For the defense, "Fr. K.":
The ‘Black Legend’ about Richard III arose during the reign of the Tudors: now there was a dysfunctional family if ever there was one. The founder of the dynasty Henry VII who defeated Richard at the Battle of Bosworth Field had a tenuous claim to the English throne, to say the least. To consolidate his position all sorts of stories were put out about his predecessor, including the erroneous story that he was a hunchback, hence the sobriquet, ‘Richard Crookback.’
His ‘ghost’ wss used to frighten naughty children, a sort of 15th century bogey man.The lies continued on and were given added credence and wider dissemination by one Sir Thomas More, of all people, who wrote very negatively about Richard III, probably to gain favour with King Henry VIII. [Just shows how dangerous that can be!].
His history of Richard III probably formed the basis for Shakespeare’s play ‘Richard III,’ which portrays him as a blackhearted, deformed monster of a man. No doubt, Shakespeare did this to curry favour with the last of the Tudors, Queen Elizabeth I, who was a powerful and generous patron of the arts, especially the dramatic arts.
In truth, Richard was a splendid example, as was his brother, Edward IV, of the Renaissance Prince: he was wise, shrewd, courageous, just and well educated. He was, it is now certain, nothing like the monster portrayed by the Tudors.
and "Christian":
I live in the area on and around Bosworth field and around here all the Churches are filled with white Roses and plaques to ‘our Murdered king’. How does such love descend through over 500 years if the man was the monster he is often portrayed as. You can bet you bottom dollar that if he had won that battle their would have been no Reformation in England – he was a man of extreme religiosity and came from the ancient kings of England – the Plantagenets – who over saw the glories of medieval English Catholicism ‘Mary’s dowry’.
For the prosecution, "Aelianus" scoffs:
This rehabilitation business is silly. It is hardly surprising that it is difficult to prove Richard killed the ‘Princes in the Tower’ five hundred years after the event. Nevertheless, it looks like someone killed them doesn’t it? He had the means and the motive and he was the last one to have them in his care before they permanently disappeared. Whether he killed them or not he stole their throne. The man was unquestionably a traitor and a usurper. Even if one tries to claim Edward IV was illegitimate that would still make the children of Richard’s elder brother the Duke of Clarence the rightful heirs not Richard himself. True, Henry VII had an almost Hanoverianly poor claim to the throne but his wife (whom he sworn to marry before embarking for England) was, on the assumption the princes were dead and Edward IV legitimate, the rightful heir. Deposing and bumping off Henry VI may have not been very nice but it did seem to settle the dynastic problem created by Henry IV’s usurpation. I can’t see how a further round of usurpation and probable murder leading inevitably to another civil war constitutes an attempt “to unite his country after generations of war”.
And an alternate theory about who killed the two young princes:
I’ve long favored the theory that it was Henry Tudor who offed the Princes in the Tower. Yes, Richard III had motive and may have had opportunity, since even though the princes had been declared bastards and ineligible to succeed to the throne, nevertheless the princes could have eventually caused problems. They could initiate or be the pawns of attempts to overthrow Richard.
Nevertheless, Henry Tudor had motive also, and may have had opportunity, since we don’t know if the Princes in the Tower were killed before Bosworth Field or after. But we do know that their sister Elizabeth of York was legitimated after Henry Tudor killed Richard and usurped the throne. Elizabeth, like her brothers, had been declared illegitimate. But Henry Tudor himself was descended from a legitimated Lancastrian bastard whose descendants had been explicitly and permanently excluded from ever succeeding to the throne. Since Henry Tudor was a usurper, he needed to secure a right to the throne, and the easiest way to do that was to marry a lawful heiress. Elizabeth, though legally declared a bastard, was the best candidate and therefore had to be re-legitimated. But to do that would mean her brothers would also be re-legitimated, which means they would have a superior right to the throne than Elizabeth’s husband Henry Tudor.
Who's right? I have no earthly idea. But apparently there are a lot of people out there who know- the- kings- of- England- and- can- quote- the- fights- historical - from- Marathon- to- Waterloo- in- order- categorical. Impressive.
