The Toybox

people for the conservation of limited amounts of indignation


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
i just need to do this
children of dune - leto 1
seperis
Richard III had scoliosis, not a hunched back

There are other discrepancies between Shakespeare's descriptions and the skeleton besides the back problem, Mitchell said.

The real Richard does not appear to have had a limp or a withered arm, as Shakespeare had described. His trunk and abdomen would have appeared short compared with his arms and legs, Mitchell said. His right shoulder would have been slightly higher than the left.


You. Don't. Say?

Dear Henry Tudor,

History is written by the victors future.

Also? You were a dick, and no one liked you.

Bite me,
Jenn

Shakespeare,

You're forgiven.

magnanimously,
seperis

Posted at Dreamwidth: http://seperis.dreamwidth.org/997633.html. | You can reply here or there. | comment count unavailable comments

  • 1
I like Henry VII. Richard III was a child killer.

History is written by the victors; I want someone less biased than the winner of Bosworth Field to tell me the crimes of the loser.

there's no proof of that, except the word of Tudor supporters. The young Princes were no threat to Richard (they had been declared bastards) but were a definate threat to Henry, whose claim to the throne was tenuous at best and who had married their sister to prop up his claim ( a sister whose right to the throne was secondary to her brothers)

I may not like Shakespeare's Richard - as I'm obviously a huge Ricardian - but Richard is one of the most amazing villians - or anti hero? - ever.

This. I'm willing to buy the possibility, but a.) everything you said, b.) Richard wasn't nearly as secure on that throne to think the way it happened would be a good idea by any stretch of the imagination, c.) what you said about Henry and Elizabeth really pings for me.

Henry's claim was double bar sinister; the Beauforts and the Tudors both were considered the product of not entirely legitimate marriages. The re-legitimazation of Elizabeth, pardon my making up new words, would have brought her brothers immediately back into succession. Henry or the remaining Lancaster supporters would be far more threatened by that on his claim to the throne.

I'm willing to buy the possibility that Henry didn't cause their deaths, but I'm more willing to buy a Lancastrian did the deed more than a Yorkist. Richard and Henry were both political realists--and Richard was very trusted by his brother and was one of his generals from an early age. I can see Richard making political capital out of the betrothal on the strength of ambition and potential unrest (which would have been actual unrest very fast) if Edward V remained king, but not murder and badly done murder for that matter.

I'm on an iPad. Please forgive my bad typing- I will refute your points at length tomorrow. This is the historical period I spent years of my life studying and I respect and like you but you are wrong.

Sorry, this is just wrong. There are contemporary European sources that point to the Prince's disappearance in August/Sept 1483, while in the tower under Richards care.

If you want to argue that Richard was unfairly villainized that's fine, if you want to say his physical issues were grossly distorted I agree, but there's unbiased proof beyond a historical doubt that Richard III ordered the deaths of his nephews. To argue otherwise is silly.

Hi again. First- I want to apologize if I sounded flippant or dismissive last night- as I said I was on my iPad and I cannot type on the damn thing- I sound like a robot most of the time. It was not my intention to be rude and my abrupt comments clearly make it sound like I was.

This topic makes me lose my mind in a ridiculous over-the-top way where I literally turn into the gif of a person banging away on the keyboard until their fingers bleed. SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET! I would really like to be a person who can simply walk away from this discussion and say "hey, they're wrong, it's cool" but I cannot. I know there's only a slight possibility that I can change your mind or convince you, but I hope you will indulge me.

First- you say "history is written by the victors" and there's certainly some truth to that. But I would add that history is also studied by intelligent educated people who have the ability to determine the facts based on historical record and evidence. Part of the reason why the Ricardians make me so bonkers is because they want to erase that professionalism and in my mind are the historical equivalent of climate change deniers. They first decided that Richard III wasn't guilty of his crimes and then set out to prove it. You fall a bit into that above- you say "what you said about Richard and Elizabeth really pings for me-" which suggests that you're claiming something is fact based on a feeling. We can argue about the veracity of the source material and whether they suggest one thing or another, but facts are facts.

(I am not basing any this on Shakespeare's play. It's a great piece of work, but it's a drama, not a history, and while it's added to the popular perception of Richard III it's also really inaccurate, just like the rest of his history plays.)

I've always had a soft spot for historical villains who seemed to be unfairly maligned, and Richard III has been on that list a long time. So I really appreciate hearing an actual scholar of the era weigh in.

My understanding is that the time of the Princes' *deaths* - as opposed to the time of their *disappearance* - was open to question. I don't think anyone doubts they were imprisoned under Richard; the issue is whether they were killed by him. The circumstantial evidence against is that he had little to gain by their deaths (versus the odium if he had killed them; he couldn't know he'd die at Bosworth, so he had to be thinking about stability and succession, and his public reputation) whereas the Tudors definitely did.


"the time of the Princes' *deaths* - as opposed to the time of their *disappearance*"

But this assumes that the Princes were able to be "disappeared" in a way that no one would comment on or be aware of, and I don't believe this to be possible.

Again, if the deaths are in 1483, the Tudors have very little to gain as they're not in a strong power position at this point at all. By this point there was tons of precedence for regicide (Richard III almost certainly participated in the deaths of Edward Prince of Wales, Henry VI, and Richard's brother the Duke of Clarence) amongst the Yorkists and Richard had everything to gain- if the Princes are dead they can't be used against him by their maternal relations or anyone else opposing him. At the time of the murders Richard's own wife (Anne Neville) and son were alive and healthy. That was his succession.

You fall a bit into that above- you say "what you said about Richard and Elizabeth really pings for me-" which suggests that you're claiming something is fact based on a feeling. We can argue about the veracity of the source material and whether they suggest one thing or another, but facts are facts.

I never claimed it was a fact, but condescension should be beneath you. Generally, someone who wants to have a serious discussion--which for some reason you are bent on doing here--doesn't start off with shaming people to prove your point because 'feelings'.

In regards to the sources: yes- the period is poorly documented and almost all of the post- 1485 accounts are tainted with a pro-Tudor bias. HOWEVER many of these accounts are also substantiated by both Dominic Mancini's account (written in December 1483) and the Croyland Chronicles (written in 1486). Croyland is the only reason we have access to "Titulus Regulus"- the act by which Richard claimed his brothers were illegitimate because his mother had affairs. Croyland wasn't uncovered until the 17th Century and Mancini's account languished in an Italian archive until 1936. Neither can be accused of being partisan to Richard III, Croyland was probably written (or dictated) by the Bishop of Lincoln who was a member of the Royal Council and around for most of these events.

BOTH of these accounts substantiate later Tudor writers like Sir Thomas More (and I'm not even getting into the ridiculous assumption by Ricardians that More is a Tudor apologist), all of which back up that the Princes were confined to the Tower of London in the summer of 1483. Their residence there was mentioned by contemporary sources but no account of the boys being seen exists after September 1483.

Then we have the evidence- the biggest piece being that More's account claims the boys were smothered and then buried in a large chest at the foot of a set of stairs in the tower. This is the exact spot and location that the bodies of two children were found in 1674.

If the Princes disappeared in September, 1483, how could they have been murdered by Henry VII? He is exiled in France at the time, and in no way was he considered a serious claimant for the throne. How did his agents gain access to the Tower to kill the Princes? How were the Princes moved from the Tower without it being noticed or mentioned anywhere? If the Princes were killed by Lancastrian agents, why didn't Richard III publicize it? After all, their deaths would have made him King automatically, without having to go through the farce that was Titulus Regulus. If the Princes weren't dead by 1484, why was Elizabeth Woodville willing to betroth her daughter to the girl's uncle, Richard III?

Why would Henry VII have re-letimized Elizabeth of York if he didn't already know that her brothers were dead?

By 1483-4 the Lancastrians had been dead or in exile for 12 years. We're not talking about a thriving resistance. How did they find the means to pull of this murder?

Edited at 2014-05-31 06:15 pm (UTC)

Finally- the contemporary sources point to Richard being the murderer. The contemporary sources have been proven right at every point where physical evidence exists. The very fact that we have Richard III's body is because of contemporary sources. To wit:

- sources placed his body under the altar of Greyfriar's Church in Leicester, where it was eventually found.

- sources described the wounds he suffered at Bosworth: hit many times, struck with a halberd and suffering a major head wound. Both types of specific wounds were found on his body after his exhumation.

- Spinal analysis suggested he would have a shortened torso and one shoulder higher than another- just as he's described by Rous, Vergil, and other sources.

So rather than contemporary sources being proved WRONG, in fact they're being right over and over again.

Ultimately I know that I can't convince anyone if they don't want to believe me. I hope I've laid out a good case here and that you're willing to hear me out- I appreciate being able to do it. I hope none of this comes across as rude or dismissive since I am hoping to be neither, I'm just insanely passionate.

It came out fairly rude, yes. As I don't have a degree in this, I just enjoy history and talking about in a fun way, I'll bow out.

LOL Loved your letter to Henry!

  • 1
?

Log in