Four-part defense of Richard online

Matthew Lewis, author of the Ricardian novel "Loyalty," has posted a four-part defense of Richard. The links follow. (If they don't link because Yahoo is Yahooing, copy and paste them):

"The Real White Queen? A Defence Of King Richard III" (Part 1):
http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-real-white-queen-a-defence-of-king-richard-iii-13421#sthash.ZFjIN5Rn.dpuf This one refutes Richard's supposed plans to marry E o Y (and/or an ostensible affair with her). I disagree that Richard was "desperate" by this point in his reign (and I think the idea that Catesby and Ratcliffe persuaded him to deny the rumor is Croyland at his least reliable), but still the article calls the Portuguese marriage negotiations to public notice, a very important point.

"The Defence of Richard III Part 2 – The Foundations of Evil": http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-defence-of-richard-iii-part-2-the-foundations-of-evil-13790#sthash.GntYZhe5.dpuf This segment, my least favorite, relates to the death of Edward of Lancaster with the idea that Richard probably didn't kill him, but if he did, so what? It doesn't even mention that Richard was almost as young as the "young prince." It does, however, point out that he was an enemy and considered a man by the standards of the time and also the importance of his death to the Richard III legend.

"The Defence of Richard III Part 3 – To Kill A King": http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-defence-of-richard-iii-part-3-to-kill-a-king-14045 Obviously, this part relates to the murder/execution of Henry VI. It concedes the (to me remote) possibility that Richard did it on Edward's orders but also suggests that Edward may have done it himself. It also mentions the Kendall theory that Richard merely delivered the orders to the Tower in his role as Lord Constable. At the end of the article, he votes Richard not guilty, but the article is not as convincing in supporting that conclusion as it ought to be.

"The Defence of King Richard III Part 4 – Bosworth, Shakespeare & That Horse": http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-defence-of-king-richard-iii-part-4-bosworth-shakespeare-that-horse-14699#sthash.UWV10VbN.dpuf This segment, emphasizing Richard's courage and skill in battle, is the best of the four. Lewis's point about the perpetual misconstruing of "My kingdom for a horse" (despite the fact that Richard never said it) as wrongly indicating Richard's cowardice is especially good.

This last part was evidently posted yesterday, August 22 in England, as an appropriate tribute to Richard on the anniversary of Bosworth.

Here in Tucson, that anniversary is still in progress. It's only 9:56 A.M.

Carol, wearing virtual mourning all day (and probably again on August 31 thanks to Marie's observation!)

Carol,
Thanks for posting this. I hope it gets wide circulation.

hli4

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Matthew Lewis, author of the Ricardian novel "Loyalty," has posted a four-part defense of Richard. The links follow. (If they don't link because Yahoo is Yahooing, copy and paste them):
>
> "The Real White Queen? A Defence Of King Richard III" (Part 1):
> http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-real-white-queen-a-defence-of-king-richard-iii-13421#sthash.ZFjIN5Rn.dpuf This one refutes Richard's supposed plans to marry E o Y (and/or an ostensible affair with her). I disagree that Richard was "desperate" by this point in his reign (and I think the idea that Catesby and Ratcliffe persuaded him to deny the rumor is Croyland at his least reliable), but still the article calls the Portuguese marriage negotiations to public notice, a very important point.
>
> "The Defence of Richard III Part 2 – The Foundations of Evil": http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-defence-of-richard-iii-part-2-the-foundations-of-evil-13790#sthash.GntYZhe5.dpuf This segment, my least favorite, relates to the death of Edward of Lancaster with the idea that Richard probably didn't kill him, but if he did, so what? It doesn't even mention that Richard was almost as young as the "young prince." It does, however, point out that he was an enemy and considered a man by the standards of the time and also the importance of his death to the Richard III legend.
>
> "The Defence of Richard III Part 3 – To Kill A King": http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-defence-of-richard-iii-part-3-to-kill-a-king-14045 Obviously, this part relates to the murder/execution of Henry VI. It concedes the (to me remote) possibility that Richard did it on Edward's orders but also suggests that Edward may have done it himself. It also mentions the Kendall theory that Richard merely delivered the orders to the Tower in his role as Lord Constable. At the end of the article, he votes Richard not guilty, but the article is not as convincing in supporting that conclusion as it ought to be.
>
> "The Defence of King Richard III Part 4 – Bosworth, Shakespeare & That Horse": http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/the-defence-of-king-richard-iii-part-4-bosworth-shakespeare-that-horse-14699#sthash.UWV10VbN.dpuf This segment, emphasizing Richard's courage and skill in battle, is the best of the four. Lewis's point about the perpetual misconstruing of "My kingdom for a horse" (despite the fact that Richard never said it) as wrongly indicating Richard's cowardice is especially good.
>
> This last part was evidently posted yesterday, August 22 in England, as an appropriate tribute to Richard on the anniversary of Bosworth.
>
> Here in Tucson, that anniversary is still in progress. It's only 9:56 A.M.
>
> Carol, wearing virtual mourning all day (and probably again on August 31 thanks to Marie's observation!)
>