Totally OT: Death of the Little Princes

[Amy Z]

No: HPFGUIDX 11445

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., msl at f... wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Caius Marcius" <coriolan at w...> wrote:
> > 
> >  On the contrary - Richard III - at least the evil literary 
Richard 
> > III  of the Elizabethan stage - needed to get the little princes 
> > out of the way just as surely as Voldemort needed to dispense with 
> > the Potters *pere et fils*.
> > As long as the princes - the sons of the late king Edward IV - 
> > remained alive, Richard's claim to the throne remained clouded, 
> > since he was appointed to serve as their regent (the princes were 
> > then 12 and 10 years old IIRC) until they reached an age to rule 
on 
> > their own.
> > 
> 
> Hrm, quite right.  I wonder what I was cluing in on...

The illegitimacy of the princes, which if true, gave Richard the 
throne.  He didn't need to kill them if they (or even their father) 
didn't have a legitimate claim to the throne.

This is a very simplified version.  See the link CM gave if you're 
really interested in the history.  Or read The Daughter of Time if 
you'd prefer it in novel form (or read ANYTHING by Tey if you love a 
good read <g>).

CM is talking about the literary Richard above.  The innocence of the 
real Richard is not proven but there's a very good case for it.

Amy Z
who hates to see a good person maligned, even if he's 500 years dead 
and it makes for a great story