Richard the Third

[Gordon]

It doesn't pay to read too many books FF, clutters the mind and upsets the prejudices!! I have not read Ross or Kendall but I have read:

Hancock: Richard II and the Murder in the Tower

Ashdown-Hill [A Riccardian]: Eleanor the Secret Queen and The Last Days of RIchard III [2 versions, one before the dig and one after]

Josephine Tey: The Daughter of Time [doesn't think much of Thomas More!]

Markham [1906] for an earlier view of things: Richard III: His life and character...

not to mention a couple of Philippa Gregory's novels [to give a bit more colour!] - eg The White Queen [Elizabeth Woodville] and the Red Queen [Margaret Beaufort]. The much acclaimed Thomas Penn's Winter King says very little about the princes except to cover the pretenders Simnel and Warbeck. One might have thought that there was a case to at least address in a definitive life of Henry VII if not to resolve the fate of the princes for the sake of completeness. Maybe Penn thought that the case was closed?

Result: more confusion than clarity. They have nearly all read the available documents but do not always concur on interpretation. Surprise, surprise.

You mention Edward II - now there is another disputed deposition. Was he killed in 1327/8 or did he survive, wander around Europe, meet his son EIII in Flanders and then end up in Italy!?! Who is really in the tomb at Gloucester? Ian Mortimer's books The Perfect King and The Greatest Traitor are well worth a read if you want a change from RIII!!

[vinteuil]

You mention Edward II - now there is another disputed deposition. !!

... and if you want something else to worry about - whatever happened to Louis XVII ? (Wasn't Léon Bloy a Naundorffian? [ Le fils de Louis XVI ] )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVII_of_France

[french frank]

... and if you want something else to worry about - whatever happened to Louis XVII ? (Wasn't Léon Bloy a Naundorffian? [ Le fils de Louis XVI ] )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVII_of_France

Good gracious! I grew up with that painting hanging on the wall - never knew who the subject was ('twas probably not the original, though!).

It doesn't pay to read too many books FF, clutters the mind and upsets the prejudices!! I have not read Ross or Kendall but I have read:<snip> ...

I think Markham was a prototypical Ricardian- a Ricardian avant la lettre. Described in some of my sources as an 'amateur historian' . I think he had as much of a parti pris as More. I read Tey some time ago, but on the whole I'm not keen on historical fiction (haven't even read Hilary Mantel). Ashdown-Hill a central figure in the Richard III Society): which came first - opinions or research? Hancock and Penn I don't know.

Although Ross and Kendall wrote very different books, I did feel that they both contributed to a clearer view - if you can say that about events so inherently unclear. In particular regarding the reliability of More: take away the obvious villainous caricature, the supposed motivation, and you're left with a great deal which does have historical backing. My guess is that this is because he used John Rous's Historia regum Anglie which in its earliest form praised Richard, while the later one, revised during Henry VII's reign, introduced many of the more fanciful anti-Richard elements. But much of the historical background he himself witnessed, unlike More, and this is likely to have been sound.

You mention Edward II - now there is another disputed deposition. Was he killed in 1327/8 or did he survive, wander around Europe, meet his son EIII in Flanders and then end up in Italy!?!

[aeolium]

Thanks for the summaries of the two RIII biographies, ff. The evidence points to RIII being the more likely instigator of the princes' murder than anyone else, particularly HVII. Was there much comment in either work about the rumours circulating at the time in England and France about the supposed murder? And did either biographer comment on the implications of Henry Tudor's December 1483 pledge to marry Elisabeth Woodville's daughter Elisabeth of York? It seems to me quite unlikely that either Henry Tudor or Elisabeth Woodville would have come to such an agreement unless they were reasonably sure that the princes were already dead, particularly as Henry immediately abolished the law rendering Edward IV's marriage with Elisabeth illegitimate.

I don't really understand the enthusiasm for societies like the Richard III Society, which seems almost committed to presenting the best possible side of a king from a period when nearly all of them were pretty flawed characters. No doubt there is a Timur Society somewhere which seeks to redeem Timur's reputation from the dark picture presented by such as Marlowe

[jean]

Yes - vey useful summary!

I don't really understand the enthusiasm for societies like the Richard III Society, which seems almost committed to presenting the best possible side of a king from a period when nearly all of them were pretty flawed characters.

Shakespeare could do that too, when it suited him!

Here's the new Henry V, addressing his brothers after the death of his father:

...Brothers, you mix your sadness with some fear:
This is the English, not the Turkish court;
Not Amurath an Amurath succeeds,
But Harry, Harry...

[BBMmk2]

Well i am glad that tidies up about who murdered the Two princes in the Tower, FF. Perhaps members will now agree!

What has Louis XVII have to do with RIII?

[aeolium]

Yes indeed, jean! Though in Shakespeare's defence, he was no historian but a playwright and he did give some monarchs - not just RIII - a hard time, which must have been somewhat risky in the age of the divine right of kings. And his poetry excuses him...

[french frank]

Was there much comment in either work about the rumours circulating at the time in England and France about the supposed murder?

Not actual comment, but the real presence of the rumours was certainly dealt with (I think that was probably supported by More too, since the rumours would not have been in Richard's favour). It was certainly suggested that a lot of anti-Richard feeling stemmed from the belief that he had already had the boys murdered. This would have placed him in an impossible situation: produce the boys to prove he hadn't had them killed, but then face the rebellion to replace Edward on the throne.

And did either biographer comment on the implications of Henry Tudor's December 1483 pledge to marry Elisabeth Woodville's daughter Elisabeth of York? It seems to me quite unlikely that either Henry Tudor or Elisabeth Woodville would have come to such an agreement unless they were reasonably sure that the princes were already dead, particularly as Henry immediately abolished the law rendering Edward IV's marriage with Elisabeth illegitimate.

I think Henry was still in exile in Brittany at the time but spies were apparently everywhere. Of course, the reverse argument is that Henry knew they were dead because he had had them murdered, but in 1483 it would have been most unlikely that he could have managed to find a way to achieve that himself. He would have known the rumours and wanted to believe them because they strengthened his own (weak) claim. The Queen was still in sanctuary, but although she may not have wanted to believe her boys were dead, if they were, then she wanted to see one of her remaining children promoted.

It's almost a case of 'trop beau', just as is the finding of the remains in Leicester: the certainty of many that they died in 1483 apparently ties in with the dental evidence. First the Carpark in Leicester, then the Teeth in the Abbey ...

I agree about the Richard III Society. Why be so wedded to an idea when it is obviously unclear: and anyway, 'everyone' admits that the More portrait of Richard was not 'true' in all details, and that he achieved good things during his reign.

[french frank]

Addition to above: I think Ross pushes the idea of Richard's early unpopularity much more strongly than Kendall, who paints a picture of some popularity.

[Flosshilde]

he [Shakespeare] did give some monarchs - not just RIII - a hard time, which must have been somewhat risky in the age of the divine right of kings.

I think he was careful to make sure that he was giving a bad press to monarchs from the preceding dynasty.

[BBMmk2]

Keepi9njg on the safe side with the current Monarch on the throne?

[Flosshilde]

Exactly - don't want to upset those in power. It happens even now.

[aeolium]

I think he was careful to make sure that he was giving a bad press to monarchs from the preceding dynasty.

On the other hand, his portrait of the later Henry IV, Henry Bolingbroke, was not at all flattering, and yet Henry VII and the Tudor dynasty derived a direct link from Bolingbroke's father John of Gaunt through the Beaufort line. So it wasn't just a matter of propaganda about the monarch overthrown by Henry Tudor (and reliance on the work of Thomas More, which was supposedly one of the main sources for the Shakespeare play, was not that straightforward, since More had ended his life as an enemy and victim of the Tudor state).

[BBMmk2]

On the other hand, his portrait of the later Henry IV, Henry Bolingbroke, was not at all flattering, and yet Henry VII and the Tudor dynasty derived a direct link from Bolingbroke's father John of Gaunt through the Beaufort line. So it wasn't just a matter of propaganda about the monarch overthrown by Henry Tudor (and reliance on the work of Thomas More, which was supposedly one of the main sources for the Shakespeare play, was not that straightforward, since More had ended his life as an enemy and victim of the Tudor state).

A bit close to home!

[Petrushka]

I see now that Richard's descendants have written an open letter saying that they wish the King to be buried in York Minster. I am sympathetic in principle but apparently the Ministry of Justice gave permission to Leicester University for the dig and so the decision lies with the University. I doubt if the Min of J gave a moments thought to the possibility that the hare-brained scheme would actually succeed. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...scendants.html

My own view, mooted above somewhere was for the Queen to decide in consultation with all interested parties.