In Our Time

I'm sure you'll all be pleased to hear that according to this morning's radio broadcast, all efforts to rehabilitate Richard's reputation as Good King Richard have floundered on the "almost certain" fact that he killed his nephews in the Tower, along with the barbarity of his takeover of power, unprecedented in Medieval history!

Not sure which of the two male contributors said this but it was either Steven Gunn, Tutor and Fellow in Modern History at Merton College, Oxford, or David Grummitt Lecturer in British History at the University of Kent.

Like the rest of the programme, most of the tales to be mentioned were at least twice told tales of legend, with little time given to accurate historical researches in the 40 minute time allocated the discussion.
A missed opportunity, but then I guess this is just one of the numerous Shakespeare season projects on at the moment.
Paul


Richard Liveth Yet!

'Almost certain' is not certain. Bottom line is no one knows what happened to those boys, although I think there are a dozen possible explanations.

As for 'the barbarity of his takeover of power' being unprecedented, these people need to check out Henry IV and Isabella and Mortimer. Or even the Earl of Warwick circa 1469. Any of these would at least equal the number of executions involved. Sorry, murders when it's Richard, executions when it someone else.

Brian W.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote: (snipped)
>
> I'm sure you'll all be pleased to hear that according to this morning's radio broadcast, all efforts to rehabilitate Richard's reputation as Good King Richard have floundered on the "almost certain" fact that he killed his nephews in the Tower, along with the barbarity of his takeover of power, unprecedented in Medieval history!
>
>

I listened to this. It stated that Richard was an able ruler both as Duke and King, but there was a current view that he'd used a barbaric ruthlessness to seize the crown from a weak position in terms of rightful inheritance and that many people thought he'd assassinated his nephews, rather confirmed by Tudor who stated as early as December, 1483 that he was prepared to marry Elizabeth of York, as her brothers: Edward V etc were dead.

The programme made the point that Northumberland, like the French rearguard at Agincourt, didn't do anything special by hanging back and Richard essentially lost because Norfolk in his vanguard used a horse charge against French mercenaries with spears who, experienced, held ranks and the horses refused – can't blame them – to rush onto the spears. Richard also made the same mistake. Norfolk and Richard died; seems an elementary mistake to make. Maybe Oxford commanding Tudor's vanguard was more expererienced and Richard overconfident after Tudor's debacle in 1483 when Buckingham's rebellion failed.

The point was made that most people were indifferent to who sat on the throne being more interested in enough to eat and lower taxes.

As with all things of the past, how much is fact or fiction is questionable.


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sure you'll all be pleased to hear that according to this morning's radio broadcast, all efforts to rehabilitate Richard's reputation as Good King Richard have floundered on the "almost certain" fact that he killed his nephews in the Tower, along with the barbarity of his takeover of power, unprecedented in Medieval history!
>
> Not sure which of the two male contributors said this but it was either Steven Gunn, Tutor and Fellow in Modern History at Merton College, Oxford, or David Grummitt Lecturer in British History at the University of Kent.
>
> Like the rest of the programme, most of the tales to be mentioned were at least twice told tales of legend, with little time given to accurate historical researches in the 40 minute time allocated the discussion.
> A missed opportunity, but then I guess this is just one of the numerous Shakespeare season projects on at the moment.
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>