All the business about Richard III’s funeral leads me to ATM – guilty or not guilty? I’m voting guilty. He had opportunity – the princes were clearly in his power. He had motive – he’d just been through years of fighting over rival kings ascending to the thrown and getting bumped off again. Alive rival kings are always a threat. Dead ones are much more manageable. And he had the means – he’d bumped off or would bump off numerous other rivals and had a hardy band of blood soaked mates around to do the do – I doubt he did it himself whatever Shakespeare says. I also think it’s wrong burying him in Leicester – he was far more associated with York as a base, but when his wife died he specifically had her buried in Windsor – surely he’d have wanted to be buried with her? Leicester was just where he was dumped in a pit after losing at Bosworth. Any other history fans here?
Richard III – guilty?
by 5 Comments
“He who wins the war writes the history” eh Twang? Ironic given that Churchill believed in Richard’s guilt.
Sheer Tudor propaganda. Read Josephine Tey’s Daughter of Time for a hugely enjoyable investigation into that old crookback.
Al Capone in tights.
I’ve read Daughter of Time. The fact that he thinks he doesn’t look like a murderer doesn’t convince me.
I’d be very disappointed if it turned out he was innocent – I like my villains to be untainted.
http://i776.photobucket.com/albums/yy42/stevewilkinson7/steves-contribution-ruprecht-going-to-the-bathroom_zpskrxiwj9e.jpg
‘Not Richard?’