|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 26, 2017 3:19:54 GMT
In view of the recent excavation and examination of Richard's skeleton from beneath a Leicester car park which belies much of Tudor propaganda so shamefully endorsed by Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More, should a reappraisal of Richard's short reign be made? Was he good or bad?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 10:26:36 GMT
Most of the things we know about Richard III seem to be Tudor Propaganda. He was probably not as bad as people think.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 26, 2017 11:28:46 GMT
We know quite a lot about Richard, most of them good. Strange that all the so-called bad things about Richard only started after his defeat at Bosworth Field (1485) when Henry usurped the throne, and all came from Tudor and Lancastrian sources and supporters. History is written by the victors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 13:33:32 GMT
Yeah, I agree that old Henry VII seemed to go out of his way to besmirch Richard's name from the start, and Shakespeare just added to the revisionist history with all the Tudor butt-kissing he did with his writings. I mean, I get it, Henry VII wanted to secure that throne for good, and that was part of the strategy (along with marrying Elizabeth of York), but it sucks how muddied the waters became over time (but, like you said, Tarathian, history is written by the victors, hence most of the history we all hold dear is mostly warped anyway). The story of him ordering the death of the two princes in the tower is so deeply ingrained into legend, how do you even begin to start changing that image (especially when people love a good dastardly villain so much)?
Did you happen to see the history program where they found a young fella with similar spinal/scoliosis issues as discovered on Richard's skeleton? They showed that he very likely was not the 'hunchback' of legend, that he probably just suffered some asymmetry effects. They took the young man through all sorts of challenges Richard would have faced, to see how he'd fare wearing armor and riding horses, sword-fighting, all sorts of things. It showed Richard might have been extremely physically capable of doing a lot of things the skewed Tudor-friendly histories would suggest he never could. I can't remember the name of the documentary, but I found it on YouTube not that long ago. I found their experiment really fascinating.
It seems scholars and historians are hitting the scrolls and stacks harder now, attempting to find more accurate information about Richard III's life and deeds, so that perhaps we might get a more rounded picture of who he really was. It will be interesting to see how much it changes with all of this renewed interest in him.
I used to think of him as one of the 'classic baddies' in British history, it took me a long time to realize just how far the Tudors went in order to vilify him. I still don't quite think of him as 'good', but I certainly don't think he was as bad as I once thought he was.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 26, 2017 13:51:40 GMT
Indeed I did. It also belied the claim that Richard had a withered hand. As you inferred he faced all sorts of challenges in his short life. He battled with the Scots at the border, he administered his brother's northerly parts of his kingdom with great success, and unlike the other brother Clarence was utterly loyal to Edward throughout his (Edward's) life. Even after Gloucester became Richard III the laws passed were so sensible that most of them are still in force to this day. This doesn't sound to me like the actions of a "monster".
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 26, 2017 18:19:31 GMT
he usurped the throne from his nephews and then had them murdered. While other kings had been equally ruthless in dealing with those they usurped, the fact that they were his nephews and he was supposed to be their protector is unpleasant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 18:29:27 GMT
he usurped the throne from his nephews and then had them murdered. While other kings had been equally ruthless in dealing with those they usurped, the fact that they were his nephews and he was supposed to be their protector is unpleasant. Nobody knows if he killed his nephews. You seem to be falling for Tudor propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 26, 2017 18:45:53 GMT
Please show us proof that the Princes were murdered, as historians have been puzzling that question since they disappeared. If you have in mind the skeletons that were found, forget it. It hasn't been proved whose bones they are, and the Palace authorities refuse to let them be examined with modern forensic techniques. Odd, don't you think?
As feologild states you seem to be falling for the old Tudor clap-trap.
|
|
NileQT87
Sophomore
Billowy Coat, King of Pain
@nileqt87
Posts: 532
Likes: 60
|
Post by NileQT87 on Feb 27, 2017 6:11:09 GMT
I'm another one in the Ricardian camp. And it's utterly amazing how historians are really being forced to go back to the real sources rather than just regurgitate the Tudor myth, or worse, Shakespeare's very ahistorical plays (Richard III is far from alone--ask Joan of Arc and Macbeth!). I was pretty hardcore into learning this era of history and discussions of the Wars of the Roses/Plantagenets as a result of the archaeological discovery in 2012-2013. And although sadly full of inaccuracies, I do thank The White Queen in part for bringing a lot of interest into the various players in the Wars of the Roses. It got a lot of people searching for the real history. In terms of archaeology, the finding of Richard III, due to the nature of his sad hacked, naked, humiliated, wrist-bound, hastily-buried, feet-chopped (apparently by a Victorian outhouse) + yet another indignity, scoliotic skeletal remains challenging the myth and causing the "history" written by the victors to be checked, debated and corrected, was one of the most significant in my lifetime; perhaps only second to the Romanovs, who were technically found in 1978, but kept quiet until 1991, then the last two were found in 2007. Obviously, King Tut, the Titanic and the Romanovs probably created the most buzz in the 20th century, but were mostly before I was born in 1987 (and I was a tad too young in 1991). I would say that Richard III probably got the most people talking about archaeology in the 21st century. Interestingly, more than a few of these have caused the long-believed historical record or some seriously insidious propaganda to be rewritten and corrected. Richard III, Plantagenets, Wars of the Roses, Romanovs, WWI, Russian Revolution, Habsburgs, Mozart and Ancient Egypt are all amongst my major pet historical topics. Here is a fascinating little article about some playing cards from c. 1478 (seemingly in celebration of the marriage of Maximilian von Habsburg to Mary of Burgundy) that include some very rare non-posthumous (a few like Charles the Bold are definitely posthumous) portraits of connected family (and via Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy, sister of Edward IV, George, Duke of Clarence and Richard III, that includes the Yorkist Plantagenets): thedragonhound.com/2015/03/10/elizabeth-woodville-and-the-cloisters-deck-popular-portraits-of-royaltyAnd here's an interesting little article (I recommend this whole blog) regarding then Richard, Duke of Gloucester previously having had a land/inheritance dispute with Thomas Stanley, stepfather of Henry VII Tudor (along with his brother William Stanley, who led the charge), his ultimate betrayer at the Battle of Bosworth: mattlewisauthor.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/hornby-castle-the-price-of-power-2/
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 27, 2017 6:30:01 GMT
Thanks for the links Nile. Here's another one to browse through if you haven't already done so. www.richardiii.net/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 6:03:17 GMT
And here's an interesting little article (I recommend this whole blog) regarding then Richard, Duke of Gloucester previously having had a land/inheritance dispute with Thomas Stanley, stepfather of Henry VII Tudor (along with his brother William Stanley, who led the charge), his ultimate betrayer at the Battle of Bosworth: mattlewisauthor.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/hornby-castle-the-price-of-power-2/I can already tell I'm about to sacrifice hours of my life on that blog (but I don't mind). Thanks so much for the share!
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Mar 1, 2017 17:05:43 GMT
I should warn anyone new to delving into the mystery of the disappearance of the Princes, that such exploration is addictive and a danger to sanity :-)
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Mar 2, 2017 12:14:15 GMT
Would that be TV York or TV Tudor? What are you on?
|
|
|
Post by louise on Mar 5, 2017 14:52:50 GMT
he usurped the throne from his nephews and then had them murdered. While other kings had been equally ruthless in dealing with those they usurped, the fact that they were his nephews and he was supposed to be their protector is unpleasant. Nobody knows if he killed his nephews. You seem to be falling for Tudor propaganda. he had means, motive, and oppotunity. and they disappeared while supposedly under his protection. He ws a very ruthlesss man, and i see no good reason to doubt he killed them. he wasa thoroughly unpleaant person. see alison weir's book The Princes in the Tower.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Mar 5, 2017 14:57:26 GMT
Please show us proof that the Princes were murdered, as historians have been puzzling that question since they disappeared. If you have in mind the skeletons that were found, forget it. It hasn't been proved whose bones they are, and the Palace authorities refuse to let them be examined with modern forensic techniques. Odd, don't you think? As feologild states you seem to be falling for the old Tudor clap-trap. since the princes disappeared while under the protection of their treacherous uncle, it seems most likely that he disposed of them. he had already shown himself deficient in family feeling by snatching the throne from them and putting them in the tower. No reason to suppose he had any qualms about doing them in. Nobody else had the oportunity he did. The skeletons may or may not be those of the princes, but it seems more than likely. And no, i don't think it odd the palace won't allow them to be examined. why should they?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 15:12:29 GMT
Nobody knows who killed the Princes in the tower. This is actually a fact. Is it possible that Richard III had them killed. Yes its possible. Do we know with 100% certainty that he did it? the answer to that is No.
I mean unless you have found some new evidence that proves that he killed them. Well then i think you should publish it.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Mar 5, 2017 15:33:04 GMT
They were under the ultimate protection of their uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester yes, but the only proof that he was a treacherous uncle comes from Tudor propaganda, namely from Shakespeare, and Sir Thomas More written long after the events. Morton, a sworn enemy of the Yorkists, was a mentor of the young Sir Thomas More.
More served as a page in Morton's house, acted in revels at Morton's court at Knole House, the archiepiscopal palace, and later mentioned him in his work Utopia. Although most scholars credit More with authoring the History of King Richard III, they debate the issue of the original authorship. Morton is believed by many to be the originator of the account that More rewrote. Modern Ricardians thereby accuse Morton of inventing the account later endorsed by Shakespeare. I think it highly likely that he did. But that's speculation as much of the mystery is.
Obviously someone did, but that's the mystery. There were other suspects besides Richard, and most with equally good motives.
Putting a prince in the tower prior to his coronation was the normal procedure.
I suggest you delve a little deeper Louise. Those who had the opportunity besides Richard include the 2nd Duke of Buckingham, Margaret Beaufort (the Lady Margaret, mother of Henry Tudor), John Argentine (tutor to the Princes), Henry Tudor himself at a later date, and even others. If Richard could have had it done by agents as Shakespeare and More accuse him of, then couldn't agents of others have also done the deed?
Not at all. Other skeletons have been discovered in the Tower. There is no proof whatsoever any whichway.
One reason could be that it may be discovered that the wrong line of royal House is on the throne. The rightful House of York was extinguished by the Tudors, except for H7's marriage to Elizabeth of York. There are many in the UK who are republican-minded. Any proof that the current royal House and monarch are based on false claims of the past would certainly give them fuel. When there is no proof, there's no embarrassment.
|
|
|
Post by bonerxmas on Mar 6, 2017 7:09:26 GMT
he usurped the throne from his nephews and then had them murdered. While other kings had been equally ruthless in dealing with those they usurped, the fact that they were his nephews and he was supposed to be their protector is unpleasant. is it really usurpation? if edward iv had really been engaged to miss butler, then the princes were illegitimate by the standards of the time, and one principal the english never violated was allowing bastards to succeed, even henry VIII wouldn't allow it, and charles ii risked another civil war in the 1670s because he wouldn't allow it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 7:40:57 GMT
He was a good king during his short reign and he might have been a very good one. However, the greatest English King was Alfred, so it was all down hill from there.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Mar 6, 2017 7:49:57 GMT
I have to agree with you there. :-)
|
|