Richard III Most Unjustly Accused?

[unmerged(547)]

Was Richard III of England the victim of the most vicious lie in history? Most only recognize Richard from the Shakespearean play, which was purly Tudor propaganda at its worst! Shakespeare relied upon Thomas Moore's account of Richard's actions, which were written as though he was present. Oddly enough, Moore would have only been SIX years old when the Princes vanished. Hmmm. Also, Moore was a member of a group who also coincidentally enough opposed Richard's rule.

While I am speaking of Shakespeare, Richard was most likely NOT deformed. The humpback, well possible....but the withered hand bit? Bah! How could Richard have been so successful in riding into combat and wielding an axe? In Medieval times, evil people were often associated with physical deformities. Thus, to portray Richard as evil, one would have to concoct some sort of physical imperfection.

As Lord Protector of England, Richard III was recognized as King by London and several other areas in England. What would Richard have gained by the murder of Edward IV's children. Nothing! But, let us look at Henry VII of the Tudor line who would succeed in rising to the throne of England upon Richard's death. Henry had, before Bosworth Field, already had persons of better claim than his own to the throne imprisoned, etc. to get them out of the way. Henry knew that the only way that his weak claim to the throne would be acknowledged would be to:

1. Ensure that the Princes were in no way able to come to power, thus "disappearence".

2. The disappearence of the Princes would also prove valuable if one could claim they were murdered, by Richard, thus staining the image and security of his hold on power.

3. Victory over Richard, which was accomplished in a most cowardly manner, but nonetheless achieved.

Obviously, the one who had the most to gain by murder of the Princes, if that is their bodies that were found under the stairs of the Tower, would be Henry Tudor, not Richard III.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Have you read The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey? It's a delightful little book, written as a mystery novel, about a convalescent Inspector who becomes intrigued by the portrait of Richard III and slowly discovers the truth.

It's fascinating.

 

[unmerged(547)]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum
Have you read The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey? It's a delightful little book, written as a mystery novel, about a convalescent Inspector who becomes intrigued by the portrait of Richard III and slowly discovers the truth.

It's fascinating.

Hmm, no I haven't. I'll gave to check it out. Thanks!

 

[unmerged(3420)]

Originally posted by Doc
What would Richard have gained by the murder of Edward IV's children. Nothing!

Nothing, yes, if you count the throne of England to be nothing.

No one living knows for certain the fate of Edward V and his brother Richard, the famed "Princes of the Tower". They disappeared in 1483 without a trace.

What is for certain is that in 1483 Richard of York ruled England, first in the Princes' name and then in his own name as Richard III. Meanwhile, Henry of Tudor was in exile in Brittany. The murderer of the Princes may never be known, but there is no denying that Richard of York pushed them aside to sieze the throne, betraying the trust his late brother Edward IV had given him and besmirching his name throughout England. Richard of York's power grab alienated all the aristocracy, contributing to the betrayals by the Percys and Stanleys on the field of Bosworth.

As you say, Henry VII was no angel. But Richard III lost his throne and his life because of his own mistakes and limits; Henry was merely clever (and daring) enough to capitalize on his rival's failures.

And BTW, Richard didn't murder ALL of Edward's children. Richard was trying to get papal approval to marry Edward's daughter Elizabeth of York, a reputed beauty. But Richard's pursuit of Elizabeth, his niece, disgusted the English almost as much as Richard's "disappearance" of Elizabeth's brothers.

Here, again, Richard was bested by Henry. After Richard was killed at Bosworth, Henry Tudor ended up marrying Elizabeth of York. She was the mother of Arthur, Prince of Wales, and Arthur's siblings Henry VIII and Margaraet Queen of Scotland (grandmother of James VI and I, eventual King of England).

 

[unmerged(7225)]

This case is a classic example of the "murder mystery paradox"...

Person (or group) A is accused of a murder that he has motive, means, and opportunity to commit, but there is no hard evidence.

Person (or group) B is subsequently accused because they stand to gain from the first person being accused of the murder...

Its ludicrous. Did Richard III actually do the killing, probably not. But he certainly stood to gain the most, since with the prince alive, he only stood to be a decade-long regent, rather than life long king. Of COURSE Richards enemies stand to benefit from his being accused of murder, but that's a silly, dead-end argument to pit those too points against each other. It's a lousy defense of Richard III if the only defense is that his enemies stood to gain from his falso accusation...

 

[unmerged(547)]

Ah, but Richard was already in power. As Protector, named by Edward, he had justification for acting as King (and was widely accepted). Now, why jeopardize all of this in an odd disappearence? If one were to go about ridding themselves of the boys, especially in this era where mortality rates were high in the youth particularly, the more likely choices would have been poisons (died of sickness) or riding "accident", or even a "fall down the stairs".

It would attract much more suspicion and questioning of one's right to rule, as proven, in some sort of "disappearence" of the lads. Again, following Henry Tudor's way of "clearing a path" to the throne and showing his true chaacter by his ruthless destruction of anyone with a better claim than his (which numbered quite a few....), doesn't it seem more likely that Henry was behind such an act? Also, the treasonous act of betrayal at Bosworth on Henry's behalf does seem to place the "disappearance" more likely in Henry's corner than in that of Richard.

 

[unmerged(7225)]

Ah, but Richard was already in power. As Protector, named by Edward, he had justification for acting as King (and was widely accepted). Now, why jeopardize all of this in an odd disappearence?

Ah, but Richard's role as Protector would only last until Edward V's Majority, which was a short decade away, and indeed was only with the good grace of Edward that he act as Protector. It was a tenuous role in the government, and one with a shelf life. With Edward eliminated, he stood to have limitless power for the rest of his natural life, which, Bosworth Field notwithstanding, stood to be much longer than the minority of Edward or his brother. Richard seemed to suffer from the same sense of invincibility that struck Henry II in the Thomas Beckett affair, that with the Princes eliminated, he would be King, and as King, his actions would be immune to other's opinions of them. A fatal flaw to be sure, but not a fatal flaw unique to Richard by any means. Rather, it is shared by numerous monarchs throughout history...

 

[unmerged(502)]

this issue is hilariously addressed in the first episode of the Black Adder series. Has anyone else seen it? Richard IV

 

[unmerged(4303)]

gedanke

Fascinating discussion. Richard III is the most performed of Shakespeare's plays. Al Pacino made a movie about it. Its the only Shakespeare play I have read through and thoroughly enjoyed, and its the only one from which I have memorized lines

Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this Son of York!

 

[Wycliffe]

Originally posted by jayron32


Ah, but Richard's role as Protector would only last until Edward V's Majority, which was a short decade away, and indeed was only with the good grace of Edward that he act as Protector.

Richard and his followers, however, had Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville declared bigamous (Dick and Liz were hardly the best of friends ) and barred the young princes and their heirs from the succession, so by the time that snivelling coward Henry Tudor turned up Richard was undisputed king, at least among the Yorkists.
See this link for a pro Richard viewpoint

 

[unmerged(4755)]

Originally posted by jayron32
This case is a classic example of the "murder mystery paradox"...

Person (or group) A is accused of a murder that he has motive, means, and opportunity to commit, but there is no hard evidence.

Person (or group) B is subsequently accused because they stand to gain from the first person being accused of the murder...

Actually, there might be some variations from your schema; English history is far from being my forte but I can certainly find some similar situation in French history.

There is also the case where Group B would benefit both from an association with the murdered and the murder. In other words, Group B is using an association with whatever seems to bear the most "legitimate" claim to a cause to cristallize all opposing forces around them, caring little if those "legitimate" persons suffer by doing so or not.

One example that comes to mind is the Counter-Revolution movement in France, grouping around the Comte de Provence and the Comte d'Artois, both who would have something to gain from any "unfortunate" accident to happen to their brother, Louis XVI as a result from their own Counter-Revolution activities.

I cannot judge the case of Richard III murdering (or not) his nephew (as well as poor Nigel Hawthorne...), but one cannot underestimate the strenght of symbols, particularly when different groups are competing to assertain their own, if weak, legitimacy. The Bolchevik murdering the Czar's family, Napoléon ordering the murder of the duke of Enghien, Henri III murder of the duke of Guise (a dangerous rival) and the ever-important interest of kings over bastard children all possible Warwicks, Bonnie Princes or long-lost sons (Louis XVII).

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Doc,

I can't really contribute anything to the debate on Richard's guilt or innocence, but if you're having a look at Josephine Tey's novel, you might also want to check out Elizabeth George's short story "I, Richard" (in a collection of short stories of hers entitled "The Evidence Exposed") while you're in the mystery section.