Fact or Fiction : Richard III - Accurate or Complete Hash

Moderator: Moderators

Did Richard kill the princes

YES
17
40%
NO
26
60%
 
Total votes: 43

User avatar
Brother Tuck
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:59 am
Location: Nottingham

Fact or Fiction : Richard III - Accurate or Complete Hash

Postby Brother Tuck » Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:21 am

Saw this last year and now that i've read some books about richard am surprised how biased the programme came across. anyone else have an opinion


The greatest philosophers in the world met to discuss all the great unsolved questions of the world. and one question had them stumped

What Exactly is The Purpose of a Rubber Duck?

User avatar
AJ
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:07 am
Location: Nottingham

Postby AJ » Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:05 pm

Oooh mate - BIG can of worms :lol:

Which particular programme are you talking about?


Loyaulte me lie


The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle, the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.
No - the pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.

User avatar
Fillionous
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: West Berkshire
Contact:

Postby Fillionous » Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:32 pm

I agree, big can of worms....

I don't think he personally killed them.
I am not even convinced that he ordered thier killing as such... I am more inclined to say that someone thought to gain favour by bumping them off or that in a similar way to Thomas Becket, a throw away comment by Richard led others to believe that murder was required.

That Richard took advantage of thier 'disapearance' I think is undoubted. That he got massivaly slandered by Shakespeare and the Royals (and thus history) that came after him I think is also true.

I do not think he was a particually cruel or bad King (more a man of his time and morals). And from what I have read, he was respected in the north and suported his brothers rule strongly.

Just thoughts...
Be bright, be bold
Fillionous


Orathanni tal ka Zarness - Blessings of the Stars
http://shieldmaiden.co.uk - for heraldry, shields and banners.

User avatar
gregory23b
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2923
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Gyppeswyk, Suffolk

Postby gregory23b » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:04 pm

Yes.

I fully believe the Tudor version of everything.

---


Seriously, if he didn't what happened to any suspects? What happened when the princes disappeared?

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that he saw them as an obstruction to his career and princes and kings are not averse to using their 'god given' rights to do anything they choose.

What I don't understand is why a king who was on the English throne for such a short period of time and who basically did nothing spectacular for the nation is held up in such high regard.

A recent BBC History article suggests he was sailing close to the wind in his marriage which was pretty much incestuous even for the time.

Also does anyone know whether it was true that he was the only king of the time to try and impose the death penalty for people not attending commissions of array?


middle english dictionary

Isabela on G23b "...somehow more approachable in real life"

http://medievalcolours.blogspot.com

"I know my place." Alice the Huswyf

User avatar
Allan Harley
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:28 pm
Location: Plotting world dominoes
Contact:

Postby Allan Harley » Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:19 pm

No one knows for certain and unless we manage to get hold of a time machine I doubt we ever will.
In my opinion it was my dear employer Harry Duke of Buckingham - either through Mortons weaselly words or possibly by error to curry further favour with Richard -

Yes - you've got it the Stafford baby smotherers are back - pass me another pillow this ones gone lumpy
Attachments
DSCF0168.jpg
DSCF0168.jpg (4.92 KiB) Viewed 3845 times


Away from the battle all are soldiers.

User avatar
AJ
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:07 am
Location: Nottingham

Postby AJ » Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:13 pm

I agree Allan - Geoffrey Richardson's take on it all has convinced me that Harry Buckingham at least orchestrated the dirty deed, with some prompting from "Morton's Fork".

Am cursing my mate Tuck as I'd love to stop and debate this with Jorge but an exam this monday means I have to retire to a dark, shady, corner (Sal, where are you? :lol: ) to revise.

I'll be back! :wink:


The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle, the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.

No - the pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.

Marcus Woodhouse
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:35 pm

Postby Marcus Woodhouse » Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:46 pm

Anyone who has been keeping up with "Lost" will know that it was the OTHERS who took the Princes in the Tower.


OSTENDE MIHI PECUNIAM!

User avatar
craig1459
Post Centurion
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:06 am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Postby craig1459 » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:02 pm

Some light could be shed if the Abbey would let scientists examine the bones.

I'm reasonably convinced that they were dead by the time of Bosworth - going by that fact that it was rumoured at the time - and cannot conceive how their deaths could take place without the knowledge and consent of the King


die Behmen hinder iren bafosen ... stunden vest wie die mauren

User avatar
Alan_F
Post Centurion
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:01 pm
Location: Grangemouth
Contact:

Postby Alan_F » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:45 pm

Allan Harley wrote:No one knows for certain and unless we manage to get hold of a time machine I doubt we ever will.
In my opinion it was my dear employer Harry Duke of Buckingham - either through Mortons weaselly words or possibly by error to curry further favour with Richard -

Yes - you've got it the Stafford baby smotherers are back - pass me another pillow this ones gone lumpy


We made not know for certain what his involvement was, but at the end of the say, he was in charge at the time of their disappearance. The attitude has always been throughout history, from the Babylonians up to more recent conflicts, that the person in charge, even if they're not the one carrying out that actual order, he or she is ultimately guilty because of the fact that they are the person in charge.

If one looks at a more recent conflict, such as the break up of the forner Yugoslavia, there we can clearly see this brought into focus: Slobodan Milosevic may not have carried out crimes against Bosnian or Croatian people himself, but it is more than certain that the troops who carried out these acts wouldn't have done so without the approval of Milosevic himself. The same can be applied to Richard - he may not have taken the Princes from the Tower, but it is more than likely that those who did this knew that he would have approved, IMO.


I re-enact therefore I am

Embrace the future of Steampunk Goodness!

User avatar
StaffordCleggy
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:25 pm
Location: Rochdale

Postby StaffordCleggy » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:56 pm

"Who shall rid me of this troublesome priest?"

<ENTER STAGE RIGHT 3 dodgy looking blokes in armour carrying naked swords>


"Those bloody Princes are a right pain in the bum, wish they'd just disappear..."



Same family, same principle.



User avatar
gregory23b
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2923
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Gyppeswyk, Suffolk

Postby gregory23b » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:59 pm

"I'd love to stop and debate this with Jorge but an exam this monday means I have to retire to a dark, shady, corner "


List ten good things that Richard the 3rd did for england, ok make it five.


muhahhahah ;-)


AJ, best of luck with the exam.


middle english dictionary

Isabela on G23b "...somehow more approachable in real life"

http://medievalcolours.blogspot.com

"I know my place." Alice the Huswyf

kate/bob
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:00 pm
Location: deepest Staffordshire

Postby kate/bob » Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:51 am

Any medieval monarch worth their salt got rid of the opposition, so he'd have been a fool not to have!



User avatar
Colin Middleton
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2037
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Postby Colin Middleton » Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:43 pm

List ten good things that Richard the 3rd did for england, ok make it five.


My starter for 1...

He prevented a repeat of the Henry IV fiasco by stopping the Woodvills running Edward V as a puppet king.

To that I'll add...

He founded the collage of arms.
He provided good and fair lordship to the people of the North of England
He opposed the evil machinations of that dog Clarance.
He loyaly supported his brother and in soding put an end the failing and undeserved rule of Henry VI & helped re-establish English power.
He successfully defended the northern borders against marauding Scots.
He raised troops and marched to meet the intrusions onto English soil by foreign invaders.
He did great service by his brother is the ancient conflict was France.

Okay, so you might not rate these as good things for Britain, but what did he do bad by our Nation? It's all very subjective.

As I understand it, he was a good and loyal soldier, a decent captain and a crap politician. He was distrusted in Londan because he spent so much time in the North and was disliked by the Nobles.

The reason he gets so much support for achieving so little is that he has been villified for so long by the Tudor's attempts to justify their power grab.


I used to lay the blame at Buckingham's feet, seeing him as a shrewd manipulater who had set Richard up to take the fall that would then allow him to ascend the throne.

Rescently I've begun to wonder if the princes weren't killed on Richard's order in an attempt to prevent the Wars of the Roses starting up again as the Woodvilles attempted to control the young Edward V, just as Somerset had done with the young Hendy VI, so much the harm of Richard's family. That would make his killing them an act to defend the country, all be it a VERY poorly judged one.

Was he evil? No.
Was he stupid? Possibly...

Colin


Colin

"May 'Blood, blood, blood' be your motto!"

Image

User avatar
gregory23b
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2923
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Gyppeswyk, Suffolk

Postby gregory23b » Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:47 pm

"He prevented a repeat of the Henry IV fiasco by stopping the Woodvills running Edward V as a puppet king."

By bumping off Ed V presumably...?

"He loyaly supported his brother and in soding put an end the failing and undeserved rule of Henry VI & helped re-establish English power. "

Hardly undeserved as he inherited it rightly from his father, failing, yes towards the end - but Richard's involvement is an indirect 'benefit' prior to his kingship.

"He successfully defended the northern borders against marauding Scots.
He raised troops and marched to meet the intrusions onto English soil by foreign invaders.
He did great service by his brother is the ancient conflict was France. "

Again not all as king, but as part of the greater political game.

"The reason he gets so much support for achieving so little is that he has been villified for so long by the Tudor's attempts to justify their power grab."

Granted, but there are still very few acts of note as a king, I guess I want to know why he was so good by his own merits rather than as compensation for obvious Tudor bias, ok so they re-wrote history, but what did he actually do that was a mark of his kingship? Henry VII for example made significant changes, the exchequer had money, the power of the nobility was curtailed so as to reduce their independent means of challenging the crown, the beginnings of good government for England. Yet Henry VII gets sidelined for a two year king with no major merit other than losing a major challeng to his crown - rightly or wrongly.

"As I understand it, he was a good and loyal soldier, a decent captain and a crap politician"

And the better kings of the proto-modern age had to be political animals not just warriors to better serve their people, had he worked harder in the South ergo London then he may have been a 'better' king, ie one that generated stability rather than taking his eye off the ball.

I am more curious to the cult of Richard rather than the Tudor version per se.


middle english dictionary

Isabela on G23b "...somehow more approachable in real life"

http://medievalcolours.blogspot.com

"I know my place." Alice the Huswyf

User avatar
Colin Middleton
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2037
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Postby Colin Middleton » Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:44 pm

Well what did you expect, throwing down a gauntlet like that? :lol:

Seriously though, Richard was not a good king. If he had been, Bosworth would have written iteself very differently. On the other hand, he was not a bad king either. He spent most of his 2 year reign trying to put an end to the conflicts of the nobles and I think suffered badly from manipulation by more savvy lords. What good did any king do in his first 2 years, even without the political upheaval.

I'm certain that the main reason for the heavily pro Richard cult is as a direct reaction to him being held up as the ymbol of villany. Look at how views of Islam have been polarised by the involvement of the modern media.

Another side of it is that he seems to have been greatly respected and supported in the Norht of England, especially Yorkshire as a good lord (from his time before he was king). York records mourning at his death, there is a supposedly medieval statue of him in Scarbrough and I'm certain that there are other examples I'm not aware of.

Colin


Colin

"May 'Blood, blood, blood' be your motto!"

Image

User avatar
MedicKitten
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 6:46 pm
Location: in the wilds of New Hampshire

Postby MedicKitten » Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:18 pm

Well lets do this properly, starting with things we DO know:
1. the princes were never seen AFTER Richard put them in the tower
2. if they were alive, presumably he would have paraded them about to prove that he DIDNT kill them
3. one would think that their sister would have gotten them freed after Bosworth if they were still alive, seeing as she was queen by then
4. Richard would have been stupid to leave rival puppets alive, just as Henry VIII would have been monumentally stupid to spare Buckingham.


Ita erat quando hic adveni.

User avatar
craig1459
Post Centurion
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:06 am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Postby craig1459 » Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:04 pm

MedicKitten wrote:Well lets do this properly, starting with things we DO know:
1. the princes were never seen AFTER Richard put them in the tower


They were seen playing and didn't Mancini say that they were seen less and less. That lends itself to natural causes - didn't Edward V have a bone disease supposedly?


die Behmen hinder iren bafosen ... stunden vest wie die mauren

User avatar
Brother Tuck
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:59 am
Location: Nottingham

Postby Brother Tuck » Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:57 am

that was fun, sorry aj thought the exam was out of the way. the programme just to clarify is the one with tony robinson


The greatest philosophers in the world met to discuss all the great unsolved questions of the world. and one question had them stumped



What Exactly is The Purpose of a Rubber Duck?

Marcus Woodhouse
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:35 pm

Postby Marcus Woodhouse » Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:50 am

Ah your English Kings we mercenaries are never sure which one we are fighting for. It is better this way, no? (Said with a Savoyd accent.)


OSTENDE MIHI PECUNIAM!

User avatar
Colin Middleton
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2037
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Postby Colin Middleton » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:33 pm

2. if they were alive, presumably he would have paraded them about to prove that he DIDNT kill them
3. one would think that their sister would have gotten them freed after Bosworth if they were still alive, seeing as she was queen by then
4. Richard would have been stupid to leave rival puppets alive, just as Henry VIII would have been monumentally stupid to spare Buckingham.


Sorry MedicKitten, but I can't agree.

Even if the boys were alive, parading them around could have weekend Richard's position, rather than strengthen it as they would present a focus for his enemies to rally round. There's also the possibility that rather than kill them, he sent them into exile, which would stop him producing them too (No, I don't beleive that one either).

As for Elizabeth getting them freed, that's right out. Richard's claim to the throne was that Edward's children were illigitimate (parliament actually issued document to that effect, I beleive). Tudor then deposed him on the basis that he was an evil usurper and Edward's children WERE legitimate and hence had a better claim to the crown than Richard. That's part of why he married Elizabeth of York, to stop some-one else getting a better claim. If the boys were alive when Turdor took London, they had a better claim to the crown than him. Far better to kill them and claim that Richard was a murderer as well as a despot! If the boys were alive in the tower when Tudor took it, they won't have lasted long. :twisted:

There really is very much reliable fact here. We're basically studying history through reading past issues of the Sun and BNP pamphlets :shock:

Colin


Colin

"May 'Blood, blood, blood' be your motto!"

Image

User avatar
Brother Tuck
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:59 am
Location: Nottingham

Postby Brother Tuck » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:32 pm

smeone told me that richard had the boys killed to stop anyone raising a banner on thier behalf and kicking richard off the throne, if he had killed them wouldn't he have paraded thier bodies to show they were dead and made up a reasonable excuse such as enfluenza etc


The greatest philosophers in the world met to discuss all the great unsolved questions of the world. and one question had them stumped



What Exactly is The Purpose of a Rubber Duck?

Marcus Woodhouse
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:35 pm

Re: Fact or Fiction : Richard III - Accurate or Complete Hash

Postby Marcus Woodhouse » Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:40 pm

After looking at a great deal of evidence I've concluded that the butler did it with a candlestick in the kitchen.


OSTENDE MIHI PECUNIAM!

Eric the well read
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Cloud 9

Re: Fact or Fiction : Richard III - Accurate or Complete Hash

Postby Eric the well read » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:00 pm

Marcus Woodhouse wrote:After looking at a great deal of evidence I've concluded that the butler did it with a candlestick in the kitchen.

:lol: :lol:
Or possibly a bottle of 'Primary Sauce' :wink:
Regards
Eric



User avatar
Chris, yclept John Barber
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:23 pm
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Re: Fact or Fiction : Richard III - Accurate or Complete Hash

Postby Chris, yclept John Barber » Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:41 pm

I'm of the opinion (completely unsubstantiated by primary sources!) that the boys were more use to Richard alive and in the Tower than dead. Rivals who wanted to be rid of him would always need a figurehead to support in his place, and if the Princes were alive they would be the natural ones to nominate for the throne. Keeping them under his control would ensure that rebels cannot produce the figurehead they claim to be supporting - no clash of rival kings, no statement of support for their aims, etc.

If the Princes were dead, then R3's opponents go back in the family tree to find someone with the next best connection to the Throne - oooh, there's some guy called Tudor... Who's off in France and out of Richard's control.

So the most likely explanation is that the boys died of natural causes, and Richard suppressed the knowledge so that the Rebels wouldn't look for another figurehead.


Of course he has a knife. He always has a knife. We all have knives - it's 1183 and we're barbarians.


Return to “1100-1500”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests