Surprising defense of Richard

I accidentally found this article in, of all places, "The American Political Journal." To be sure, it cites "Daughter of Time" as its main (only?) source and drags out the old argument that Henry VII murdered the "Princes," but still, it's always refreshing to find defenses of Richard where you don't expect them, even when they are a little too idealized. http://www.americanpolitics.com/091399Baker.html Too late to respond, though. The article is dated 1999!

Carol

Did I tell you that I have tracked down
Bertram Fields and blogged his notes on murreyandblue, with his consent?

From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 24 January 2015 23:01
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Surprising defense of Richard


I
accidentally found this article in, of all places, "The American Political
Journal." To be sure, it cites "Daughter of Time" as its main
(only?) source and drags out the old argument that Henry VII murdered the
"Princes," but still, it's always refreshing to find defenses of
Richard where you don't expect them, even when they are a little too idealized.
http://www.americanpolitics.com/091399Baker.html Too late to respond, though.
The article is dated 1999!

Carol

Once again "defense of Richard" always annoys me as it assumes that
there are crimes to answer to.
Paul
[who has a ticket for Society service in Leicester !! Thrilled to
bits to know I can spend at least an hour close to King Richard.]

On 25/01/2015 10:28, 'Stephen'
stephenmlark@... [] wrote:
Did I tell you that
I have tracked down
Bertram Fields and blogged his notes on murreyandblue,
with his consent?
 
From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 24
January 2015 23:01
To:

Subject:
[Richard III Society
Forum] Surprising defense of Richard
 
 
I
accidentally found this article in, of all places,
"The American Political
Journal." To be sure, it cites "Daughter of Time"
as its main
(only?) source and drags out the old argument that
Henry VII murdered the
"Princes," but still, it's always refreshing to
find defenses of
Richard where you don't expect them, even when
they are a little too idealized.
http://www.americanpolitics.com/091399Baker.html
Too late to respond, though.
The article is dated 1999!

Carol

Paul wrote :
Once again "defense of Richard" always annoys me as it assumes that
there are crimes to answer to."Carol responds:Obviously, I didn't use the phrase with that assumption. I meant a defense against the charges continually raised against Richard (coming from a surprising source). Even an innocent person charged with a crime is called a defendant and requires the services of a defense attorney to prove his innocence. It's the prosecutor who "assumes that there are crimes to answer to."Carol