StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So it appears they found and indentified his remains after 528 years. What I'm curious about is what earned him his status as arch-villain: the disappearance of his two nephews who were ahead of him in the succession. This is almost funny when compared to the heinous acts of other Plantagenet kings, but I digress.

Richard is obviously the prime suspect because he abducted the boys, killed their guardians, locked them up in the Tower and they were last seen alive while in his custody.

The next suspect is his cousin Buckingham, who is supposed to have either quit Richard's cause over the disappearance of the Princes, or killed them himself in order to blame Richard and have his excuse for turning on him. Both seem pretty farfetched since surely Buckingham knew what Richard was up to, went along with it and most importantly, knew what happened to excess princes back then. No one in their right mind would believe him if he claimed he had no idea Richard was going to do away with Edward IV's sons, and he would have stood a real chance of being killed for his role whether he took part in killing them or not.

Henry VII is another suspect, but the scenarios where does the deed are all farfetched because the boys' surviving relatives and allies ran to his side -something they wouldn't have done if the kids were still alive since that would guarantee Richard would kill them.

Which leads me to a small hole in the "Richard Did It" theory: Why kill the boys when it's the one ace up his sleeve to keep their mother, her surviving kin, and her supporters from rebelling? If the kids are dead, their mother's side of the family has nothing to lose and are free to support Henry Tudor, which they did.

Is it possible that the kids weren't murdered at all? This was the Medieval period after all, and the Tower of London wasn't the healthiest place, and three of their siblings had already died of natural causes. Is it really farfetched to think that maybe they weren't killed, but everyone assumed Richard bumped them off anyway? It would certainly explain why Richard didn't try to use them as hostages to keep their mother in line.

OK, Wasn't what earned Richard III arch-villian status primarily the fact that he lost the war of the roses and the Tudors got to write the history books?

Crazedwraith wrote:OK, Wasn't what earned Richard III arch-villian status primarily the fact that he lost the war of the roses and the Tudors got to write the history books?

He's not the only English king to lose a war. Hell, he's not the only one to lose in the Wars of the Roses. Yet Henry VI hasn't been vilified.

Shakespeare was a terrible publicist, and since old Bill was writing for a descendant of someone who rebelled against Richard, he could hardly make him the good guy could he?

The one thing that lends itself to the "Bad King Richard" charge was that the boys were in his care. Whether he did them in or not, he was supposed to protect them. He didn't so....

Elfdart wrote:Hell, he's not the only one to lose in the Wars of the Roses. Yet Henry VI hasn't been vilified.

Maybe not vilified, but he's hardly got a shining reputation, even though his side won in the end.

The only reason that I have tended to think they were killed is due to the fact that the boys seem to disappear quite quickly once they are in the Tower. Dominic Mancini, a contemporary writer with no axe to grind, states that the suspicion at the time was that they had been killed -and he makes no mention of illness.

I can't discount the illness, but it seems a little unlikely - for both of them to suddenly die without foul play? Remember that when we think of the high mortality rate of the people in times gone by we have to remember that once you make it out of your first few years your odds are actually not horrific. For both the boys to die of natural causes is unlikely.

Richard would have had every motivation. The boys make far better rallying points for rebellion against him than the distant Henry Tudor. They were the sons of a King, and a popular one at that. The Woodvilles may not have been particularly well liked but they were well liked enough to pose a threat, especially if they get momentum behind them. With the boys dead there is no Yorkist to rally around, apart from him. This means that people have to rally around Henry Tudor, but it was by no means a foregone conclusion that he would be a threat. He was in France, had not set foot on English soil in years, and the support he gained was by no means inevitable.

Addendum: Wikipedia has reminded me that Mancini was a friend of the Doctor who was responsible for the Princes in the tower, I do not recall any mention of an illness in either of them being mentioned. Not pooh poohing the idea entirely you understand, just part of my reasoning for ascribing to the "Richard III may not have been a hunchback but he did kill his nephews" school of thought.