The Crimes of Richard III
Prince_Lieven:
And Margaret Beaufort - she was a bad egg. On second thought, he should have sent her to a convent; she would be out of the way, and she would love it! : - )
Elisabeth:
Margaret Beaufort was indeed an unpleasant character. But maybe that's what happens to you when you're married off and the mother of a son by the tender age of twelve? :-/
But seriously, doesn't anyone care that Richard illegally executed, without trial, five men? Doesn't that fact in any way shape your opinion about his character and his willingness to kill the two princes in the Tower?
Prince_Lieven:
It's kind of a hard thing to grasp, Elisabeth - Catherine the Great was no picnic, and yet she is admired, like Elizabeth I. I guess you have to take things in the context of the time. Richard was no worse than any mediaeval ruler. But the question about him and the princes . . . my reason for beleiving he wouldn't is that his utter loyalty and devotion to his brother makes it seem unlikely. . .
Kimberly:
I do not believe for one minute that Richard was some "whiter than white" god-like man but neither can I believe he was the personification of evil. England has had Kings who have been far more despicable, blood-thirsty and power-hungry. he spent 12 years of his life bringing peace and order to the North and consequently won the loyalty and trust of both northern gentry and "ordinary" people. He was fair and just and had a good working knowledge of the law. He had integrity and courage and was formidable on the battlefield.
It is an unproven assumption that Richard was aiming for the throne as soon as he heard of Edward IV's death. The executions of Rivers and Dorset was typical of the turbulent times and was not done until the Queen's party had taken up arms.It is the only cruelty proved on Richard.The execution of Hastings can be seen as a necessity and an act of self-defense. Henry VII's reign proved to be no "golden era either- the execution of the Earl of Warwickand the dating of Henry's kingship altered to the day before Bosworth so that he could attaint an execute as many of Richards adherants as possible......Phew!
Prince_Lieven:
Quote
I do not believe for one minute that Richard was some "whiter than white" god-like man but neither can I believe he was the personification of evil. England has had Kings who have been far more despicable, blood-thirsty and power-hungry. he spent 12 years of his life bringing peace and order to the North and consequently won the loyalty and trust of both northern gentry and "ordinary" people. He was fair and just and had a good working knowledge of the law. He had integrity and courage and was formidable on the battlefield.
It is an unproven assumption that Richard was aiming for the throne as soon as he heard of Edward IV's death. The executions of Rivers and Dorset was typical of the turbulent times and was not done until the Queen's party had taken up arms.It is the only cruelty proved on Richard.The execution of Hastings can be seen as a necessity and an act of self-defense. Henry VII's reign proved to be no "golden era either- the execution of the Earl of Warwickand the dating of Henry's kingship altered to the day before Bosworth so that he could attaint an execute as many of Richards adherants as possible......Phew!
Well said, Kim - much better than my inarticulate garble!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page