Richard the Third

[Nick Armstrong]

Then I hope you're never on a Jury if I'm ever accused of murder!

[aeolium]

Either was quite capable of having the Princes murdered, both had motive and opportunity - something that Tudor apologists (Holinshed, More) didn't dare address.

But Henry Tudor would only have had the opportunity (and the motive) if the princes had still been alive when he became king - something which is highly doubtful; whereas we know that Richard had the opportunity and a strong motive, having just gone to pains to invalidate the princes' claims to the throne to facilitate his own coronation. There is the evidence that the princes were not seen after summer 1483, the rumours circulating widely both nationally and internationally that they had been killed (not Tudor propaganda, and rumours which Richard could easily have dispelled had they still been alive by producing them). There is also the poor survival record of rival claimants to the throne or deposed monarchs (Edward II, Richard II etc).

I think it's a pretty strong case against Richard, but Caliban's the lawyer....

[BBMmk2]

Actually, I'm not BBM - I'm of the view that he's more likely to be guilty than Henry VII - whose claim went back to John of Gaunt. So I suspect you might be the rightful heir ...

ah then my father would take on the mantle but being a nonogenarian plus, he might pass it onto my brother and i am surethere are other descendants that we know nothing about!!

[Gordon]

But Henry Tudor would only have had the opportunity (and the motive) if the princes had still been alive when he became king....

HVII didn't necessarily have to wait until 1485 to see the princes off. Either way, legitimate or no, the princes AND R3 were in his way. HVII needed a legit Yorkist wife as part of his appeal to the people - Elizabeth - and so her brothers also had to be legit and that would be very inconvenient. What if the latent Beaufort presence at court had been biding its time and then bumped off the princes [we really don't know who actually did it or when] and then left R3 to get the blame? Next step to bring R3 to battle and win - enter HVII.

R3 could then of course cry foul and claim it wasn't him but who would believe it? - he and his affinity [eg Hastings] had failed as a Protectorate? Maybe that is what upset him so much in June 1483, not the Butler/Talbot secret marriage. Just a thought.

[jean]

Someone's been at the music, and there's already been a concert:



Richard’s childhood England

John Dunstable (c1390 -1453) Quam pulcha es
John Benet (d.1458?) Gloria
John Cooke (c1358 – 1442?) Stella Celi
John Dunstable Sancta Maria

Music from the Court of Burgundy

Antione Busnois (1430 -1492) Mon seul et sangle
Hayne v. Ghizeghem (1445- c.1476) De tous biens plaine
Antointe Busnois A vous sans autre
Guillaume Dufay (1397 -1474) Ave Regina Caelorum
Guillaume Dufay Ce moys de mai

Gruthuse’s hospitality and The Hague

Mattaeus Pipelare (c1450 –c1515) Helas de Vous
Johannes Ockeghem (c.1410 -1497) Fors solament
Mattaeus Pipelare Sur tous regretz
Johannes Ghiselin (fl.1481 – 1507) La Alfonsina

England in the 1470s

Anon. Agincourt Carol Agincourt Carol
John Bedyngham (d.c.1460) Grant temps
John Dunstable Puzzle canon
Anon. Basse Danse Leonzello

King Richard’s Courtly Christmas Festivities

Anon. Basse Danse Tesara
Anon. (c.1420) There is no rose of swich virtu
Anon. (15th Century) Alleluia: A nywe work
Anon. (15th Century) Nowel: Owt of your slepe aryse
Anon. Cancon de pifari dicto

Nothing suitable for the Requiem, though.

[aeolium]

HVII didn't necessarily have to wait until 1485 to see the princes off. Either way, legitimate or no, the princes AND R3 were in his way. HVII needed a legit Yorkist wife as part of his appeal to the people - Elizabeth - and so her brothers also had to be legit and that would be very inconvenient. What if the latent Beaufort presence at court had been biding its time and then bumped off the princes [we really don't know who actually did it or when] and then left R3 to get the blame? Next step to bring R3 to battle and win - enter HVII.

That is technically possible but is pure speculation without any evidence. Also, would Henry really have made the pledge to marry the Yorkist Elizabeth at Rennes Cathedral in late 1483 if he had not been sure that her brothers the princes were already dead (and why would he have repealed Titulus Regius the law which invalidated the princes' claim as soon as he came to the throne if they were still alive)? The whole case for Henry being guilty of the princes' deaths is imo very implausible and deficient in evidence. On the other hand the case for Richard being responsible is quite consistent with his ruthlessness in advancing his claim to the throne.

[Gordon]

That is technically possible but is pure speculation without any evidence.

Agreed but then I have read lots about this matter than doesn’t seem to have any evidence attached!! So how's this for a reply::

Also, would Henry really have made the pledge to marry the Yorkist Elizabeth at Rennes Cathedral in late 1483 if he had not been sure that her brothers the princes were already dead

He made that pledge because he believed she – and hence the princes - was legit. Did he know then about the Talbot/Butler business that compromised his chosen bride? Who else would he offer to marry anyway in 1483? He needed to get wavering Yorkists in his tent. IF he was sure – as you say – what evidence is there for that? Either someone else had done it and he knew that OR he had a hand in it himself. It seems there isn’t any evidence extant now but he may have had some then? IF he did have some that showed someone else had done it, it would be a good idea to keep it for future reference because it helps illustrate his innocence of that crime and underpins his repeal of TR? So where is it?

(and why would he have repealed Titulus Regius the law which invalidated the princes' claim as soon as he came to the throne if they were still alive)?

Again as above because he believed [OK it was also politically convenient too] that Elizabeth was legit and wanted to clear her name? He believed that the TR was in fact incorrect and corrupt because R3 had created it to cover his tracks. Thing is he seems to have taken his time over this repeal.

IF, and only IF, the princes were still alive in late 1485, and he knew that then, he’s in deep trouble and would have no choice but to get rid of them otherwise his only claim to that throne was by conquest of the “legitimate” King R3 and that means he has to accept that R3 was indeed King and not a usurper and that means he has to accept that Elizabeth and the princes were really illegitimate. Otherwise HVII would have to put the living EV on the throne himself and then marry Elizabeth to secure a place as Protector? Henry wanted to be King.

The whole case for Henry being guilty of the princes' deaths is imo very implausible and deficient in evidence. On the other hand the case for Richard being responsible is quite consistent with his ruthlessness in advancing his claim to the throne.

Agreed!! My puzzle is that R3 seems to have been a faithful supporter of his House and King. He was an able soldier and an administrator up North. His brother entrusted him with the Protectorate - because he wanted to balance the Woodvilles and protect his House and its heritage given all that trouble with Warwick and his other wayward brother Clarence. What happened to this paragon [well OK he had been ruthless too as all his kind were back then] in those fateful three months of 1483 between EIV’s death in April and seizing the crown in early June? EV’s coronation was still being prepared in May. Was it a sudden surge of greed or was it a cunning plan conceived much earlier and executed carefully and slowly? It looks like instinctive opportunism triggered by events. Like his conduct at Bosworth? The more I read about Bosworth it seems that R3 should have won easily but he lost it, not that HVII won. R3 failed to deal with dubious allies and also acted too swiftly – but then that’s battles for you. To add salt to his wounds Stanley the traitor was married to HVII’s mother!!!

You couldn’t make it up – but then we are!! Beats all the soap operas this don’t it!!

[Barbirollians]

I find the idea that Henry VII somehow managed to have the Princes killed in the Tower when Richard III was on the throne exceptionally incredible .

The arrest of Rivers, the summary execution of Hastings following the discovery of the " plot" and the sudden discovery and declaration of Edward V's illegitimacy have always seemed to me to be a strong case for RIII followers to answer - and most of their explanations have required the suspension of disbelief.

[Flosshilde]

Some way back in this thread I wondered why there wasn't a campaign to rectify Shakespeare's mis-representation of Macbeth, who was King rather longer than Richard III was, and went on a pilgrimage to Rome during his reign. Well, there is now - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/fe...l-real-macbeth.

I lead, others follow

[amateur51]

Some way back in this thread I wondered why there wasn't a campaign to rectify Shakespeare's mis-representation of Macbeth, who was King rather longer than Richard III was, and went on a pilgrimage to Rome during his reign. Well, there is now - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/fe...l-real-macbeth.

I lead, others follow

In the words of Charlie Brown ...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FufBNkoYI_E/UNB8DxfAnwI/AAAAAAAAA_M/WeDNLTv2l8U/s320/9y9uk.gif

[Flosshilde]

There's more reason for a campaign to restore Macbeth's reputation than for the RIII campaign, since there is considerable reason (as set out above) to believe that the latter was rather dodgy. The historical Macbeth, on the other hand, was, I believe, generally considered a good thing. His demonisation by Shakespeare was, inevitably, political and to some extent self-serving, the Bard wanting to ingratiate himself with the new King recently arrived from Scotland.

[amateur51]

There's more reason for a campaign to restore Macbeth's reputation than for the RIII campaign, since there is considerable reason (as set out above) to believe that he was rather dodgy. The historical Macbeth, on the other hand, was, I believe, generally considered a good thing. His demonisation by Shakespeare was, inevitably, political and to some extent self-serving, the Bard wanting to ingratiate himself with the new King recently arrived from Scotland.

Nothing to do with Shakespeare's spotting a good yarn when he saw it and choosing to beef aspects up a bit to increase his audience and make more money, then?

[french frank]

I've now almost finished Ross's Richard III. Ross was not - as I had thought - an American academic, but professor of medieval history here in Bristol and it is pretty much an historian's monograph, with a huge cast of characters and immense detail.

However, as I read it he only modifies the traditional view of Richard by arguing that it was (my paraphrase) something of a caricature, but like caricatures, recognisable as the truth. For him, Henry VII as villain is a non-starter: 'not a shred of evidence' to support it. It's as fanciful as some (but by no means all) of the accusations against Richard.

There is masses of contemporary evidence, long before Henry Tudor appeared on the scene. Much that Richard did during his reign which is admired was seen at the time as being his efforts to regain the popularity that he had lost by his violent and illegal activities in gaining the crown.

How Ross, if you like, adjusts the picture is in presenting Richard, not as some wicked, tyrannical freak (he barely mentions his appearance) but as a ruler of his time who had learned the lessons taught him by his forebears.

Given the vital importance to Richard of having the two princes in his possession (Edward forcibly taken from his Woodville uncles - who were subsequently executed without trial and their lands illegally given to others), Richard taken from sanctuary in Westminster Abbey, it seems unlikely that access to them in the Tower would be allowed to any unauthorised would-be murderers, other than by order of the king himself.

But you buy into one side's propaganda or the other ...

[BBMmk2]

Sounds like a good read FF. thank you! I will now buy mine!

He has'nt been reinterred yet, has he?

[french frank]

Richard III is probably now vieux jeu here (but isn't that one definition of history?), but having now read the second biography I didn't want my thoughts to be wasted ...

The first was by Charles Ross, this second by Paul Murray Kendall. Ross was an academic historian and his careful research read like history - albeit always very interesting. Murray Kendall was more of a biographer historian. In case that sounds a bit condescending, Ross - though he has several trenchant criticisms of specific points - does overall rate the quality of the scholarship. But it remains the popular history, eminently readable.

In approach Ross looks at the evidence and comes to his conclusions. My impression of Murray Kendall is that he dearly wanted to exonerate Richard but, conscientious scholar that he was, he couldn't really do so entirely. He has frequent remarks such as 'this would be explained by Richard's innocence' &c.

Finally, both admit that the truth is obscure, both agree on the Tudor 'myth' which blackened Richard's name (though much of the detail has every appearance of historical accuracy), both raise the possibility of Henry VII being the villain responsible for the murder of the little princes - and both reject it promptly. Ross sees Richard as 'the most likely culprit', Murray Kendall looks elsewhere: he points the finger at the Duke of Buckingham, once Richard's ally, finally going over to the Tudor side. I don't recall that Ross entertains this possibility.

MK's difficulty with any defence of Richard is that he accepts utterly - having sought further specialist advice - that the remains discovered in 1674 (disinterred and examined by experts in 1933) were indeed those of the princes, and that the dental evidence, judging by their known ages, was that they both died in the summer of 1483, after which date they had never again been seen. Again, the 1483 rebellion which sought to replace Edward on the throne fizzled into various risings round the country amid rumours that the king and his young brother had already been murdered. No longer any real likelihood that Henry Tudor was responsible then.

The evidence of previous depositions/forced abdications (Richard II, Edward II, Henry VI - 2nd time) is than none of the overthrown kings remained long in prison before he was putatively murdered. Ross cites the evidence adduced to defend Richard from the accusation that he murdered Henry VI - that the murder of a king could only be ordered by a king, and therefore it would have been Edward IV who had his predecessor murdered, not Edward's brother Richard. But, says Ross, the same applies to the death of Edward V: if he died in 1483, after Richard's succession, only Richard could have ordered his murder.

Sorry for the detail - if there are any real historians out there who dispute the claims/misunderstandings I've given after one speedy read of each book, do put me right