Skip to main content

View Diary: Why We Should Care About Richard III (315 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  On the contrary, Richard was an excellent (9+ / 0-)

    administrator when he governed the North for his brother, and a reformer in his 2 short years as king. He was well loved by the common people he governed.

    Henry VII, on the other hand was a ruthless, greedy man whose mismanaged his country's resources.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:27:52 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  not at all true (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jay C, hayden

      both richard and henry were loved and hated, in a very divided country. and richard was a ruthless killer throughout the wars, but it was okay when it was on behalf of his brother, despite that illegitimate first marriage that richard only worried about once his brother was dead and his own path to the throne went through such a claim.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:34:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is certainly true that Richard was loved in the (12+ / 0-)

        North, which is where he was the administrator. It is also true that he was a reformer during his tenure as king.

        If he was not well loved, why did the people of York proclaim "This day was our good King Richard piteously slain and murdered; to the great heaviness of this city."  This was an extremely brave statement to make just as Henry was being proclaimed king.

        Richard had no motive for killing his nephews; Henry did. Richard certainly did not kill his other nephews and indeed made them his heirs: Henry killed them.

        Reading the history of Richard III through the lens of Tudor historians is akin to reading the history of President Obama through the lens of Teabaggers. The truth is elsewhere.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:47:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hayden

          they both were loved in their home territories, and the tudors were loved in wales and the marches.

          richard's motive was to become king, and he did have legitimate worries about his own future once he no longer was protector, and even that was disputed. and there's no evidence that the boys were alive by the time henry took the throne, and it defies credulity to think the boys' mom would have approved and continued to support the marriage of their sister to henry if there had been any reason to think henry rather than richard culpable.

          the riccardian claim fails many occam's razor tests.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:52:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If the boys died in 1483, as some think, (8+ / 0-)

            then I would suggest that the Earl of Buckingham who was plotting with Henry Tudor is the likely culprit. If they lived until 1485 as others think, then Henry is the likely culprit.

            Richard had no worries from the Princes as they had been declared illegitmate. Henry, whose own claims were based on an illegitimate line from generations back, did have worries concerning the Princes, as well as from the other York children whom he also imprisoned and murdered. Especially after he had the Titulus Regius destroyed thereby declaring the princes legitimate. If he were not sure they were dead, it is highly unlikely he would have had their claim to the throne declared legitimate.

            There are many reasons Elizabeth Woodville would consent to the marriage of her daughter to Henry. She was an ambitious mother and was given the title of Queen Dowager and lived quite royally at Bermondsey Abbey until her death. Another reason was that it did protect her other children, including Elizabeth, and insured that her line would be kings (and queen) of England. Also, there is the fact that there was little she could do about it if Henry insisted on marrying Elizabeth in order to shore up his claim to the throne. In fact, perhaps knowing the lengths Henry would go to in order to retain the throne, she thought that was the only was she and her other children could be safe.

            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

            by sewaneepat on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:12:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  she helped henry (0+ / 0-)

              even before the marriage. she actively supported his move against richard. and it again defies credulity, and her own history of scheming and machinating, that she would accept the sacrifice of her sons, and turn against their uncle, who had during edward's lifetime been so loyal to her husband and herself.

              and buckingham didn't have access. no one got to the boys but by richard's order. again, it's occam's razor.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:27:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Where do you get your information (4+ / 0-)

                that Buckingham did not have access?

                You have a better opinion of Elizabeth than I do.

                You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                by sewaneepat on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:39:08 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  she clearly loved her children (0+ / 0-)

                  and did what she could to protect them. throughout her marriage and after, and throughout her time in sanctuary, she always put her children first, and always was plotting on their behalf. i don't have a high opinion of her, overall, but she always was a fiercely protective mother. in fact, she was fiercely protective of her entire family, which caused edward no end of problems, including contributing greatly to the split with warwick.

                  the princes were held in high security, and brackenbury was absolutely loyal to richard. no one could have gotten through him, and if anyone had tried, he would have notified richard.

                  every contemporary european writer was certain richard was responsible, tyrell later confessed, and more proved he put principle over his life.

                  The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                  by Laurence Lewis on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:51:25 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't think any contemporary writers accused (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SadieSue, CA wildwoman, Wee Mama

                    Richard at all.

                    More was not a contemporary writer. He was a child when it happened so he based his history on Morton who owed his Archbishopric to Henry VII, not a particularly unbiased source.

                    Many people confess to crimes they did not commit when those confessions are obtained under torture.

                    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                    by sewaneepat on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:58:55 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  continental writers took it for granted (0+ / 0-)

                      the french court took it for granted.

                      more interviewed plenty of people who were alive at the time, including widows of some of the people involved. he did plenty of research.

                      the bottom line issue i have with much of the riccardian narrative is that it often tries to make richard out as not that bad a guy, and unfairly maligned. the reality is that they were all- on all sides- cruel, bloodthirsty, and greedy. some did some good things, but none was remotely noble or honorable, and this goes right back to the conqueror.

                      as for the princes, it's all occam's razor. richard forced them out of sanctuary, had them securely held by people deeply loyal to him, had reason to fear for his own life if the young king was to assume power and end the protectorate, and after having loyally supported his brother only came to question the legitimacy of the marriage to elizabeth when it served his own ambitions. elizabeth- as cruel, bloodthirsty, and greedy as all the rest- almost certainly would have had richard killed, but there is no way she would have allied with someone who had had her sons killed.

                      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                      by Laurence Lewis on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:39:53 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  She might well have aligned with someone who (0+ / 0-)

                        murdered her sons if it kept her other children safe.

                        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                        by sewaneepat on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:51:39 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  henry had zero access (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          jayden

                          to london, much less the tower. unless you think richard was keeping them alive but hidden for years, which would have served him no purpose. part of the reason public sentiment turned against him was the assumption that he had killed the boys, so producing proof that they were alive would have been very helpful to him.

                          and again- until elizabeth aligned with henry, he was not considered a strong pretender to the throne. what we now know of history was unknown to them, and henry was exiled in france, with few allies and little hope.

                          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                          by Laurence Lewis on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:58:08 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  Would occam's razor not also suggest (0+ / 0-)

                that he who benefits is the most likely perpetrator and that he who has a history of ruthlessness, greed, and the use of the Star Chamber is the most likely to behave in such a manner.

                You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                by sewaneepat on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:48:12 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Bingo (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sewaneepat

          that is the significance and the relevance of why this diary is important. The Tudors were the Villagers.

      •  "A ruthless killer?" (5+ / 0-)

        How was Richard any more ruthless than Henry II?  Or Richard I?  Or Stephen?  Or William Marshal or Llewellyn Fawr or Simon de Montfort?

        All of these men, including Richard, were proven generals, fighters and warriors.  What makes Richard so much worse?

        And, for that matter, why does Edward IV get a pass for offing his own brother, George of Clarence?  Edward I put his cousin in a cage for over 20 years, but Richard is the only evil one?  

        Also, how would Richard have found out about the plight-troth, if Stillington hadn't told him?  It wasn't public knowledge until after Edward died.

        •  who said he was, and who gave anyone a pass? (0+ / 0-)

          richard had people tortured and summarily executed. that they all were a vicious lot doesn't excuse him.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:35:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Culture (32)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (27)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (19)
  • International (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site