The Crimes of Richard III

[Suzanne]

The celiac disese claim, which is discussed in the Baldwin biography, comes from one reading of Shakespeare's Richard III, which views various lines in the play about the King's health as descriptions of symptoms of this allergy. Baldwin points out that it would have been impossible for the actual Richard III to have the led the martial life of a medieval nobleman if he had these symptoms.

[Kimberly]

Thank you Suzanne. So Coeliac disease can go into the bin along with being born with a full set of teeth and being completely covered in hair at birth.

[TimM]

The man led his troops into battle, so he could not have been disabled.

[Kalafrana]

Where did anyone get the idea of coeliac disease? I've never heard of Richard having digestive problems.

Ann

[Kalafrana]

Latest news on Richard III is hat an archaeological team from Lancaster University is conducting a dig in Leicester in the hope of finding the site of Greyfriars Church, where he was buried.

However, there is a fair amount of inaccuracy about the press coverage. They keep referring to a 'direct descendant' of Richard having been found. No, Richard had two illegitimate children, but neither is known to have had any issue. This fellow is apparently a descendant of Richard's eldest sister, Anne.

Ann

[DNAgenie]

There's a reasonably well-researched article about the search for Richard's remains at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9497194/Richard-III-descendant-present-as-search-for-remains-begins.html

The present-day relative Michael Ibsen is believed to descend in direct female line from Richard's sister Anne of York, so there is hope that tests for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) could confirm that any bones are the remains of Richard III.

[Kalafrana]

It would be nice if the remains are found and could be given a decent reburial (rather like Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, whose originally burial place was demolished in the Soviet era). But I don't think think there is any particular issue about how he died. He was killed in battle, and his corpse was maltreated (to say the least) afterwards,  so we could expect the remains to be badly hacked about.

Ann

[Terence]

Just read this by Clements E. Markham now available online. This link was
given in comments on the possility of finding R III's remains. I'd never
heard of this book, tho I'm much less well read than many here, I do think
this is seldom mentioned in researching R III.

RICHARD III: HIS LIFE & CHARACTER

REVIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT RESEARCH

BY SIR CLEMENTS E. MARKHAM, K.C.B.

RICHARD III: HIS LIFE & CHARACTER

<http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm#P128>
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm#P128

A great read, I'd recommend it to every Ricardian. I wonder what has
changed in sources since then and if anything is disproved of what he
writes? He does a fine job of aquitting Richard of all the baseless
accusations. He is well footnoted and and actually a pretty good job of
nailing the murders of the Princes on H VII.

My wife lately has wondered about my obsession w/ Richard, I just had to
think a second and say it's about the truth and justice in the history we
are told! We have to fight for the truth!

T

[TimM]

Well, Henry VII had a better motive for wanting the two princes dead, they stood between him and the throne.

When Shakespeare wrote his play about Richard III, which most people take as fact, the Tudors were still in power.  So obviously he had to be careful with what he wrote.

[CountessKate]

There seems of recent years to have been a revision of the revisionist theory of the murder of the two princes, so to speak.  From the "Richard III was completely innocent and Henry VII had just as good a reason to kill them, so he must have dunnit", things seem to have moved to "Well, actually, no tough medieval king worth his salt would have left two loose ends around to potentially challenge his rule - and Richard III was a tough king" - with just as much weight, since there actually is no hard evidence either way, and neither Richard III nor Henry VII were softies.  While so far it's evenly poised between them, the revisionist's revision notes that since they were never seen in public after the summer of 1483, and Richard III, though protesting his innocence of the murder, never produced them, circumstantial evidence doesn't seem to support Richard III's innocence very strongly.  Of course neither he nor Henry VII were as Shakespeare depicted them - the golden Richmond of 'Richard III' bore little resemblence to the the pretty gruesome Henry VII who was certainly keen to mow down any Plantaganet who could be perceived to stand in his way, ably followed by Henry VIII.  Richard III of course was certainly not either as disabled nor as vile as Shakespeare shows - and indeed, he had to be careful what he wrote about the reigning dynasty.  Though it might be argued that by that stage, the propaganda which was certainly put about by the Tudors which put Richard III in such a dark light night have come to have the strength of truth.  There was no one in the Richard III camp by that time who could have put forward another perspective.

[Kalafrana]

'From the "Richard III was completely innocent and Henry VII had just as good a reason to kill them, so he must have dunnit", things seem to have moved to "Well, actually, no tough medieval king worth his salt would have left two loose ends around to potentially challenge his rule - and Richard III was a tough king".'

Agreed. We have to bear in mind that among Richard's formative experiences was the temporary deposition of his brother Edward Iv by the Earl of Warwick and his adherents, who then restored Henry VI to the throne. Henry was totally discredited, and was the Weak King to end all Weak Kings, but nevertheless he was still a rallying point. By contrast, Edward V and Richard of York were healthy young lads, and would be old enough to be fighting on their own behalf in 4-5 years.

Ann

[jehan]

Well, Henry VII had a better motive for wanting the two princes dead, they stood between him and the throne.

When Shakespeare wrote his play about Richard III, which most people take as fact, the Tudors were still in power.  So obviously he had to be careful with what he wrote.

Richard had just as much a motive as Henry- they posed a threat to the stability of both of their thrones.  But again- if you want to condemn Henry, you have to prove opportunity.

Those who want to do so must produce evidence that the boys were alive after 1483.  If there isn't any, they must have died during Richard's watch.

[CountessKate]

Richard had just as much a motive as Henry- they posed a threat to the stability of both of their thrones.  But again- if you want to condemn Henry, you have to prove opportunity.

Those who want to do so must produce evidence that the boys were alive after 1483.  If there isn't any, they must have died during Richard's watch.

The argument is that in the absence of Richard, Henry VII would have had a very clear opportunity to kill the two princes who were either still imprisoned in the Tower, or who had been moved elsewhere on Richard's orders.  I'm not sure that evidence that the boys were alive after the summer of 1483 would necessarily prove the guilt or innocence of either party, nor that otherwise "they must have died during Richard's watch."  The most that really can be said is that both Richard and Henry had motive and opportunity, and both were ruthless men, but given that, the simplest explanation is that Richard had the earliest opportunity to kill the princes and so was the most likely candidate.  Richard's failure to produce the boys when proof of his innocence would have been very useful against the accusations of Henry Tudor also supports the theory that they were no longer alive after their disappearance from public view, and that King Henry VII did not specifically accuse him of their murder immediately after his accession suggests he did not know for absolute certain that they were dead - i.e. he himself had not killed them.  If they had been alive in the Tower when Henry VII seized power, it would have been much easier all around to have 'discovered' their bodies, with losts of evidence to show they had been clearly killed on Richard's last orders, saving the concern that they might turn up one day as contenders for the throne.

[Kalafrana]

The odd thing is, if either Richard or Henry killed them, that neither produced the bodies and declared that they had died from natural causes, as had been previous practice (Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI). In none of these cases did the claim of natural causes convince many people, but nevertheless, if you are killing someone to prevent plots by him or on his behalf, it makes sense to demonstrate that he is dead.

Ann

[mcdnab]

I genuinely believe given Henry's reactions after his victory that he genuinely didn't know what had happened to his missing brothers in law accepting they were dead and blaming Richard was the sensible easiest and obvious thing to do though I suspect the not knowing the truth haunted him
As has been said they weren't seen after the summer of 1483 which means a few choices
1) death of both by natural causes even given 15th c health care standards unlikely for both of them
2) murder by men acting on Richard or someone else's orders
3) escape by some means with one or both reappearing as a pretender or opting for anonymity
4) the death of one or both during some botched rescue attempt
5) the death of one by natural causes and the survival escape or murder of the remaining one

Personally the most likely of those is 2 but I will give a possible nod to 4 or 5

And for the record I don't believe Richards actions were entirely down to personal ambition in fact I think he was manipulated into acting against a non existent enemy (his factual recorded relationship with the queen and her brother was pretty amicable ) once he began with the arrests of rivers et all and taking control he had begun on a path he could not turn away from.