[HPFGU-OTChatter] The real Richard III (Was: Assasinations and attitudes towards them)

[Kathryn]

Carol responds:
As a member of the Richard III Society, I feel compelled to point out
that Shakespeare's Richard III is a far cry from the real Richard,
either as Duke of Gloucester or King of England. (Note that
Shakespeare has Richard and his older brother George fighting in a
battle that occurred when they were eight and eleven, respectively,
and known to have been sent for safety to Burgundy.)
  
<snip>

, but there were good reasons why Edward IV's son
Edward V, age 12, was never crowned and why he and his brother were
declared illegitimate by Parliament and the crown given to Richard,
known through the kingdom as a just and highly competent
administrator. The former princes, stripped of their titles and claims
by Parliament, were indeed put in the Tower of London, but that
doesn't mean they were in prison. The Tower contained royal apartments
where Richard himself stayed with his queen before their joint
crowning and where queens, including Edward IV's wife, Elizabeth Grey,
gave birth to their children.

K

And here you see why I deliberately didn't attribute the deaths of the
Princes to any particular King - the members of the Richard III Society
certainly seem to personify one of Richard's defining characterstics, that
of loyalty ;)

There is no physical evidence that the Princes were killed, but given that
they vanished never to be seen again it's fairly likely. Had either of them
reached adulthood they would most likely have wanted to try an claim the
throne and they would certainly have been the focus for malcontents under
Henry VII. They could have decided the throne was too much hassle nd created
new identities for themselves but it seems unlikely and such secrets are
almost imposible to keep. But if they were alive when Henry VII became king
then he would have had just as much reason to kill them as Richard - more
actually since he was claiming Richard wasn't the true King and that he had
ursurped the place of his brothr's rightful heir (Edward V). Obviously his
claim to the throne becomes a little dodgy using this argument if either
Edward or his brother Richard are still alive. Much as I would actully like
to blame it on Henry (and I would, Richard has many qualities I admire, he
was very loyal and no one could accuse him of cowardice after his behaviour
at Bosworth Field) the Princes were often seen pplaying in the courtyard
while at the Tower to start with but then vanished from sight. Henry VII and
others claimed that they had been killed - surely Richard would have
produced them if they were still alive, it could only have helped his cause
to prove that he hadn't killed them. Having said that there i another
explanation - they may well have been dead by that time, but that doesn't
necessarily mean they wee murdered. They could easily have died from natural
caues (anything contagious would explain why both of them vanished),
mortality during this period, infnt or otherise, was fairly high and being
of Royal birth couldn't save you.

There is some very good evidence that Richard was right in his claim that
his older brother was illegitimate, giving his claim to the throne some
weight. Despite this he had stuck by his brother when others had rebelled
against him, even when the rebels were led by another brother. Having sworn
an oath of loyalty to his King (his brother) he stuck to that, even when
they were losing. The Duke of Gloucester (another brother) led two
rebellions, changing sides whenever the side he was on looked like losing.
As for my earlier comment about his bravery - he led a charge against Henry
in the Battle of Bosworth, which would decide the battle. When the charge
looked likely to fail one of his men actually offered him a horse (so much
for "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse") but he declined - determined
to either succeed or die along with his men on the battlefield. The man
certainly wasn't a saint - but as far as medieval monarchs go, he was
certanly much better as a person than many of thm - whether he was better a
a monarch is an argument I will leave Carol to make as I don't actually know
that much about his record.

K
 
 
 
 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]