The war about The War of the Roses

[Carol]

Susan McGee wrote:
> Isn't that interesting? All the historical novels I've read were
pro-Yorkist, too......
> 
> But of course, Shakespeare is pro-Lancaster.....which probably makes
up for all the historical novels!

Carol:
Or necessitates them as a corrective! (Shakespeare wouldn't dare to
have written from a Yorkist perspective during the reign of a Tudor
queen. I'm not sure how James Stuart would have felt about it;
probably much the same. Henry VII had succeeded in blackening Richard
III's reputation by that time, not to mention that it's prudent always
to support the victor even if you know better. Shakespeare probably
believed that Richard had had his nephews suffocated and that he was a
"wicked" king, so in his view it was acceptable to distort the facts
by inventing physical defects for Richard; having Richard (as the Duke
of Gloucester) and his brother George (as the Duke of Clarence) fight
in a battle that occurred when Richard was eight and George eleven (in
one of the Henry VI plays); and by adding to Richard's supposed
crimes--all for the sake of entertainment. Shakespeare's "Richard III"
may be a great play, but it's terrible history. It's interesting,
however, that Henry VII doesn't rate a play!)

Carol, who will probably reread "The Sunne in Splendour" after this
discussion!