My Kingdom For some DNA

[mundame]

Yes but history is written by the victors. Much of what we have on Richard is filtered through the lens of the Tudor monarchs who succeeded him. From a more balanced point of view, he seems little different from a great many medieval rulers and may have been a bit better than some. He was responsible for some fairly progressive reforms, including the use of bail, the establishment of a poor man's court system, eliminating restrictions on printing books, and translating many laws from French into English. Not as bad a record as you might think.

It is unlikely the monarch himself came up with any of that; his lawyers and chancellors working through three monarchies were making improvements.

The people hated him. Nobody lost sight of the fact that his nephews had mysteriously disappeared in the Tower and he wasn't talking about them, though Edward V was supposed to be crowned; that is why he had travelled to London. Richard II only reigned 26 months; he was deeply unpopular, for excellent reasons; he was the Usurper.

Richard II stole the crown via murder, threatened to marry his niece after his own older wife died in VERY mysterious circumstances, and she herself is known to have feared he meant to kill her, and his brother's widow took sanctuary in a church for months trying to save the lives of her children and herself. Richard II was easily defeated by Henry Tudor because a lot of the nobles went over to Henry's side, though he had almost no blood claim whatsoever. But Richard II was a butcher, constantly killing the nobility and threatening their children. He took the eldest son of one of them hostage and said his head would be struck off if the noble didn't fight on his side with all his affinity; this man said stiffly, "I have more sons." In the end the men charged with killing the heir decided to wait as things were not looking good for Richard's side, so the young man survived.

I think Henry VIII was worse, but Richard II was an evil king.



The Uncrowned Edward V (Right) and the Duke of York in the Tower

[Robert A Whit]

Yes but history is written by the victors. Much of what we have on Richard is filtered through the lens of the Tudor monarchs who succeeded him. From a more balanced point of view, he seems little different from a great many medieval rulers and may have been a bit better than some. He was responsible for some fairly progressive reforms, including the use of bail, the establishment of a poor man's court system, eliminating restrictions on printing books, and translating many laws from French into English. Not as bad a record as you might think.

I hope that you, Mundame and Drummons who seem .... I might not be spotting the other experts .... keep discussing this a bit more. This is my chance to learn something new.

If the issue was if he ruled or two boys ruled, seems to me to favor an adult ruling.

I rely on Mundame a lot for her knowledge of the history of that era. Maybe I would be smart to also listen to you.

I agree that the victors create the history as we learned by the acts of the Rogue Abe Lincoln.

[WiccanLiberal]

In point of fact, there is no concrete evidence that he had anything to do with the deaths of the princes. The majority of the so-called evidence on that comes from a certain playwrite who was operating under a Tudor monarch. The boys were declared illegitimate based on their father's being previously married and not dissolving that marriage. With the princes illegitimate, they had no further claim to the throne and were no threat to their uncle. Richard was PETITIONED to assume the throne - likely a good choice since the idea of having an underaged ruler on the throne in the face of the threat posed by Henry Tudor was the utmost stupidity. It would also appear Richard was generally charitable, giving several large endowments to colleges and chapels. Again I say most of the pinion on this man was largely established by his victorious enemies and further popularized by Shakespeare.

[Robert A Whit]

In point of fact, there is no concrete evidence that he had anything to do with the deaths of the princes. The majority of the so-called evidence on that comes from a certain playwrite who was operating under a Tudor monarch. The boys were declared illegitimate based on their father's being previously married and not dissolving that marriage. With the princes illegitimate, they had no further claim to the throne and were no threat to their uncle. Richard was PETITIONED to assume the throne - likely a good choice since the idea of having an underaged ruler on the throne in the face of the threat posed by Henry Tudor was the utmost stupidity. It would also appear Richard was generally charitable, giving several large endowments to colleges and chapels. Again I say most of the pinion on this man was largely established by his victorious enemies and further popularized by Shakespeare.

Hell, I dunno. This part of history for me is not what I can call well studied. As a Kid, my favorite history was that of South America. I recall that some of the boys could cause the 6th grade teacher to openly weep and run to her office when talking about american history. We all laughed at her problem.

She had the flag in the class and any mention of it caused her to bawl her eyes out.

We were little bastards.