If you had presented facts, I would have argued them. But you didn’t.
I suspect you barely knew the name “Stillington” until I mentioned him. I know you didn’t know the names Eleanor Talbot and Nicholas Von Poppelau. I imagine you scratching through Wikipedia to come up with arguments as to why Stillington wouldn’t happily rush forth to “out” Edward, as either the Duke of York or King of England. Do you really think Edward Plantagenet was a nice guy and he would have laughed it off? Would his coterie of friends and family such as Anthony Woodville and William Hastings and William Stanley and the truly awful Richard Grey have laughed it off? Edward Plantagent was, personally, one of the most ruthless figures in dynastic politics and he surrounded himself with ruthless men. He started out as a good king but soon fell into greed, sloth and corruption - thanks to his bride and her nasty upstart little family. He allowed her family to loot the treasury which placed huge monetary stress on the merchant class of London. The Duke of Gloucester put a stop to it and sent the poet poseur, Tony Woodville, to the block when he disobeyed Edward’s will which instructed him to place the boy prince in the care of the Protector of the Realm. Instead, Woodville attempted to secure the child himself and absconded with the remainder of the treasury. And yet you still wonder why Stillington hesitated?
Lastly: you think Richard the 3rd was a monster. I do not. As Lord of the North he did a brilliant job and the people of Yorkshire came to love him like a son. He fought hard for the commoners against the barons and distanced himself for over 10 years from his brother and his corrupt in-laws. He was not perfect and his awful position once his brother was dead and his wife’s family turned their sights on him and HIS family cannot be underestimated. He made some hard choices to protect his only legitimate son from harm.
We will never agree and it is pointless to continue this argument.
I don't rely on Wikipedia. I've got plenty of non-fiction books on British history, the monarchy, and books on Richard III. David Starkey has stated that Sir Thomas More’s History of Richard III might have more truth to it than people originally thought. He bases his belief on the fact that in More's account, Sir James Tyrrell admitted his guilt in murdering the princes, and that Richard III ordered it. The reason Starkey gives credibility to More's account is because it is recorded that during Tyrrell's trial, Henry VII and Elizabeth of York were present throughout. Starkey concluded that it would have been highly unusual to have a King and Queen watch over such a trial, unless it was an extraordinary case. He theorises that this piece of evidence makes it more than likely that Richard III was the boys murderers.
And he still has loyal supporters in Northern England.
I am not an expert on the subject but have been impressed with the doggedness of his defenders throughout several centuries. It says something good about British culture that the debate about Richard Ill is still ongoing.
And I am glad he is now buried in a manner fit for a Christian king.
And he still has loyal supporters in Northern England.
I am not an expert on the subject but have been impressed with the doggedness of his defenders throughout several centuries. It says something good about British culture that the debate about Richard Ill is still ongoing.
And I am glad he is now buried in a manner fit for a Christian king.