Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Richard III's Looking More Guilty

The Princes in the Tower
Richard III's all over the news lately, and in cased you haven't heard, he's getting a full blown celebration for his burial... and it's all making me think, those Ricardians really are nuts! (I say that in jest of course...)

Well, granted Richard might not be as bad as some people say, he's far from saintly. And more importantly recently I've come across a little something that helps prove his guilt in murdering the Princes in the Tower.


I've always been a Lancastrian myself, with deep sympathies for characters like Margaret of Anjou, Henry VII and especially Jasper Tudor. But when studying the Wars of the Roses period I've tried to keep an open mind on the Yorkist characters but of course, that can only go so far.

There's plenty of evidence linking Richard III to the murder of the Princes in the Tower, in fact just recently (thanks to the Henry Tudor Society from sharing the link on Facebook!) there was a discovery made about Lincoln's genealogy roll. (John De La Pole that is, R3's nephew) On such roll both Princes were recorded as having died in June of 1483. Remember that Lincoln in a Yorkist, with his own claim to the throne, and more importantly--a major part of the "princes survived" argument.

One argument often made by Ricardian sympathisers (and Philippa-- I mean, she who must be not be named) is that the Princes survived and were looked after by Lincoln's family. If that's the case, and they were alive, wouldn't the Lincoln family have marked that in the roll?

Now I know what you're thinking, "They just wrote that they were dead so not to be suspicious!" Well, do keep in mind that family connections are very important in the Medieval world. If the Princes were theoretically alive, It would make more sense that they would've been listed that way in the genealogy roll. Especially because, if they were to try to take the throne using one of the princes, the roll could've been used as proof that they weren't dead. It only makes sense that when it came to the important matter and writing down one's genealogy, it would never be honorable to lie.


So, we've established that it's not somehow falsified information, what do we make of it? Well first the obvious-Richard III's looking more guilty. And second, this means if the princes died in June of 1483, that's well before either Henry Tudor or any other Lancastrian could've killed them. During that time, they were most certainly in King Richard's ..."care". Third, Richard III loses his alibi, even the extremely Yorkist John de la Pole recorded the princes as dead and doesn't it make sense that as Richard's favorite nephew, the Lincoln family might have had been privy to this type of information?

All in all, this only adds on to the case against Richard III and despite Ricardians' best efforts, the truth always find a way to reveal it's self. 

2 comments:

  1. hey, i really like your blog even though i will always be a ricardian, i do see were your comming from even though there is lots of evidence that richard didnt kill the princes. I could go in to detail but tbh we would be here all day ;]. I really like some of your over posts though and its super nice to acctually find a blog intrested in the same time of history as me. I want to do some more posts about history and maby start a new blog just for history and your blog is kinda like the similer style history blog i would like to make. I was wondering how long does it take you to do a post like this ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. It usually depends on the post topic its self. Probably about anywhere between 10-40 minutes depending on how lengthy I want to make it. My Search Terms posts are a compliations so those usally take quite awhile to put together. Sometimes I do series of posts over multiple weeks talking about an important event or figure.

    ReplyDelete