Why Richard?

I have been fascinated with Richard since childhood, it was my mother
who introduce me to the subject.

In some ways I'm still wondering why I am. Really it wouldn't matter
what a man or king who died over 500 years ago was like. Interesting
but nothing to get passionate about.

Don't take that too seriously, I'm playing Devil's Advocate there.

Was it the tragedy? The Mystery? the lure of "Lost Causes"? of what
could had been? What?

Helen

Helen asked: Was it the tragedy? The Mystery? the
lure of "Lost Causes"? of what
could had been? What?

***

I can only speak for myself. When I was in high
school, I got interested by reading Thomas Costain's
"Last Plantagenets" and seeing a TV series called "An
Age of Kings." Later I found Alison Hanham's "Richard
III and his early historians" at my local library.

That's a long time ago, but as I remember it, I was
intrigued by the difference between the traditional
(official?) version and other possibilities.

I was lucky to have history teachers who encouraged
students to pay attention to as many sides of an issue
as possible. For example, we learned that some people
had good reasons to oppose the colonists' fight for
independence from Britain in 1776-1781.

Getting back to Richard III's case, I'm most
interested in the possibilities that he did few, if
any, of the things he was accused of. I'm interested
in the possibility that the bones in the urn were
buried long before, or even after, Richard's time.
I'm interested in the possibility that Richard's
nephews left the Tower alive and outlived him. I'm
interested in the possibility that Perkin Warbeck was
Richard III's nephew Richard.

Since joining this list, I've become interested in how
folk tales, the Bible, alchemical and other symbolism
were used to influence public opinion. I've also
learned how politics in Burgundy, Brittany, and France
affected politics in England.

This is a huge subject, and it will keep me busy for
quite awhile.

Marion




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

--- In , sweethelly2003
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I have been fascinated with Richard since childhood, it was my
mother
> who introduce me to the subject.
>
> In some ways I'm still wondering why I am. Really it wouldn't
matter
> what a man or king who died over 500 years ago was like.
Interesting
> but nothing to get passionate about.
>
> Don't take that too seriously, I'm playing Devil's Advocate there.
>
> Was it the tragedy? The Mystery? the lure of "Lost Causes"? of
what
> could had been? What?
>
> Helen

I have often wondered the same. There is little or no logic to
anyone - especially people all over the world - feeling so
passionately about a man dead five hundred years, and one with a
nasty reputation to boot. Maybe it's the underdog, lost cause
syndrome (except his cause will never be lost while there are
Ricardians out there to fight his corner); maybe it's that the case
just isn't proven and we should all have been barristers. I can't
even remember when he caught me, but I was a teenager, probably
about 12 or 13. I expect it must have ben a novel. I didn't have an
inspiring teacher unfortunately, and it was novels that kept my love
of history alive while the poor old lady was busy killing it. I
supose I used to think I was odd till I discovered there are plenty
more like me! I confess, I am also passionate about Edmund Ironside,
Harold II and Price Rupert, and guess what they all have in
common???? I guess that sums my motivation! :-)

--- In , sweethelly2003
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I have been fascinated with Richard since childhood, it was my
mother
> who introduce me to the subject.
>
> In some ways I'm still wondering why I am. Really it wouldn't
matter
> what a man or king who died over 500 years ago was like.
Interesting
> but nothing to get passionate about.
>
> Don't take that too seriously, I'm playing Devil's Advocate there.
>
> Was it the tragedy? The Mystery? the lure of "Lost Causes"? of what
> could had been? What?
>
> Helen

For me it also was probably a combination of the mystery and the
underdig aspect. And I'm always what-iffing, examining stories and
events and wondering what if it was the other way around, what if
this was true and that wasn't, instead of vice versa as "everyone
knows", and wondering why this was emphasized in history and that
wasn't. (If Henry VII and subsequent Tudors had given Richard a
decent burial and some insincere but adequate eulogy and let it go
as "he reigned briefly", would there be all this interest today? By
the ferocity of their attempted character assassination they helped
keep his name alive for 500 years.)

I don't recall when I first got interested in Richard III but it must
have been in my early teens. My interest was rekindled when someone
gave me Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time", which joggled by what-
iffing bone.

Katy

--- In , sweethelly2003
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I have been fascinated with Richard since childhood, it was my
mother
> who introduce me to the subject.
>
> In some ways I'm still wondering why I am. Really it wouldn't
matter
> what a man or king who died over 500 years ago was like.
Interesting
> but nothing to get passionate about.
>
> Don't take that too seriously, I'm playing Devil's Advocate there.
>
> Was it the tragedy? The Mystery? the lure of "Lost Causes"? of what
> could had been? What?
>
> Helen

I can recall exactly how I got started. Why is another question.
I should say I had been brought up on the wicked uncle and poor
little blond princes story - illustrated children's encyclopaedia and
all that. Like everyone else at school I was on handsome, noble,
Henry Tudor's side at Bosworth. But it wasn't something that I was in
any way preoccupied with, just part of the stuff I was brought up
with as a child.
The first dent probably came in 1st year secondary school history,
during which we "did" the Middle Ages, and boring frumpy old Miss
Brown rattled us through the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and Henry
VII (yes, see how enlightened she was - we didn't stop with
Bosworth?) And so I was told that, although Richard probably did kill
the Princes he did a lot of good things as king. Previously handsome,
noble Henry VII, on the other hand, was not a very nice person as
king at all and was rather mean. I remember this annoyed me at the
time as it upset what I already 'knew' and didn't give the sort of
simple vivid story you still like at that age (12 and a bit).
Then I 'recall' (you'll see why I put this in inverted commas) a
friend telling me at her house that she'd read a book saying there
was proof Richard didn't do it, which she explained and I forgot.
Again annoyed.

Then, age 15, I was in the library browsing for something to read,
when I read on a cover "Daughter of Time". I saw in my mind's eye a
succession of history sweeping backwards through the Victorians, the
18th century, Stuarts and Tudors, with the dates clocking backwards,
then stopping at 1485, and I thought "It's about the Princes in the
Tower and it's saying Richard II didn't kill them. Other people
picking this up will think 'rubbish' but (smug, smug) I know it's
true." Which was precisely the opposite of what I'd always thought
till that moment! So I looked inside to the blurb, and it was indeed
about Richard III and the Princes. . . . And the rest, as they say,
is history.
I assumed I knew what it was before looking inside because it must
have been the same book my friend had mentioned to me, but when I
showed it to her it meant nothing to her and she denied EVER having
read ANY book about Richard III or the Princes. Nor had any of my
other school friends.
Anyway, I was totally swept along by the Daughter of Time. It was the
first time I had ever had it suggested to me that any part of
the 'history' taught and handed down was a political fabrication. And
I was at that sort of age, growing up, needing to overturn the old
order of childhood, etc. I think a lot of lifelong interests are
formed in one's teens.
For a year I was totally taken up by the idea of the injustice of
this lie, and angry also that I and everyone else had been conned.
Then I read Kendall and sort of fell for Richard as a personality.
And now? Well, I'm less romantic than I was in my teens. But I still
find certain aspects of Richard's character very attractive. And of
course people in books are much easier to live with than the ones
messing up your kitchen! But mainly what keeps me going is the
detective in me.
And I do think that studying the problem of Richard III was actually
given me a better mental training than any of my set academic
studies. And the other thing that keeps me going is that we never get
to the bottom of the mystery, but new information does keep turning
up, just enough to keep the interest alive.
Would I be interested in Richard if he had been a winner? Well, no.
For one thing, if he had won we wouldn't have been brought up to hate
him. Questioning the established version and rehabilitating losers
tend to go together. With an Irish Catholic background, of course, I
had not been brought up at home to admire the Tudors or othe cult of
history's winning sides. So I guess that laid the groundwork though
it's not the same as having ever been told that events had been
completely rewritten or suppressed for poitical ends. I guess that
shocked me. To this day I remain rather sceptical of political
information. There's so much at stake for those involved.
Richard's my only real study interest as an historical figure. I do
have a few other characters I like but know less aout. One that
springs to mind is Red Hugh [or Hugh Roe] O'Donnnell (plenty on the
net about him, but some very romanticised). He left no descendants
but I would appear to be descended from either a half-brother or a
first cousin of his (or both). Another heroic loser who died young.
On the other hand, my favourite character in my favourite book the
Lord of the Rings (which I also discovered in my teens) is Aragorn,
the one who get the girl and the throne of Gondor at the end of the
book and rules very happily to the end of his days.
Marie

> The first dent probably came in 1st year secondary school history,
> during which we "did" the Middle Ages, and boring frumpy old Miss
> Brown rattled us through the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and
Henry
> VII (yes, see how enlightened she was - we didn't stop with
> Bosworth?) And so I was told that, although Richard probably did
kill
> the Princes he did a lot of good things as king. Previously
handsome,
> noble Henry VII, on the other hand, was not a very nice person as
> king at all and was rather mean.

Excellent teacher! I can't remember what ours taught us, as it was
so boring, mostly dictation. When I first began in teaching I did
the SCHP, in which one of the early units is the murder of the
princes, using sources and only sources, though some were modern
summaries. Based only on evidence the pupils were expected to
conclude either innocence or case unproven at least. Now we don''t
cover this period until sixth form, but I have some 3 weeks or 6
hours inw which to cover Richard and the Wars, and make my case. By
the end of the year they have discovered 2 great ways to get me off
topic and avoid work - mention Richard III or Monty Python!


>
> Then, age 15, I was in the library browsing for something to read,
> when I read on a cover "Daughter of Time". I thought "It's about
the Princes in the
> Tower and it's saying Richard II didn't kill them. Other people
> picking this up will think 'rubbish' but (smug, smug) I know it's
> true." Which was precisely the opposite of what I'd always thought
> till that moment! So I looked inside to the blurb, and it was
indeed
> about Richard III and the Princes. . . . And the rest, as they
say,
> is history.
> Anyway, I was totally swept along by the Daughter of Time. It was
the
> first time I had ever had it suggested to me that any part of
> the 'history' taught and handed down was a political fabrication.
And
> I was at that sort of age, growing up, needing to overturn the old
> order of childhood, etc. I think a lot of lifelong interests are
> formed in one's teens.

I don't think this was the first I read, but I was told by someone,
I have no idea who, that this book existed - I think it may have
been a reference by a novelist - and after reading that my mind was
irrevocably made up. I think you are right, teens are an important
formative time. History was not studied at my junior school, and was
not that great at grammar school, but then I watched "Henry VIII and
his six wives" starring Keith Michell when I was 12, and that was my
fate sealed. I read anything I could find after that on history
novel-wise, voraciously, and still do. A few years later the Beeb
showed "Shadow of the Tower" (never reshown)in similar vein on Henry
VII, with a very shifty looking star. Sadly I can't remember what
slant it took on the issue of the prices now after all these years.

> For a year I was totally taken up by the idea of the injustice of
> this lie, and angry also that I and everyone else had been conned.
> Then I read Kendall and sort of fell for Richard as a personality.
> And now? Well, I'm less romantic than I was in my teens. But I
still
> find certain aspects of Richard's character very attractive. And
of
> course people in books are much easier to live with than the ones
> messing up your kitchen! But mainly what keeps me going is the
> detective in me.

His good rule in the north and his military prowess, plus the
intriguing tale of Anne Neville's disappearance and his search for
her certainly make him an interesting character, and you can't fault
his bravery whatever else you can doubt.

> And I do think that studying the problem of Richard III was
actually
> given me a better mental training than any of my set academic
> studies. And the other thing that keeps me going is that we never
get
> to the bottom of the mystery, but new information does keep
turning
> up, just enough to keep the interest alive.
> Would I be interested in Richard if he had been a winner? Well,
no.
> For one thing, if he had won we wouldn't have been brought up to
hate
> him. Questioning the established version and rehabilitating losers
> tend to go together. With an Irish Catholic background, of course,
I
> had not been brought up at home to admire the Tudors or othe cult
of
> history's winning sides. So I guess that laid the groundwork
though
> it's not the same as having ever been told that events had been
> completely rewritten or suppressed for poitical ends. I guess that
> shocked me. To this day I remain rather sceptical of political
> information. There's so much at stake for those involved.

It is an important part of advanced study nowadays to evaluate and
really delve into the issues of reliability in sources, and the
Richard III enigma is the best I have for the purpose too. The case
of the death of Harold II is a good one with the young students, and
Emily Davison and Anmer for older ones, but to really get one's
teeth into dodgy evidence you can't beat Richard III. I think now
they habitually question every source, especially if it's Tudor, and
their view of Shakespeare seems to have transformed too!

> Richard's my only real study interest as an historical figure. I
do
> have a few other characters I like but know less aout. One that
> springs to mind is Red Hugh [or Hugh Roe] O'Donnnell (plenty on
the
> net about him, but some very romanticised). He left no descendants
> but I would appear to be descended from either a half-brother or a
> first cousin of his (or both). Another heroic loser who died
young.
> On the other hand, my favourite character in my favourite book the
> Lord of the Rings (which I also discovered in my teens) is
Aragorn,
> the one who get the girl and the throne of Gondor at the end of
the
> book and rules very happily to the end of his days.
> Marie

It's a shame another English hero, Edmund Ironside, has never seemed
to attract the kind of attention he deserves.
Brunhild

I found the answers very interesting.

Much of it confirms what I thought might be behind my interest.

As I mentioned it was my mother who introduced me to Richard, she had
a copy of Tey and said I should read it. So, in some ways, I never
had to completely overturn the Tudor/Shakespeare version, I wasn't
overly aware of it.

Being Australian we didn't do much British history, certainly not the
Middle Ages. In Fifth Form (Year 11) I did British History but that
was mostly nineteenth century.

Though when my parents and grandparents were at school it was nearly
all British History. I found an old textbook of my grandfather's from
the 1920's. Very, very traditional. Never had such "infamy" occurred
in British History, never such a "foul creature".

From an early age (8 or so) I was interested in him, couldn't
believe that he could have been as bad as he was portrayed.

Then age 10 I was writing a novel (which I never finished) about
the princes in the tower, and remember my father saying "its going
to be a short book then, laughing and saying they were murdered
by their uncle in the tower.

Being very much an individual, that was enough to get me hooked
and I was determined to prove him wrong the rest is history.

Also as I grew up I realised that I am an avid conspiracy theory reader and Richard III has enough mysteries to keep me occupied for some
time. Also like others his search for Anne etc inspired me a a romantic
age.

Edward IV is also of interest, prehaps I am just drawn to "bad lads".


sweethelly2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
I found the answers very interesting.

Much of it confirms what I thought might be behind my interest.

As I mentioned it was my mother who introduced me to Richard, she had
a copy of Tey and said I should read it. So, in some ways, I never
had to completely overturn the Tudor/Shakespeare version, I wasn't
overly aware of it.

Being Australian we didn't do much British history, certainly not the
Middle Ages. In Fifth Form (Year 11) I did British History but that
was mostly nineteenth century.

Though when my parents and grandparents were at school it was nearly
all British History. I found an old textbook of my grandfather's from
the 1920's. Very, very traditional. Never had such "infamy" occurred
in British History, never such a "foul creature".




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!Messenger

Helen wrote: I found an old textbook of my
grandfather's from the 1920's. Very, very traditional.
Never had such "infamy" occurred in British History,
never such a "foul creature".

***

That's interesting. I went to school in the DC metro
area of the U.S. The version of English history I
learned made King John the worst of English kings.
His incompetence supposedly caused the revolt which
was ended by the signing of the Magna Carta.

This was reinforced by the Robin Hood stories.

I don't remember hearing anything about Richard III
until I read The Last Plantagenets. Then I saw An Age
of Kings on TV.

I'm just starting to think about the similarities
between the story about King John's nephew Arthur's
death and the story about Richard's nephews' deaths.

It's worth asking why King John's failures and the
death of his nephew, Arthur didn't blacken his
reputation as much as Richard's.

Does anyone have any theories?

Marion


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Helen wrote: I found an old textbook of my
> grandfather's from the 1920's. Very, very traditional.
> Never had such "infamy" occurred in British History,
> never such a "foul creature".
>
> ***
>
> That's interesting. I went to school in the DC metro
> area of the U.S. The version of English history I
> learned made King John the worst of English kings.
> His incompetence supposedly caused the revolt which
> was ended by the signing of the Magna Carta.
>
> This was reinforced by the Robin Hood stories.
>
> I don't remember hearing anything about Richard III
> until I read The Last Plantagenets. Then I saw An Age
> of Kings on TV.
>
> I'm just starting to think about the similarities
> between the story about King John's nephew Arthur's
> death and the story about Richard's nephews' deaths.
>
> It's worth asking why King John's failures and the
> death of his nephew, Arthur didn't blacken his
> reputation as much as Richard's.
>
> Does anyone have any theories?
>
> Marion
>
Well, I think there are probably a few reasons why:

1. King John's time was generally quite a bit rougher than the 15th
century (and that was rough enough), so it took more to shock people.

2. Arthur was, I think, quite a bit older than the Princes - perhaps
someone else can verify this.

3. I think this is the really important one. John was succeeded by
his own son, Henry III. Richard was killed and his throne taken by an
insecure nobody with an invented and totally spurious pedigree from
the last ancient British king (Richard himself had a far sounder one)
and a promise to marry a royal bastard - is it any wonder he had to
take very extreme propaganda measures to justify his position?

Before we get apologetic for putting the traditional line down
to 'Tudor propaganda', I think we should try to imagine ourselves
into Henry VII's shoes in an age of hereditary monarchy. Time and the
success of that very propaganda have invested the Tudor line with a
legitimacy that the terrified Henry in 1485 couldn't have imagined in
his wildest dreams.

Marie

>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

> 2. Arthur was, I think, quite a bit older than the Princes -
perhaps
> someone else can verify this.
>
>

Prince Arthur (Arthur, Duke of Brittany) was born in 1187 and
disappeared in April 1203 so making him either fifteen or sixteen.

He was hardly an innocent though. Arthur, with support from the
French king, laid siege to Poitou and held Eleanor of Aquitaine, his
grandmother, as hostage. He was captured, later transferred to Rouen
and disappeared.

I think I got it right.

Helen

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Helen wrote: I found an old textbook of my
> grandfather's from the 1920's. Very, very traditional.
> Never had such "infamy" occurred in British History,
> never such a "foul creature".
>
> ***
>
> That's interesting. I went to school in the DC metro
> area of the U.S. The version of English history I
> learned made King John the worst of English kings.
> His incompetence supposedly caused the revolt which
> was ended by the signing of the Magna Carta.
>
> This was reinforced by the Robin Hood stories.
>
> I don't remember hearing anything about Richard III
> until I read The Last Plantagenets. Then I saw An Age
> of Kings on TV.
>
> I'm just starting to think about the similarities
> between the story about King John's nephew Arthur's
> death and the story about Richard's nephews' deaths.
>
> It's worth asking why King John's failures and the
> death of his nephew, Arthur didn't blacken his
> reputation as much as Richard's.
>
> Does anyone have any theories?
>
> Marion
>
My theory would be that as John was succeeded by his son there was
not the same drive to blacken his name in order to justify a new and
usurping dynasty with little or no claim to the throne. John was
heavily criticised in his lifetime by church writers, to a great
extent because he failed to go on crusade, but his father had the
same failing (Henry II) and an even worse moral standards, yet he
came in for far less. Having said that he was a very dangerous man
to cross, and John,presumably, was not. He was probably a better
king than his brother Richard, but Richard is a hero for crusading
and therefore received an excellent press. Another factor is likely
to be that John was in the age of the handwriten monastic
manuscript; Richard was in the day of the printing press, or most of
his detractors were.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

> From: sweethelly2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 08:41:32 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Why Richard?
>
> Prince Arthur (Arthur, Duke of Brittany) was born in 1187 and
> disappeared in April 1203 so making him either fifteen or sixteen.
>
> He was hardly an innocent though. Arthur, with support from the
> French king, laid siege to Poitou and held Eleanor of Aquitaine, his
> grandmother, as hostage. He was captured, later transferred to Rouen
> and disappeared.

Arthur was not well known in England, but unfortunately his mother was, and
she was very unpopular. So Arthur, at the time before the succession had
been accepted as going to the eldest son, was never really a serious
candidate, and Richard named John as his heir too.
There is of course the story, eye witness, that John in a drunken fit, very
Angevin, actually killed Arthur with his own hands. This from one of John¹s
supporters too, William Briouse (or Braose) who would later fall out hugely
with John, but not as a result of anything he may have seen or known of
Arthur¹s fate. He said that the body had been thrown into the Seine, later
found and recognised by a fisherman and taken for burial to Bec.
There are other stories about Arthur¹s demise, but this is the most famous,
and, much as I admire John, probably the true one.
In 1207 when Briouse and John had fallen out, mainly because Briouse had
become too powerful for John¹s comfort, the king demanded hostages, and
Briouse¹s wife Matilda (yes, another one!) Refused to hand over her sons to
the man who had killed his own nephew. John never gave her a minute¹s piece
after that declaration, and reputedly she was starved to death.
Paul