I'm a life-long Ricardian and used to be a member (with my mum) of the York based spin-off of the Society. Iirc the lady who ran that branch actually broke-off from London because even she found them far too fanatical but I was very young when I met her and she sadly passed away years ago.
My degrees are history based with a lot of concentration on Medieval because of Richard III being the reason I became fascinated with history in the first place. You're right, most reasonable historians accept he was prime candidate and even in my heart of hearts with my non-history hat on I know that too. But the mystery is fascinating and I'm still attracted to the idea that something could potentially turn up that puts his guilt in doubt. I mean, it probably never will but it's a nice thought. However you've pointed out the reason why I'll never join the main Richard III Society. Basing it on feelings isn't good enough in historical research. I can say I feel like any historical figure was a lovely person really, doesn't mean they were. Richard III as a person we'll never know completely without a time machine and obviously the record of him has gone through some slight mangling that can't be fully trusted even if some of it is true.
The thing is, I get why people cling to it. Ordering the murder of his nephews does seem a wee bit out of character for Richard given some of the good stuff he managed to do during his brief reign. But people forget this was a different time. He was by far not the first monarch anywhere who would've considered murdering children if they in some way blocked his claim to the throne. I think that's the only thing that annoys me about extreme anti-Richard types. They act like he was the only medieval king to y'know, be a medieval king. I think emotions run high because children were involved - but think how many monarchs waged war/etc and would've caused plenty of children (and women too) to die horribly.
Tl;dr: Richard probably did it. The Society needs to get over their crush but anti-Ricardians are annoying too in different ways. Both sides need to stop applying modern morals to 500 years ago! And I definitely wouldn't be welcome in the Richard III Society for thinking he's only about 20% innocent haha.
no subject
I'm a life-long Ricardian and used to be a member (with my mum) of the York based spin-off of the Society. Iirc the lady who ran that branch actually broke-off from London because even she found them far too fanatical but I was very young when I met her and she sadly passed away years ago.
My degrees are history based with a lot of concentration on Medieval because of Richard III being the reason I became fascinated with history in the first place. You're right, most reasonable historians accept he was prime candidate and even in my heart of hearts with my non-history hat on I know that too. But the mystery is fascinating and I'm still attracted to the idea that something could potentially turn up that puts his guilt in doubt. I mean, it probably never will but it's a nice thought. However you've pointed out the reason why I'll never join the main Richard III Society. Basing it on feelings isn't good enough in historical research. I can say I feel like any historical figure was a lovely person really, doesn't mean they were. Richard III as a person we'll never know completely without a time machine and obviously the record of him has gone through some slight mangling that can't be fully trusted even if some of it is true.
The thing is, I get why people cling to it. Ordering the murder of his nephews does seem a wee bit out of character for Richard given some of the good stuff he managed to do during his brief reign. But people forget this was a different time. He was by far not the first monarch anywhere who would've considered murdering children if they in some way blocked his claim to the throne. I think that's the only thing that annoys me about extreme anti-Richard types. They act like he was the only medieval king to y'know, be a medieval king. I think emotions run high because children were involved - but think how many monarchs waged war/etc and would've caused plenty of children (and women too) to die horribly.
Tl;dr: Richard probably did it. The Society needs to get over their crush but anti-Ricardians are annoying too in different ways. Both sides need to stop applying modern morals to 500 years ago! And I definitely wouldn't be welcome in the Richard III Society for thinking he's only about 20% innocent haha.