quite a mess and that should detract from his effectiveness. I don't think George III was all bad, though the insanity and blindness at the end undermines his place in history.

I think Edward III was good for his time.

[Vic Vega]

The rest of the living room artwork is Art Deco, but I've been a Ricardian since I was a teenager.


So where do you stand on Richard's guilt or innocence regarding the murder of the princes? Have you read Alison Weir's take on it?

Her case is very compelling.

[headscratcher4]

I think Edward III was good for his time.

Arguably, his better qualities as King are overshadowed by the mess that followed (War of the Roses). I think he would be recognized as a better king had he died younger and/or he had done more to promote a more stable regime after his demise.

[Weak Kitten]

I always liked Casimir III of Poland. He's the only king I know of who gained the title "The Great" for more than just military conquest. He was also known as "The Peasants' King".

He built Universities, reformed civil and criminal law, created a haven for the Jews, and even paved the way for a later Democratic society. When he came to the throne Poland was impoverished and tiny, by the time he died it was a large, wealthy nation.

[Vic Vega]

I always liked Casimir III of Poland. He's the only king I know of who gained the title "The Great" for more than just military conquest.

How about Alfred?

[Garrette]

How about Alfred?Ditto. Military prowess is the secondary reason, by far, for his gaining the appellation. Of course, what he did militarily ranks among history's most significant.

[HistoryGal]

So where do you stand on Richard's guilt or innocence regarding the murder of the princes? Have you read Alison Weir's take on it?

Her case is very compelling.

I think I read her book - she seemed to depend a lot upon Thomas More's account, didn't she? More was not credible.

I'd have to go through my library to make sure I read it, though.

I believe that Richard was not a stupid man, and he was very close to his brother, King Edward. He saw how Edward conducted regicide (Henry VI), and if he had decided to kill his nephews, he would have deployed a similar method. It would not have been in Richard's nature to just have them "disappear."

That was more suitable to Henry Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham, who lead a rebellion against Richard shortly after the boys' disappearance.

Do I think Richard incapable of murder? No. Do I think him incapable of a stupid murder? Yes.

[headscratcher4]

Tey's basic detection theory of murder was to speculate about the person who had the most to gain...in her estimation it was Henry VII -- who had a relatively weak claim to the throne, indeed, arguably his wife's claim was far superior (though his was by victory in battle). I seem to recall that Tey focused a lot on why Henry did not crown his queen immediately and made big deal out of his own rights to the throne...

[hgc]

... Charles II wasn't too bad...but left the succession in quite a mess and that should detract from his effectiveness...


Interesting note: when William Windsor is crowned king, he will become the first British monarch descended from Charles II... so succession crisis finally solved.

:D

[Vic Vega]

I think I read her book - she seemed to depend a lot upon Thomas More's account, didn't she? More was not credible.

I'd have to go through my library to make sure I read it, though.


More was one of her sources, yes. She did a fairly good job finding multiple sources for many of her most significant claims, but there will always be some doubt about the accuracy of any source from this time period.


I believe that Richard was not a stupid man, and he was very close to his brother, King Edward. He saw how Edward conducted regicide (Henry VI), and if he had decided to kill his nephews, he would have deployed a similar method. It would not have been in Richard's nature to just have them "disappear."

That was more suitable to Henry Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham, who lead a rebellion against Richard shortly after the boys' disappearance.

Do I think Richard incapable of murder? No. Do I think him incapable of a stupid murder? Yes.

Richard was certainly not stupid. He was an seasoned battle commander and tactician as well as an extremely capable administrator. Weir writes quite a bit about why she thinks Richard had his nephews killed.

Richard was in a very difficult position following the death of his brother. He couldn't really allow Edward V to rule. He hated the Wydvilles and they hated him. He was afraid, and rightly so, that their influence on the young king would cost him everything, including his life.

Once Richard seized the throne and put the Princes in the tower, leaving them alive would mean that his potentially rebellious Lords would continue to have a focal point for treason. This was true especially if he exiled them from England, so that wasn't something he could consider.

He couldn't execute two children openly, so killing them secretly may have been his best and only real option.

[HistoryGal]

He couldn't execute two children openly, so killing them secretly may have been his best and only real option.

But how does this explain why their mother allowed her daughters to join Richard's court after the boys were allegedly killed? She wasn't stupid, either, and she allowed her younger son to join his brother in the Tower. She would never have been satisfied with a mere "disappearance."

No, if Richard were going to kill the boys, he would have either smothered them and showed their bodies publicly as having died of a flux or something, or he would have kept them in the Tower until they were of age, and then executed them.

All this secrecy and hole-in-the-wall business simply wasn't the way Richard did things.

[Mojo]

Richard was also noted to be an exceptional warrior. Even Shakespeare makes mention of this. And yet, Richard could hardly be a skilled fighter if he were as deformed as Shakespeare makes him out to be.


As far as I remember the portrait that shows him showing one shoulder higher than the other was found to have been retouched. I've also seen it suggested that, as someone who spent a lot of time waving a sword around, his right arm and shoulder would most likely have been overdeveloped compared to the left.

I think we are several centuries to late to find out the real truth about RIchard III.
I think I read her book - she seemed to depend a lot upon Thomas More's account, didn't she? More was not credible.


More's account is IIRC the only vaguely contemporary account, but he was only five years old at the time of the events he recorded.

Anyway, it is well known (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Adder) that Richard, Duke of York survived Richard III and reigned as King Richard IV, but that this was hushed up by Henry Tudor.

[Mojo]

But how does this explain why their mother allowed her daughters to join Richard's court after the boys were allegedly killed? She wasn't stupid, either, and she allowed her younger son to join his brother in the Tower. She would never have been satisfied with a mere "disappearance."


I think the Tower was a royal residence at the time.

[HistoryGal]

I think the Tower was a royal residence at the time.

True, but the boy was in sanctuary with his mother at the time. She allowed him (his name was also Richard, btw) to join his brother in the Tower.

[Vic Vega]

But how does this explain why their mother allowed her daughters to join Richard's court after the boys were allegedly killed?


Richard wouldn't have been concerned about her daughters. They weren't considered heirs to the throne.

[headscratcher4]

Richard wouldn't have been concerned about her daughters. They weren't considered heirs to the throne.

True, but Henry was smart enough to recognize that while he chased his own claim to the throne, by marrying one of Edward's daughter (and, technically heir as her brother's were dead) he would merge both claims in himself. Elizabeth of York was incredibly important, politically, especially once here brothers disapeared. It is doubtful, I think, that the War of the Roses would have ended in a Tudor dynasty had she not married Henry. It is probable, IMO, that anyone else she married would have asserted her dynastic rights against Henry (and they were arguably superior to his, as she was the eldest surviving daughter/child of a King).

[HistoryGal]

Richard wouldn't have been concerned about her daughters. They weren't considered heirs to the throne.

I wasn't talking about Richard. I was talking about the girls' mother. What mother lets her daughters be in the custody of the man who murdered her sons?

Elizabeth Woodville was no prize, but really.

[headscratcher4]

Elizabeth Woodville was no prize, but really.

We actually don't know that. Women, especially women with strong personalities and who were powerful or wanted power and of the Middleages are generally judged quite harshly. Not only do the victors write history, but at least at the time it was males writing the history too...Elizabeth Woodville was clearly no saint, but by the standards of the time, were her ambitions and ways too different from those of Edward? Were her family any more rapacious than other lower gentry trying to climb up the ladder, or, for that matter, the aristocracy trying to keep new men down?

We should remember that the Woodvilles were rising and in many ways in the culture of the times "self-made"...they were lower gentry trying to become more. Their rise...and they did rise...her Grandson Was king of England, her Granddaughters queens, her Great Grand daughter queen of Scotland and France, Great Great Grandson King of the United Kindom, etc. In short, they came a long way and pretty fast.

That the airstocracy and their hagiographers would sow distrust and rummor about Elizabeth Woodville and her family is not unusual, but we should remember that these were complex relationships and complex times. She was a young widow with two small children whose family was on the losing side. She or she and her father found a way to rescue the family fortunes and rise in the face of very difficult odds.

I would say that Elizabeth Woodville was a most remarkable woman and in the vein of some other great midevil women like Eleanor of Aquatain...resourceful, smart, sexy and able to use these talents. It was also a very dangerous time, as her history and the fatal history of her Lancaster sons suggests...she could only do so much and protect so much when the rivalries among the aristocracy got out of hand.

I feel sorry for her. I don't know how much there is to admire, but I am pretty sure that those who would have us loath her as some sort of coniving social climber would likely excuse and do excuse similar behavior in men...at least aristocratic men. Saddly, self made people like the Woodvilles, Cardinal Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell, etc. don't fare very well in history... unless they successfully suck up to the aristocracy and don't over step their "place" in the lower orders...like Moore.

[Noztradamus]

I think I read her book - she seemed to depend a lot upon Thomas More's account, didn't she? More was not credible.


Did he intend to be credible? One thing that has always intrigued me is the opening line of More's Historty of King Richard III

Kyng Edwarde of that name the fowrth, after that hee hadde lyved fiftie and three yeares, seven monethes, and five dayes.....

Amazing precision, and totally inaccurate (by more that 10 years) in the very first line. He just didn't care or warning: Trust Nothing Herein?

More's naming the murderer on the basis that King Henry casually mentioned that a bloke he had executed a decade previous had confessed? A confession known to no other commentator of the times. including Henry's official historian?

This is Ye Olde Onione writing.

[HistoryGal]

Did he intend to be credible? One thing that has always intrigued me is the opening line of More's Historty of King Richard III

That's a very interesting question. The History of Richard III was not published during More's lifetime, the best theory being that it wasn't about Richard - it was about Henry VIII.

"Kyng Edwarde of that name the fowrth, after that hee hadde lyved fiftie and three yeares, seven monethes, and five dayes....."

Amazing precision, and totally inaccurate (by more that 10 years) in the very first line. He just didn't care or warning: Trust Nothing Herein?Edward IV was about 40 when he died. More was about 5 years old at the time and living in the household of Bishop Morton, Richard III's most bitter enemy.

More's naming the murderer on the basis that King Henry casually mentioned that a bloke he had executed a decade previous had confessed? A confession known to no other commentator of the times. including Henry's official historian?Well, Henry needed everything to be sort of mysterious and foggy. His first Parliament destroyed all known copies of Titulus Regius - the document making Edward IV's marriage invalid and rendering his offspring as bastards - unread. Unread. It was not until the Stuarts come to rule that a surviving copy was found.

Henry VII had Titulus Regius destroyed to make his new bride, Edward IV's eldest child, Elizabeth, legitimate. It also made her younger brother, Edward, the king.

So Henry had good reason to have the boys killed. He just lacked opportunity. Henry was Josephine Tey's choice.

This is Ye Olde Onione writing.:D

[Darat]

One of the things that gets me about the murder theories is that they seem to forget how many people died during their childhood. I've always thought it could have been that they simply died from one of the many, untreatable diseases from that period and of course that would have been politically embarrassing for all involved.

[dudalb]

True, but Henry was smart enough to recognize that while he chased his own claim to the throne, by marrying one of Edward's daughter (and, technically heir as her brother's were dead) he would merge both claims in himself. Elizabeth of York was incredibly important, politically, especially once here brothers disapeared. It is doubtful, I think, that the War of the Roses would have ended in a Tudor dynasty had she not married Henry. It is probable, IMO, that anyone else she married would have asserted her dynastic rights against Henry (and they were arguably superior to his, as she was the eldest surviving daughter/child of a King).

It also gave the Henry a chance to play the "Hey, I have both the Yorkist and Lancasterian Claims to the throne" card, which he did quite a lot.

[dudalb]

That's a very interesting question. The History of Richard III was not published during More's lifetime, the best theory being that it wasn't about Richard - it was about Henry VIII.

Edward IV was about 40 when he died. More was about 5 years old at the time and living in the household of Bishop Morton, Richard III's most bitter enemy.

Well, Henry needed everything to be sort of mysterious and foggy. His first Parliament destroyed all known copies of Titulus Regius - the document making Edward IV's marriage invalid and rendering his offspring as bastards - unread. Unread. It was not until the Stuarts come to rule that a surviving copy was found.

Henry VII had Titulus Regius destroyed to make his new bride, Edward IV's eldest child, Elizabeth, legitimate. It also made her younger brother, Edward, the king.

So Henry had good reason to have the boys killed. He just lacked opportunity. Henry was Josephine Tey's choice.

:D

The Daughter of Time is a fun read, but historians don't think much of it.
The problem I have with the Ricardians (and in the Society For Creative Anarchronism I know plenty of them) is they go beyond claiming that Richard got a raw deal to trying to make him some kind of noble, tragic,hero. Fact is both Richard and Henry were no better or no worse then the typical monarch of that period.

[dudalb]

WHy does this thread make me want to pull my old "Kingmaker" game out of the closet.
God, I spent a lot of time playing that.....

[Brainache]

One of the things that gets me about the murder theories is that they seem to forget how many people died during their childhood. I've always thought it could have been that they simply died from one of the many, untreatable diseases from that period and of course that would have been politically embarrassing for all involved.

While I guess it's untreatable, I'm not sure that being sealed up in a wall cavity really counts as a disease...

[TragicMonkey]

While I guess it's untreatable, I'm not sure that being sealed up in a wall cavity really counts as a disease...

Why not? It's catching, in certain circumstances.

[Noztradamus]

The Daughter of Time is a fun read, but historians don't think much of it.
The problem I have with the Ricardians (and in the Society For Creative Anarchronism I know plenty of them) is they go beyond claiming that Richard got a raw deal to trying to make him some kind of noble, tragic,hero. Fact is both Richard and Henry were no better or no worse then the typical monarch of that period.

And Ricardians don't think much of historians. With justification. When Hugh Ross claims the marriage defect is no big deal because after Eleanor Butler's death, Edward could have gone through a legitimate marriage with Elizabeth Woodville - well that's as good as if he actually did. :jaw:

[Alice Shortcake]

Have the bones thought to be those of the two princes been examined since 1933? At that time the marble casket in which they were reburied in Westminster Abbey was also found to contain animal bones. It's not impossible that the remains are too old to be those of the princes - after all, the site of the Tower of London has been occupied since Roman times.

[kookbreaker]

WHy does this thread make me want to pull my old "Kingmaker" game out of the closet.
God, I spent a lot of time playing that.....

"Talbot to Ludlow"

Darn!

[Doubt]

WHy does this thread make me want to pull my old "Kingmaker" game out of the closet.
God, I spent a lot of time playing that.....

I think the game was banned in the UK.

[Doubt]

"Talbot to Ludlow"

Darn!

"Marshall to London"

Again?!?!

[HistoryGal]

The Daughter of Time is a fun read, but historians don't think much of it.

It is a fun read, and it got me started as a kid, but I don't think much of it, either (history-wise).

The problem I have with the Ricardians (and in the Society For Creative Anarchronism I know plenty of them) is they go beyond claiming that Richard got a raw deal to trying to make him some kind of noble, tragic,hero. Fact is both Richard and Henry were no better or no worse then the typical monarch of that period.

Tragic, yes. The last three years of his life were brutal - his brother, his nephews, his own son and his wife. That's a lot of tragedy. Noble? Who knows. Heroic - probably not.

However, people tend to act within the confines of their own character, and the man who was Duke of Gloucester, his brother's complete confidant, the man who ruled the north of England wisely and well - these were not the type of murders such a man would commit. I've never said Richard was not capable of murder, but not of these murders. And I'm taking into account his execution of Hastings in this, too. Hastings was dragged off and beheaded rather precipitously, but not until he had admitted treason.

As I said before, Richard saw his brother kill Henry VI, and had he killed his nephews, I believe he would have followed the same protocol.

[Vic Vega]

I wasn't talking about Richard. I was talking about the girls' mother. What mother lets her daughters be in the custody of the man who murdered her sons?

Elizabeth Woodville was no prize, but really.


I believe that Weir addressed the reasons why she felt she may have done it, but offhand, I can't remember what they were.

[Vic Vega]

True, but Henry was smart enough to recognize that while he chased his own claim to the throne, by marrying one of Edward's daughter (and, technically heir as her brother's were dead) he would merge both claims in himself. Elizabeth of York was incredibly important, politically, especially once here brothers disapeared. It is doubtful, I think, that the War of the Roses would have ended in a Tudor dynasty had she not married Henry. It is probable, IMO, that anyone else she married would have asserted her dynastic rights against Henry (and they were arguably superior to his, as she was the eldest surviving daughter/child of a King).


I agree with you.