News:

Welcome to the Renaissancefestival.com Forums!  Please post an introduction after signing up!

For an updated map of Ren Fests check out The Ren List at http://www.therenlist.com!

The Chat server is now running again, just select chat on the menu!

Main Menu

Richard III--Villain or Victim?

Started by Welsh Wench, March 24, 2011, 07:09:54 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Welsh Wench

Was Richard III a villain or just the victim of bad press?

He was accused of killing his nephews in the Tower of London so he could ascend to the throne. But is this true?
Was Shakespeare trying to win favour with the Tudors by portraying him as a villain?

What really happened to the princes in the Tower?

Did Henry Tudor really have a substantial claim to the throne?

And what would England have been like if the Tudors never ascended?

Interesting, isn't it?

Check out the Richard III Society's site. Lots of insight into the Tudor times if you click on various links.

http://www.richardiii.net/


Show me your tan lines..and I'll show you mine!

I just want to be Layla.....

Hospitaller

Very interesting site, WW. When we were at the Tower in '07, there was a historical team doing research on the two Princes' deaths, and a that time we were told there was little evidence as to the timing and manner of their demise. Regardless of Richard's possible guilt in that matter, there is little doubt he had anything abut his reign resembling a Saint. But then again, how many English monarchs honestly were not ruthless brutal overlords???

BLAKDUKE

#2
A pre-requisite to answering this would be to read Kendalls biography.  

After all I have read on the subject it is my opinion(that and $1.50 gets you a cup of coffee) that Henry VII is the PRIME suspect of having killed the two princes of the tower.  

Fact: the two boys were the most harmfull to Henry.  Richard had effectively eliminated(legally not physically) them as  
       heirs to the throne by declaring them illegitimate including their sister elizabeth.

Fact: Henrys claim to the throne is a long circuitous route starting from the wrong side of the blankets.

Fact: Henry charged Richard with treason by dating his reign from 1 day prior to the battle of Bosworth field.

Fact: No mention is made of the boys in the charge of treason, only the usual charges of crimes against the realm
       which the murders of the princes could be in that but why not mention them in the bill of attainder.  Simple, they  
       were not dead.

Fact: Henry, in order to marry Elizabeth and further his claim to the throne,  he had to remove the stain of illegitimacy from
        her, in doing so he also legitimizes the princes.  They are now more of a danger to him, as they have a direct line of
        decent from their father Edward IV, than they ever were to Richard.

Shakesperes information were garnered from Sir Thomas More who was Henry VIII presonal historian.  More could not have
known much on the subject as he was only 6 years old at the Battle of Bosworth Field.  Since Shakespere was writing at the time of QE I he was not about to cast any ill light on the Queens grandfather.

Some have eluded to Buckingham doing the deed, either at Richards suggestion or on his own thinking it would benefit Richard, however even if he did,  the sister was still alive, he had to get rid of her as well but did not, so either Buckingham was inept or innocent.


These are the main items that I have gleaned on the subject  
Ancient swordsman/royalty
Have Crown/Sword Will Travel

BLAKDUKE

#3
Quote from: Hospitaller on March 24, 2011, 08:31:41 AM
Regardless of Richard's possible guilt in that matter, there is little doubt he had anything abut his reign resembling a Saint. But then again, how many English monarchs honestly were not ruthless brutal overlords???

Hospitaller:

While not completely dis-agreeing with you,  based on the actual historical documents that are available(there are many) and discounting anything written by the Bard, Richard comes across a lot better than the rest.  He was completely devoted to his brother Edward IV, he was an able and most noteworthy administrator in his northern shire of York, the people there loved. him  He dispensed justice quite well thru out his term as the Duke of York.  One has to look at what took place after he became King.  First off he was betrayed by a number of what should have been his closest advisors(Buckingham for one) along with others.  I think, by the time of the Battle at Bosworth Field, he had come to the realization that things were going to have to change drastically and unfortunately for him some of these(the Stanleys for one) decided that this course change was not in their best interest.  Plus I am reasonably sure that Henry Tudor promised much to these people and thinking that they would not get as much from Richard  decided to betray him on the field.  That was the only reason that Henry Tudor won the day was that the Stanleys betrayed Richard at the point where for only a few more yards Richard would have slain him quite handily.  No one can ever say for sure what would have happened if Richard had won the day.  It cannot be said that the Tudors would not have come to power eventually, but it is interesting to speculate to say the least.
The BLAKDUKE

Ancient swordsman/royalty
Have Crown/Sword Will Travel

Rowan MacD

Quote from: BLAKDUKE on March 24, 2011, 08:52:51 AM
A prerequisite to answering this would be to read Kendalls biography. 
After all I have read on the subject it is my opinion(that and $1.50 gets you a cup of coffee) that Henry VII is the PRIME suspect of having killed the two princes of the tower.     
Fact: Henry, in order to marry Elizabeth and further his claim to the throne,  he had to remove the stain of illegitimacy from her, but in doing so he also legitimizes the princes.  They are now more of a danger to him, as they have a direct line of  decent from their father Edward IV, than they ever were to Richard.
Very good point. The 'follow the money' rule tends to hold true; and I have always thought that Henry Tudor had more to gain from the deaths of the princes than Richard.
  However, I do believe that Richard would have had them killed in a heartbeat if it would have been necessary to secure the throne for him, but he did not needto commit regicide to be King, he already had the crown; whereas Henry would not have been able to hang on to the crown in his own right as long as the princes lived.
   
What doesn't kill me-had better run.
IWG wench #3139 
19.7% FaireFolk pure-80.3% FaireFolk corrupt

Welsh Wench

It was a good political move on Henry VII's part to marry the supposed murdered princes's sister Elizabeth of York.

She was the only woman to be a daughter, sister, niece and wife of an English monarch in her lifetime.

So many things were wrong about the Battle of Bosworth Field. One wonders if just one factor were tweaked, if the outcome would have been different.

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

I find it really sad.
Show me your tan lines..and I'll show you mine!

I just want to be Layla.....

BLAKDUKE

Quote from: Welsh Wench on March 24, 2011, 09:34:51 PM
So many things were wrong about the Battle of Bosworth Field. One wonders if just one factor were tweaked, if the outcome would have been different.
With historical facts I always hate to deal in absolutes but in this case I would almost have to say absolutely.

Had the Stanleys remained loyal there would have been no Tudor dynasty.  They cut Richard down when he was within yards of Henry on the battle field.  I hate having to give any credit to that Tudor twit, but he did remain rooted to the spot as Richard charged him, out of courage, fear, or knowledge of what the Stanleys were up to is pure speculation, however Richard mowed down a member of Henrys own body guard, plus his standard bearer who was himself a reknowned jouster.  To have stayed put under those circumstances. Wow!!!!!!!!
Ancient swordsman/royalty
Have Crown/Sword Will Travel

DonaCatalina

#7
In 1674, the skeletons of two children were discovered under the staircase leading to the chapel, during the course of renovations to the White Tower. At that time, these were believed to have been the remains of the two princes. On the orders of Charles II the remains were reburied in Westminster Abbey. In 1933, the grave was opened to see if modern science could cast any light on the issues, but precise identification of the age and gender was not then possible.

- Other than that damning tidbit, Richard II was very likely the victim of a smear campaign by Henry.
Aurum peccamenes multifariam texit
Marquesa de Trives
Portrait Goddess

BLAKDUKE

Quote from: DonaCatalina on March 25, 2011, 09:59:15 AM
In 1674, the skeletons of two children were discovered under the staircase leading to the chapel, during the course of renovations to the White Tower. At that time, these were believed to have been the remains of the two princes. On the orders of Charles II the remains were reburied in Westminster Abbey. In 1933, the grave was opened to see if modern science could cast any light on the issues, but precise identification of the age and gender was not then possible.

- Other than that damning tidbit, Richard II was very likely the victim of a smear campaign by Henry.

I don't see a damning tidbit on R III,   They could just as easily have been put there by H VII.  And as of today, we have the technology to determine once and for all time who these bones were or were not, the British Guv'mnt has steadfastly refused to grant any further testing of the bones whatsoever.   That part I don't understand.
Ancient swordsman/royalty
Have Crown/Sword Will Travel

Welsh Wench

#9
Ironically the bones found were put in the Henry VII chapel in Westminster Abbey by Charles II.

It would be a twist of fate if Henry VII had them murdered and now their bones reside next to him.

http://historicallyobsessed.blogspot.com/2009/08/bloody-tower-and-lost-princes.html



Is it me or is there a Peter Frampton thing going on here?  :D
Show me your tan lines..and I'll show you mine!

I just want to be Layla.....

Slam n

Have to be a Richard fan so my vote is for victim.  I know this is fiction but if you are interested, check out Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Kay Penman... absolutely fantastic and based on as much fact as possible.

Welsh Wench

#11
I love Sharon Kay Penman!

A while back, I visited a spot in Lake George NY called Bloody Pond.
It was the site of where my husband's ?x great grandfather's troops were ambushed during the French and Indian War.
Anyways, I went down there by myself and felt an air of absolute desolation even after 350 years.

I am wondering if with the fierceness and the treachery, if a sense of desolation would be there at Bosworth Field.
Show me your tan lines..and I'll show you mine!

I just want to be Layla.....

Welsh Wench

For those who are interested in history--

The Battle of Bosworth is in the wrong place.
Archaelogical findings have shed new light on its location.

And all because of this pin--


The entire article is here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1252208/Real-location-Richard-IIIs-Battle-Bosworth-500-years.html
Show me your tan lines..and I'll show you mine!

I just want to be Layla.....

DonaCatalina

That's really cool. I'm tickled they found so many artifacts.
Aurum peccamenes multifariam texit
Marquesa de Trives
Portrait Goddess

DonaCatalina

I had to go back an skim some of my books. The main and possibly legitimizing factor in the rebellion against Richard was the rumoured murder of the princes. If Richard could have produced them and had them seen in public, some of the more reluctant nobles may have sued for peace.
However he did not. Why not remove the most potent weapon in the rebel's hands if he could?
It is more than likely that he could not.
The princes were never seen alive again after 1483.
Aurum peccamenes multifariam texit
Marquesa de Trives
Portrait Goddess