Hogwash McTurnip
Chronicle - Medieval History Documentaries
comments
Comments by "Hogwash McTurnip" (@hogwashmcturnip8930) on "Richard III's Death: Betrayal At The Battle Of Bosworth | The Man Who Killed Richard III | Chronicle" video.
@alancoe1002 How do we know 'they never came out again?' As for Margaret of Burgundy not accusing Henry VII of killing them,that is hardly likely is it, when she supported both Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck in their attempts to claim the throne. The same with the Earl of Lincoln. You can hardly accuse an individual of murdering a person when you are parading and supporting someone as that 'murder victim!' (alive and well)
By the way when did Henry V11 produce Edward of Warwick at court? I thought he kept him locked up in the Tower from the age of 10,until he had him executed for alledgedly planning an escape with Perkin Warbeck? The executions coinciding neatly with the marriage of Prince Arthur and Katherine of Aragon.
Henry assuring his new in laws that his crown was safe? Although as Edward was disinherited by the act of attainder against his father and Warbeck was apparently a Dutch bargee, neither were a threat.
Henry V11 was paranoid, because he had no real claim on the throne. Something that stayed with the wholeTudor Dynasty.
I am neither for, or against ,but you need to look deeper than just saying 'Richard did not produce them' Maybe he couldn't because they were not there?
Henry did not produce them either. Because if they were alive they had a much better claim on the throne than either him or the wife he had married to strengthen it.
Like Warwick,they were no threat to Richard,as they were declared illegitimate. Henry, however,had that overturned, so that his wife Was, to strengthen his fragile claim. A risky move. Because if either ofthe boys surfaced that was him, Gone! The princes were much more of a problem to Henry than Richard.
No one wanted a child ruler, which is why the nobles supported Richard initially. He was a seasoned warrior and politi cian;he had ruled the North for Edward;he knew what he was doing. Or so they thought.
Henry is different. By the time the Pretenders appeared they were of age andthe country had several years of him.
I don't think we will ever know. But it might help if the bones in Westminster Abbey were DNA tested,once and for all. It will determine once and for all if they are the princes.It will not reveal a murderer, but it will put a lot of other things to rest.
10
He was a man.Doing his best in a pretty crappy time. He wasn't a saint, he did do some nasty things, but no more than people before or after him. It was his times He did, however do good stuff,which is forgotten.He was immensely loyal,which makes me doubt he 'usurped' the throne without good reason.There is No evidence that he killed the kids, or in fact Anyone did. They were more of a threat to Henry 7th than him.After all,he married their sis! If she was legit ,so were they,and his Very tenuous link to the throne was blown straight out of the water.
We will never know,but I think Richard was a good man, who maybe lost it a little after the grief of losing his son and his wife and dealing with the stress of kingship and everyone conspiring against him.
I think he really did believe the kids were illegitimate, which left him the only heir.
If you look at Richard's story everything he did to that point was honourable By their standards Why would he suddenly turn?
This guy, by comparison,sounds like a POS
.
10
7
@PtolemyJones Fair comment. I have always thought we have 2 Richards. The loyal brother, who would follow his King to Hell and back if he thought it was right. The man totally wedded to the Throne the Country and his family..
Then when he actually has the throne in his own right he seems to break down. He lost both his son and his wife during this time, so who knows what the Man Richard was going through?
King Richard, as you say ,becomes increasingly paranoid and makes enemies out of friends. It is almost like he was on a self destruct mission.He did not need to charge at Henry like that, for instance; it seems utterly futile, not to say suicidal That is not the Old Richard, the one who led his brother's Vanguard as a teenager,and knew every trick in the warfare book. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Do I think he killed those kids? Most fervently NO. Anyone who has studied Richard as a human being, not a Shakespearian cardboard cut out, would see that he would be incapable of harming a child. What happens in the last few years of his life, I am not so sure.
Rather like Henry VIII goes from Everyone's Bessie Mate to a total tyrant; something seems to have happened to Richard. Or maybe it is just the way the Chroniclers like to write things!
I honestly believe that if he had lived, and been Old Richard, he would have been one of the Best Kings. Instead we got stuck with the Tudors and have been on a downward spiral ever since! Lol Not that we wereon an upward one before.Most Kings are pretty Horrible. Comes with the job. Maybe that is what drove Richard over the Edge. But then again,he was pretty Ruthless to start with. Battle of Tewkesbury? Not running around doling out bread and bandages there,was he?
It's a cliche, but Different Times. Hell ,we hardly understand ourselves and what is happening Now; how can we sit in Judgement on someone from 600 years ago?
7
2
1
1