AVENUE VIET Forum Index AVENUE VIET
An Online Community
 
AlbumAlbum   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of the webmasters, administrators and moderators of this forum. Refer to the complete disclaimer.
The "Richard III Is Innocent" controversy
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AVENUE VIET Forum Index » Writers' Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kerowyn
Herald


Joined: 04 Sep 2011
Posts: 1797
Location: Queendom of Valdemar

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:13 am    Post subject: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower Reply with quote

inkling7 wrote:
Boy a bit off topic so back to Richard and I regard him as someone who seems to have been wrongly maligned and to me seemed like quite a good person. I would like to know what really happened to the young boys. Hopefully they survived and led happy lives unburdened by being royalty and in constant danger of being done away with by the Tudors... super grin

The most prevalent theory - that is, assuming the boys did survive their "wicked uncle" - is that Edward died of illness, either in the Tower or once out of it, and Richard took refuge with his aunt Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, not in Burgundy itself but in Flanders (remember, Burgundy possessed what is now Belgium and the Netherlands). And may or may not have been the "pretender" Perkin Warbeck who claimed to be him. If Perkin Warbeck WAS Richard of York, then he certainly didn't die a happy death. It actually was atrocious. Henry VII was not a merciful man.
_________________
Valdemar's Warrior Women
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
inkling7
Admin Pro Tem


Joined: 01 Jun 2008
Posts: 6345
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:20 am    Post subject: Perkin Warbeck Reply with quote

I wonder what happened to Perkin's body? If it is ever found they could do a DNA test on it to put to rest the mystery of whether or not he was the Duke of York or just someone who bore a striking resemblance to Edward but was no relation at all... super grin
_________________
The Grumpiest Old Woman on Ave Viet.....
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Kerowyn
Herald


Joined: 04 Sep 2011
Posts: 1797
Location: Queendom of Valdemar

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:28 am    Post subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck Reply with quote

inkling7 wrote:
I wonder what happened to Perkin's body? If it is ever found they could do a DNA test on it to put to rest the mystery of whether or not he was the Duke of York or just someone who bore a striking resemblance to Edward but was no relation at all... super grin

He was executed as a commoner. Chances are his body was thrown in a mass grave somewhere. I don't think there's any chance of recovering it the way they recovered Richard's body. Plus, from a mass grave, how would we know which skeleton is his?

No, I'm afraid that particular quest is hopeless. Sad
_________________
Valdemar's Warrior Women
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Wildflower



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 6664
Location: Shuttling between France and the US

PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 12:06 am    Post subject: The "Richard III Is Innocent" controversy Reply with quote

Roar wrote:
But I tend to view most of the major players in the War of the Roses as possessing at least some measure of ruthlessness and pragmatism, rather than some are complete angels and others are absolute monsters.

Well, Henry VII is pretty much an absolute monster, a petty, vindictive, despicable one at that. The way he treated Richard's dead body was absolutely shameful. He gives a new meaning to "ruthlessness" also. The way it was his "considered policy" to kill anyone who could be a threat to him.

As to Richard, we never said he was a complete angel, or that he was incapable of murder in general. Just that, considering his character, he was incapable of ordering this particular murder, that of his nephews, the sons of the brother he had loved and served so loyally and faithfully.
_________________
My Most Prestigious Award wink
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageYahoo Messenger
Wildflower



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 6664
Location: Shuttling between France and the US

PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 12:10 am    Post subject: Good King Richard? Reply with quote

inkling7 wrote:
... back to Richard and I regard him as someone who seems to have been wrongly maligned and to me seemed like quite a good person.

Yes, according to the records and reports of his time, before the Tudors and their pet historians blackened his memory, he comes out as a very decent person, brave and generous - too generous to his enemies, that was his downfall. His short reign was also one of the most liberal in the history of his time. He did a lot to protect the common people and their right against the depredations of the nobility (some of whom resented him greatly for that.)

Even his enemies acknowledged his prowess in battle (so much for the hunchback with a withered arm...)

He was undeniably loved in his time, which is more than a lot of rulers can say. After Bosworth, the city of York, despite the impolitic thing it was considering the accession of his enemies to power, wrote in their annals (or whatever they're called) - quoted from memory - "This day was our good King Richard piteously slain and murdered, to the great heaviness of this city." (The last part I'm sure of, "to the great heaviness of this city", I find it beautiful.)

Hah, I'm sure not many, not even his wife - or maybe particularly not his wife - was "heavy" when Henry VII died! Twisted Evil

I vaguely remember, but have no time to look it up right now, but years later, didn't the people of Northumberland turn against their duke and dragged him from his horse or something because he betrayed Richard at Bosworth? Betrayed "passively", so to speak, unlike William Stanley who attacked Richard's exposed flank when he charged Henry Tudor. Northumberland just sat there and didn't order his troops to come to Richard's aid, when that could have turned the tide in Richard's favour. It must be in one of those Ricardian books I've read, but I've read so many that I can't remember now. Anyway, served Northumberland right!
_________________
My Most Prestigious Award wink
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageYahoo Messenger
Wildflower



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 6664
Location: Shuttling between France and the US

PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 10:46 am    Post subject: Bertram Field's "Royal Blood" Reply with quote

Quote:
It is described as a defense trying to create reasonable doubt.

I disagree with that description. That's not at all the point of the book. Fields states the facts, as reported by various people, traditionalist or revisionist, and points out the likeliness of veracity or accuracy, probabilities, inconsistencies or slants - looking at the same events from a Tudor then a Ricardian point of view. I think it an interesting intellectual exercise. "Reasonable doubt" doesn't enter into it.

Oh, and about what I said earlier about Northumberland. It's in that book that I read that thing about the populace dragging him from his horse when he was riding into York to raise taxes for Henry VII. I just hadn't got to that point yet when I wrote about it last night. Nothing to do with the rest, but I did learn a few tidbits I hadn't been aware of before. I find it a very entertaining read, or reread.
_________________
My Most Prestigious Award wink
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageYahoo Messenger
Winterfell



Joined: 04 Nov 2012
Posts: 367
Location: Westeros

PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 2:33 pm    Post subject: "Good King Richard"? Reply with quote

This is the first I've heard that Richard III may not have been responsible for his nephews' deaths. All history books and encyclopedia entries (not to mention the movies based on Shakespeare's play) don't even raise the possibility of a shadow of a doubt, "reasonable" or not.

I'll have to look up some of those books. Are they very undigestible reading?
_________________
Jon & his sister Arya
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
LostInTranslation



Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 772
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:32 pm    Post subject: Re: "Good King Richard"? Reply with quote

Winterfell wrote:
I'll have to look up some of those books. Are they very undigestible reading?

Not at all. The Daughter of Time is a very easy read, and a shortish book by today's standards. Though it is, technically, fiction, it is based on historical facts, the facts that the Scotland Yard Inspector Alan Grant, confined to a hospital bed due to a broken leg, and his "looker-upper", the American Brent Carradine, unearth during their research. Josephine Tey does skip over some facts (barely a mention of Buckingham and his rebellion for one) but she makes a powerful case for Richard's innocence.
_________________
Translation, please! wink
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Angelina



Joined: 09 Dec 2007
Posts: 1791
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Bertram Field's "Royal Blood" Reply with quote

Wildflower wrote:
Quote:
It is described as a defense trying to create reasonable doubt.

I disagree with that description. That's not at all the point of the book. Fields states the facts, as reported by various people, traditionalist or revisionist, and points out the likeliness of veracity or accuracy, probabilities, inconsistencies or slants - looking at the same events from a Tudor then a Ricardian point of view. I think it an interesting intellectual exercise. "Reasonable doubt" doesn't enter into it.

I found it fascinating. Especially the chapter about Pretenders. It made my head spin sometimes but this was the first I heard of the possibility of BOTH princes having survived their "murderous uncle" - that maybe the "Edwardus" behind the Simnell rebellion may have been Edward V. Fields made the very good point that there was no other reason for Elizabeth Woodville to have supported that rebellion that, if it had succeeded, would have dethroned her daughter who married Henry VII. She could only have backed a rebellion that would have put one of her sons on the throne. Fields claims that it's the reason Henry shut her up in a nunnery after having stripped her of her worldly possessions. Makes sense to me.
_________________
Music Farewell Angelina
The sky is trembling, and I must leave Music
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Wildflower



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 6664
Location: Shuttling between France and the US

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:34 pm    Post subject: The Sunne in Splendour Reply with quote

After having re-read The Daughter of Time and Royal Blood, I really got in a Richard III mood and am rereading Sharon Kay Penman's Sunne in Splendour. This of course is a novel, but it's pretty well researched, though there are some things that are not the way Josephine Tey told them (small things, like when he came to London, accompanying Edward V, Richard stayed at Baynard's Castle with his mother until Anne got to London and they settled at Crosby Place - in this book, Cecily is not in London and Richard goes to Crosby Place right away - as I said, an unimportant detail).

What irks me in this book is the writing style. Penman writes in contemporary American English, including the spelling (except for the book's title) but inserts all too frequently some pseudo-medieval talk. Like, "Be you all right, lad?", "it be known that..." Rolling Eyes She also inserts some French, especially with Marguerite d'Anjou, but also between Richard and Anne. Her French is grammatically correct, but she uses the wrong words, and certainly not medieval ones. The translator and linguist in me just squirms...

What I like are some quotes I got from the book.

From the cover:
Quote:
King Richard III, a monarch betrayed in life by his allies and betrayed in death by history.

From the afterword:
Quote:
I once came upon a definition of history as "the process by which complex truths are transformed into simplified falsehoods."

And her concluding words:
Quote:
No one has ever been able to explain why, if Richard were guilty, he would have chosen to commit the murders so as to do himself the greatest possible harm. Nor has it ever been explained why Elizabeth would then have been willing to give her daughters over to the man responsible for her sons' deaths, why Thomas Grey would gamble his life on Richard's word, or why Henry Tudor, who did all he could to discredit Richard's memory, refrained from making the most damning accusation, never formally charged Richard with the murder of his nephews.

_________________
My Most Prestigious Award wink
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageYahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AVENUE VIET Forum Index » Writers' Forum All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group