The Crimes of Richard III

i think you can appreciate both kings. and i do. without being an anti-richard, i am a pro-henry. and no matter what he did, he did it for a purpose and he did it well... and he was the man that brought peace to england and you can't not appreciate that.

Oh Ilyala I do appreciate that absolutely. I just wonder how long England would have had "peace" witha boy king on the throne and feuding regents.( of course, its totally irrelevant because Edward V didn't reign). Its one of those interesting "what-ifs" isn't it.

a boy king can be good if the regents are good. look at henry 6th, he was a great ruler when he didn't actually rule

when the regents are fighting with each other... not good  

a boy king can be good if the regents are good. look at henry 6th, he was a great ruler when he didn't actually rule

when the regents are fighting with each other... not good  

I think we have to agree to disagree on this one.During the regency, failures mean't the loss of most of what his father had gained. - Most of the English territories in France. Henry was a good and holy man but he wasn't worldly enough or ruthless enough to be an efficient ruler. I think it was Marguerite who was the more competent of the two. his government became increasingly unpopular due to corruption and there was a general breakdown in law and order.The poor man became increasingly unstable mentally and suffered what would appear to be several mental / nervous breakdowns. Although his outstanding achievement was his founding of colleges to promote education, his legacy was disasterous civil war for England. This pious man,s tragedy was surely that he was more suited for the church rather than the crown?

isn't that what i said? (that he wasn't a good ruler)

about the regency... yes, they lost their territories in france but wasn't that bound to happen anyway? you think there's any king, no matter how strong and effective that could have kept those two countries as one for a (much) longer period of time?

maybe henry 5th would have lost france later... MAYBE... but he couldn't have kept it anyway... nor anyone else... i think the regency of henry 6th was as good as it could have been

and, yeah, marguerite definitely wore the pants in the family

And of course Calais was lost in Mary Tudor's reign. She said that when she was dead and opened up Calais would be written on her heart didn't she? ( think we could have done with some help from the Yanks there Tongue FIRMLY in cheek)

isn't that what i said? (that he wasn't a good ruler)

about the regency... yes, they lost their territories in france but wasn't that bound to happen anyway? you think there's any king, no matter how strong and effective that could have kept those two countries as one for a (much) longer period of time?

maybe henry 5th would have lost france later... MAYBE... but he couldn't have kept it anyway... nor anyone else... i think the regency of henry 6th was as good as it could have been

and, yeah, marguerite definitely wore the pants in the family

This is true. Henry V's gains in France were real enough, but practically, he could never have kept them for very long and kept England and Scotland in check.

As for Henry VI, well he would have made a good bishop, but he was not a good king.

I've been digging around some of my Richard III Society stuff this morning and I thought we might share info./opinions on these four major accusations against Richard. These four crimes are;
1) the murder of Edward of Lancaster on the battlefield at Tewkesbury on May 4th 1471.
2) The murder of Henry VI in the Tower of London in 1471.
3)The murder of George Duke of Clarence.
4) Anne Neville-marriage and poisening.
Its probably obvious to you that I am a passionte fan and supporter of this exceptional man   but what do you think?

1. Even if Richard did that, there were a whole lot of others involved in it. In all probability, it can be said that Edward was caught in the onslaught of charging York soldiers and killed by them.
2. Like no. 1, this was most likely done in the knowledge of Edward IV, if not by his own hand. Richard was certainly involved in this to some extent.
3. I believe that Clarence was executed on Edward's orders.
4. No. Anne Neville was deteriorating already from sickness. If Richard III wanted to get rid of her, he could have very well gained an annulment. All their heirs were dead and she was in failing health. It was more than enough reason to divorce her.

Richard III has really gotten a bad rep.  A lot of people judge him by the Shakespeare play, even though said play was written a century after his death.

If you hauled Richard III into a modern court room and charged him with the crime of murdering the two Princes In The Tower, the case would be quickly thrown out.  All the evidence against Richard would be hearsay, there would be no witnesses for the prosecution to question, and the case falls apart.

Some think Henry Tudor, who took the Crown after beating Richard at Botworth, killed them.  Motive, to solidify his hold on the Crown, the Princes would have had a stronger claim than he would. 

Of course, this is all theory, but when you break it down Henry is just as easily guilty.

I wonder if they'll ever do a DNA test on those bones that are thought to be the two Princes (which were found about a century or so after Richard's time).

Richard III has really gotten a bad rep.  A lot of people judge him by the Shakespeare play, even though said play was written a century after his death.

If you hauled Richard III into a modern court room and charged him with the crime of murdering the two Princes In The Tower, the case would be quickly thrown out.  All the evidence against Richard would be hearsay, there would be no witnesses for the prosecution to question, and the case falls apart.

Some think Henry Tudor, who took the Crown after beating Richard at Botworth, killed them.  Motive, to solidify his hold on the Crown, the Princes would have had a stronger claim than he would. 

Of course, this is all theory, but when you break it down Henry is just as easily guilty.

I wonder if they'll ever do a DNA test on those bones that are thought to be the two Princes (which were found about a century or so after Richard's time).

Yes but with Henry Tudor (who was certainly capable of such a thing, just as Richard was) you have to prove opportunity ie evidence that the Princes were alive after 1483.  Without that- Henry cannot be guilty.  Richard had opportunity and motive- and certainly the means to do it. Henry certainly had the motive and would have had theopportunity if the boys were still alive.  But to my knowledge there is no evidence of the boys after 1483- that, to me, puts Richard as the more likely candidate.

Yeah, in a modern court, there woudn't be enough evidence to convict either man.

Just to add my points to this
1) Richard of Gloucester was loyal to his brother throughout his life - but being a loyal brother doesn't necessarily continue after the said brother is dead - particularly if you are being urged to take over the throne by friends and supporters.
2) There is NO evidence that Edward IV named a protector in his will, a) his will doesn't survive and b) a King's will was not binding in law and as in earlier cases was often ignored by his council.
3) No one took up arms against Richard of Gloucester following Edward's death in fact Rivers progress south with the young King was nothing if not slow which suggests he saw no threat.
4) The only real bad blood that existed was between Hastings and Dorset - Richard until 1483 was on reasonable terms with Rivers, the Queen and Dorset - he'd knighted the Queen's brother during the war with Scotland a year earlier.
5) The King and his brother were not seen after the summer of 1483 that suggests they died of a) natural causes one of them maybe but both is unlikely b) were murdered by Richard or one of his supporters with access to the tower or c) were perhaps killed in a botched escape attempt or d) escaped to quiet anonymity. Richard had forced Parliament to declare them illegitimate (which was in fact the job of the church not parliament) therefore he ahd little to gain for letting someone see them to prove rumours of their deaths were false that he didn't is to me damning.

I agree that no modern court would convict but i can assure you a medieval one would have done

The bones of the two children that were found, a century later, were examined in 1933.  However, back then there was no way to tell whose remains they were.

Today, with DNA, they would be.  Of course, the Royal Family and the Church Of England would have to give permission first.  DNA has settled a lot of historical mysteries, maybe it could solve this one too.

Mind you, this would not solve the mystery of whether Richard III or Henry Tudor was guilty to not, but it would at least prove that those are the remains of the two princes.

Balanced new biography of Richard III argues the King was a "split personality"

http://www.royalhistorian.com/the-medieval-book-reviews-4-richard-iii-a-life-by-david-baldwin/

TimM wrote:

The bones of the two children that were found, a century later, were examined in 1933.  However, back then there was no way to tell whose remains they were.

Today, with DNA, they would be.  Of course, the Royal Family and the Church Of England would have to give permission first.  DNA has settled a lot of historical mysteries, maybe it could solve this one too.

Mind you, this would not solve the mystery of whether Richard III or Henry Tudor was guilty to not, but it would at least prove that those are the remains of the two princes.

Which particular DNA test did you have in mind to show that the remains belonged to the two princes?  The possiblities would include Y-DNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA, but in each case you need someone to test against, and that's where we might run into a problem. Do you know of any living male-line or female-line relatives, or any living close cousins, who might take a DNA test for a comparison?

Then there's the problem of extracting usable lengths of DNA from very old bones.  There might be enough for mtDNA but hardly likely for any other tests to be feasible.

As far as I am aware, the urn contains a hotch - potch of bones, including chicken bones !
I would be interested to know how on earth somebody has managed to claim a possibility that Richard suffered with Coeliac disease.