Posted on 09/04/2013 8:34:02 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Considering that the events were as long ago as they are, and involve a monarch and a usurper of monarchy, in another country, I’ve often been surprised at the passion the topic can arouse. The facts emerged many years ago when the sole surviving copy of the Titulus Regius emerged, showing that Richard III was legally made king and the reason for it; simultaneously it showed why Henry VII had the rest of the copies destroyed and the “little princes” murdered, then married their sister and pinned the murder on his predecessor, who had absolutely zero motive.
The supposed remains of the little princes which were found during a renovation of The Tower (usually the account sez the bodies were found under some stairs, the truth is they were excavated while a foundation was being either laid or removed) probably were not the boys, although DNA testing might be just the thing needed. The measurements of the skeletons made in the early 20th century showed that the remains were too large for the boys if they had indeed died during the reign of Richard III. The identification was never rejected, and they were reinterred.
It’s clear that the bodies were somewhere, because Henry VII had the supposed murderer executed for the crime, after confessing that he’d done it on orders from Richard III — which was someone for whom he’d never worked. I really have to hand it to VIIth — he really knew how to pull it off. Naturally he has the unfailing support of all his successors, irrespective of their descent, because without him, not even one of them would likely have sat the throne. :’)
The REAL heir to the throne of England lives in Australia.
You might mean Buckingham, who then revolted against RIII and was executed for treason. I think he killed the illegitimate sons of Edward IV and was in cahoots with Henry VII’s mother Margaret Baufort.
He was NOT a hunchback!!! That portrait of him with a hunchback was doctered later by Tudor stoolpigeons to make him appear so. There is NO WAY a Medieval Warrior King like Richard III - who fought his OWN battles unlike that toad Henry Tudor - could wear the armor of the day and ride a horse with a lance in combat if he was deformed.
The Tudors STINK. Offspring of Owen Tudor, a Welsh Gigolo.
If you believe Joni Mitchell, it was formerly Paradise.
You’re thinking of Sir James Tyrell, who according to Henry VII, claimed to have murdered the children while under torture. But there was no signed confession and we only have Henry’s word to go on. And he was not noted for either his honesty or kindness.
Hope you’re having fun on vacation!
Try Paul Kendall’s book “Richard III” for a sympathetic bio and Annette Carson’s book “The Maligned King” for unbelievable details on the problems that fell on Richard’s shoulders once his brother, King Edward IV died, and left him protector of the realm. For a book that looks at Richard’s mistakes and so-called crimes (he offed a man called Hastings), read David Baldwin’s book. I think it’s called “Richard the Third.” Enjoy - it’s a wonderful story.
I thought he was straight.
Thank you for that information. Your conclusions seem quite logical.
I must say that I really had not given Richard III much thought until the discovery pf his remains. As I said, Shakespeare’s portrayal has been my main image of him over the years. And it has been many, many years since I read that.
Any recommendations on the book that tells the story?
Thank you so much for the reading recommendations.
Oops! The pile of yet-to-be read books will be growing once again.
LOLOL - thanks.
Not with that scoliosis.
IIRC its thought that Thomas More copied out Mortons diatribe against Richard III as a Latin exercise when he was a student. More didn't publish the screed - it was found after his death and may have been mis-characterized by posterity.
“The Daughter of Time” is a fun read. Educated guesses by Josephine Tey.
Yes, I’ve heard that theory. Or that More was writing a satire. Surely, More didn’t not believe that Richard gestated in the womb for two years!!
Thank you.
Ah right yes - I remember that quotes from Mores piece could be read as a cautious satire of the (obviously unnamed) Tudors. Hmm, maybe there’s more to it than I thought.
Just has some people have speculated WS’s Richard was really based on Robert Cecil.
Probably ate a cockenthrice that wasn’t quite cooked properly....Is that like a haggis, only better?
Its a working one but yes thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.