A few months back I saw a live performance of Richard III — anyone who watches the denouement to that play has to realize that it was political agitprop. Lame-assed text he was required by the regime to include (”The Master of the Revels”, as portrayed in that great chick-flick “Shakespeare In Love”, was a real job, and a lucrative one) is not confined to Richard III.
Michael Wood’s documentary on Shakespeare is delightful, btw; I love how he points out that, later in his career, Shakespeare helped open a second theater, Blackfriars, that had been the site of the proceedings against Henry VIII’s first wife — and the company performed his “Henry VIII” there.
Henry VII was a usurper, that should be clear and obvious — Richard III was the recognized monarch, confirmed and reinforced by parliament, Henry landed with an army. Henry was a ruthless schemer who married the sister of the little princes in order to have a claim to the throne — but she had to be relegitimized, and that process would also relegitimize the little princes, nullifying his grasp. So, they had to die. Richard III, who had been murdered on the field by traitors in the employ of Henry, made the ideal fall guy.
Of course, all this is of only historical interest, since monarchy is itself both antiquated and illegitimate.
Thanks all!
Never heard the bit about why treason never prospers, have you?
The last truly legitimate King was Henry VI, who was much too kind and decent a man to hold onto his crown.
The Crown had been fought over for several decades when Henry VII landed, changing hands from York to Lancaster several times. Parliaments did not deliberate and express the will of the people, they merely rubber-stamped the results of the various wars and intrigues.
The Wars of the Roses, BTW, featured the greatest battle ever fought in the British Isles. Probably 80k fought, and around 20k died. Towton.
To my mind the notion that RIII kept the little princes locked up till they were found by the victorious HVII and murdered by him, makes little or no sense.
RIII had been ruling with some success till the rumor got around that he had not only displaced the little princes but had murdered them. This rumor was a, possibly the, major factor in his progressive loss of support.
To squelch this rumor and regain the lost support, all he had to do was display the live princes. Since he never did, it seems likely to me that he was unable to, they being already dead.
HVII continued to himself face rebellions and invasions of the type that brought him to power throughout his reign, often headed by an impostor pretending to be one of the lost princes.
However, the notion that this was some sort of burning political issue by Shakespeare's time is just silly. AFAIK there were no Yorkist rebellions during HVIII's reign or those of any of his children. Nobody cared any more.