[ SECRET POST #3795 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3795 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 10 secrets from Secret Submission Post #543.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Isn't it considered pretty much accepted fact at this point that he had the princes in the tower killed? Like, these people are basically choosing to disregard all of the historical research and sources out there just because...idk, they think Richard was hot or whatever oddball "reasoning" they apply?

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah,pretty much. The Richard III Society isn't really about logic, and the issue is open enough that it's still possible to debate it.

[(Anonymous)]

It is still up in the air, and probably always will be barring TARDIS technology or some super unlikely find of some very well preserved historic documents, whether he had them killed or someone anticipated he'd like them killed and he was just okay with it after the fact.

Either is possible, neither is commendable.

Frankly Richard III ought to thank Shakespeare. Without him making a play about it he'd just be another forgettable short reigning Monarch of the Middle Ages. Like King Stephen, for example, anyone except the Cadfael fans remember him? No, nobody does. How about William Rufus, and he was one of the successful ones, but I bet all but the hardened historical scholars could only give you a blank look if you said his name. Shakespeare made sure his name would live forever. The villains have all the best roles anyway.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

All I remember about Rufus is that he was generally disliked and was killed on a hunting trip by "an arrow that flew from nowhere," which ties in neatly with the generally disliked thing

[(Anonymous)]

Still a better end than Edward II. And his end is all anyone remembers, in one form or another.

[(Anonymous)]

And that story was probably made up, as well! It didn't start to circulate until years after his death.

[(Anonymous)]

Not just the middle ages have forgettable monarchs of course. There is the Georges. We only remember three out of five at best, the mad one, the fat and mad one, and the stuttering one. And two of those are only because there were movies about them. Or William the IV, had a head shaped like a pineapple and forced himself to live for an extra nine months just out of spite. And of course Queen Anne, about whom nobody much remembers except she had nice chairs.

[(Anonymous)]

No, I remember Queen Anne. Such a sad story.

A for William IV, good on him! He must have been so relieved on the day Victoria turned 18.

[tree_and_leaf]

And then there's the "Anne, a dead queen" joke in "1066, and all that".

[(Anonymous)]

Poor Queen Anne had 17 children, none of whom survived to adulthood.

[(Anonymous)]

Heh. I know King Stephen (and Queen Maud!) and William Rufus, and I'm not a hardened scholar. Just a nerd with a love for English history. But yes, if it weren't for Shakespeare, half of the Richard III Society's source of outrage wouldn't even exist and then where would they be? ;D

[(Anonymous)]

What do you know about King Edgar?

[(Anonymous)]

I think most reasonable historians generally accept that Richard III was probably responsible in some way. The timing of the princes' disappearance makes it unlikely that it was Henry VII's doing and all the accusations are just baseless Tudor propaganda, which is what the Richard III Society thinks. Don't get me wrong, if the princes had survived until Henry took the throne, I believe he would've kept them imprisoned at best and he would've likely killed them as well, in secret. Henry was not a stupid man. My theory is that he would've had them starved, smothered or poisoned, said they'd died of illness, then made a big to do of a funeral procession in order to show everyone that there were not, and could not be any more pretenders to the throne. That would've been callous, but politically advantageous.

But at the time they vanished, Richard had the most to benefit from their death. He made no effort to disprove the rumors that his nephews were dead, which is telling. I don't think he did it himself, but it'd be easy enough to order it done. He controlled access to the Tower of London, where they were kept. Even if Buckingham had done it, it seems unlikely he could've done so without Richard's knowledge or tacit approval. Richard never launched an investigation into the murder, nor did he ever blame Buckingham for it - something that would've seemed logical if Richard had been innocent, particularly after Buckingham's rebellion and execution for treason.

The Richard III Society isn't really about historical whodunnits and looking at evidence or researching historical accounts, though. They're chasing "proof" of Richard's innocence based on their feelings that he can't have done it, that he's a slandered figure, and that the Tudors are evil. And... yeah, it's clear that some of them think he was smoking hot and therefore can't be a murderer.

[sparklywalls]

This is a good comment that I enjoyed. Thank you!

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.

[(Anonymous)]

Even with the Kiddie murder I don't think Rich3 crack's the top ten worst British Monarchs. Top spot of the worst is a three way draw between Eddie1, Geordie4, and Lackland the Chickenheart.