The Crimes of Richard III

[Kimberly]

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?

[Prince_Lieven]

Gosh Kim you are engergetic today.

Anyway . .

1. It is possible, but then any one of the thousands of Yorkist soldiers could have killed Edward. This seems likely to be Lancastrian (or Tudor) propaganda against Edward IV's most loyal supporter.

2. Henry VI - again possible, and perhaps more likly than no 1. Some could argue that Edward IV would have trusted only Richard to dispatch Henry. Others could say that the murder of someone who could have been killed by a hired hitman been assigned to the Duke of Gloucester seems unlikely.

3. George - Hmm . . . Richard had no real reason to kill George - George had been an irritant to him for a long time, but if he had put up with it for so long why would he suddenly decide that George had to be killed? IMO, Edward ordered George's muder.

4. This seems the most unlikely of all - Tudor porpaganda entirely, IMO. If Richard wanted Anne dead, he could have had her killed ages before her actual death.

I pronounce the denfendat not guilty!!!!!

[Kimberly]

Ra-Ra Prince Lieven

[Elisabeth]

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?

You are forgetting the illegal executions of Hastings, Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Haute in the summer of 1483. These should be added to Richard's list of crimes - especially since they are proven crimes.

[Kimberly]

Here's another "crime", a misguided leniency towards traitors. He should have shortened Morton and Stanley whilst he was at it!

[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]

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!

[Elisabeth]

Just for the record, I’m not a big fan of either Richard III or Henry VII. I don’t understand the immediate assumption on the part of Ricardians that if one is convinced Richard III was guilty of certain crimes, that automatically means one is convinced Henry VII was somehow "whiter than white." I don’t have personal relationships with either of these men.

I do, however, think Henry VII was far more clever than Richard III and would have waited until the princes had reached adulthood before he killed them – after a perfunctory trial, of course, and having paid lip service to all the legal niceties. Needless to say, it's the very fact that Richard couldn't be bothered with the legal niceties, on any level, that got him labelled a tyrant even in his own lifetime.  

[Prince_Lieven]

Well, Elisabeth, as I said in my Henry VII thread, I've always considered Henry a great king from an administrative point of view. He done very well for himself for a man born to a 13-year-old widow . . .

[ilyala]

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.

[Elisabeth]

Well, Elisabeth, as I said in my Henry VII thread, I've always considered Henry a great king from an administrative point of view. He done very well for himself for a man born to a 13-year-old widow . . .

You misunderstand me, Prince. I didn't say Henry VII wasn't a great king in certain respects, I merely said he wasn't "whiter than white" and I wasn't a big fan of his, i.e., I don't adore him and I don't waste energy coming up with excuses for his worst actions. IMO when you study historical figures you have to do so with a degree of emotional detachment.

[Prince_Lieven]

Yes, that is quite true . . .