Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  He whacked the princes (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    equern, hayden, Paper Cup, PrahaPartizan

    It's only considered a grave crime in historical terms because he was propagandized against. In a hereditary monarchy your relatives are your rivals.  

    I'm certain there were plenty more princes whacked in England's history that aren't brought up as evidence of villainy. They just didn't happen at a change of Royal House.

    It offends our sensibilities, but at the time it was good politics. A civil war would kill many many more than the two princelings.

    We get what we want - or what we fail to refuse. - Muhammad Yunus

    by nightsweat on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:44:11 AM PST

    •  He certainly did not whack his other nephews, (8+ / 0-)

      although Henry did whack them all when he became king. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Henry or his minion Buckingham whacked these princes also.

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

      by sewaneepat on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 12:33:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  William Clito comes to mind (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CA wildwoman

      As well as his father, Robert (Curthose).

      Grandson and son, respectively, of William the Bastard (the Conqueror), prophetically the start of a long line of "illegitimate" monarchs, or those who would be.

    •  He may have whacked his nephews (0+ / 0-)

      or someone else may have.

      But your overall point is right on target. The reason he dispossed them of the throne was that they were under the influence of the Woodvilles who hated Richard and Richard hated the Woodvilles.

      I suspect that Richard went to London fully intending to act as Lord Protector of the Realm but that he discovered he couldn't work with the young Edward and that once Edward ascended to the throne he would in turn "whack" Richard.

      So in order to save the realm of the Woodvilles and to save his own ass as well as to gain the throne himself (something for which there was no signs of any prior desire on his part but certainly must have been attractice) he dispossed the boys by declaring them bastards.

      Later he may have come to the conclusion that he would spend the rest of his life fighting enemies that would try to dispose him in the name of the young Edward so he decided to have them killed.

      Or he may not have and the Duke of Buckingham may have... or Henry VII may have... or considerably less likely, someone else may have.

      But it was simply politically expedient for them to die from the point of view of any number of power players of that day.

      And yes, during the War of the Roses, the royalty and lords of england were decimated over a couple of generations. When Richard called his first parliament very few members of the house of lords attended because so very many holders of titles were young boys and many of them of subsidiary houses because the traditional lines had died out in the wars... just as the Plantagenets did with Richard (well... his other nephew later killed by the Tudors was actually the last male of the line).

      "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 06:41:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (60)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (27)
  • Elections (21)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Economy (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Hillary Clinton (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Media (16)
  • Politics (16)
  • Environment (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Texas (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site