Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Arts & HumanitiesHistory · 1 decade ago

Richard III?

Was Richard the Third, in your opinion, guilty or not guilty in the murder of the Princes in the Tower? History points him out as guilty, for the most part, but i've read some interesting fiction books about the mystery. all of them present richard in a positive light. So, what do YOU think? Because I've looked at the facts, and some of them seem like he's a good man, and then others seem like you couldn't possibly argue that he was good. I don't know, so I want to know what YOU think!

6 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Honestly? I don't think he did it. I really think that the killer was acting on the orders of Henry VII..and here's why...

    Richard was ALWAYS the strongest supporter of his brother Edward, and did everything he could (even when it was sometimes detramental to himself) in order to show loyalty to his brother. However, Richard was also a strong supporter of law and order, and if it was proven to him that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was not valid, then he really would have saw himself as the legitimate heir to the English throne. He had been known to be a kind man though (the "evil" Richard that we now see only starts to be shown by Tudor-era historians, many contemporary sources portray him as a kind man) and I do not see him as killing his nephews, because that would have been disloyal to his brother.

    If Richard truly saw himself as the legitimate claim to the throne of England then he would not have viewed his nephews as a threat so therefore it would not have made sense for him to kill them (especially when you consider that his own son & wife were sickly). It does however, make sense for Henry VII to kill the boys. Henry viewed them as being legitimate (or else he would have married their sister Elizabeth). If the boys were legitimate & still alive then Henry himself had no right to claim the throne, thus he would have had them killed.

    That's just what I think....

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    He was guilty all right. But he may not have been after the crown from the moment his brother died.

    Edward IV had practised a 'divide and rule' policy, playing the Woodvilles off against Richard, Buckingham and Hastings. Once Edward died, one side had to get the other before the other side got them. Richard won the race.

    Edward, however, was already at age 12 devoted to his Wodville relatives. Don't forget that medieval kings started ruling quite young - Edward IV himself at 18. At 17, Edward III had organised the coup that resulted in the removal and death of Mortimer. So Richard didn't have long. Hence the reason for removing Edward's other supporters, seizing the crown himself, and then having the Princes killed.

    Buckingham's actions around the time of his rebellion suggest that the Princes were dead by then.

    Ricardians remind me a bit of holocaust deniers. It's a bit ridiculous to call More, a man who went to his death for what he believed the truth, a propagandist scribbler because you just happen not to agree with what he wrote.

  • Big B
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Richard had all of the motivations for murdering the two princes. Prince Edward was already recognised as King Edward V, all that he needed was for the coronation. The two princes were the legitimate heirs of King Edward IV, Richards brother.

    While I agree that Richard has been much maligned by history - especially Shakespeare, I believe that Richard was not beneath having the two princes killed to become king.

    Richard was an astute and opportunistic politician who did everything to manoeuver himself into position to become king.

  • 1 decade ago

    not guilty

    read this:

    "Why Henry VII, and not Richard III?

    Because it turns out that Edward IV, before he married Elizabeth Woodville, the mother of the two boys in question, had secretly married another lady: one Eleanor Butler. Therefore, the lads were illegitmate and not in the direct line of succession, which means that the motive attributed to Richard for murdering the two boys goes up in a puff of smoke.

    Once both Richard and Parliament got over the shock of finding the late Edward IV to have been a bigamist, Parliament created an Act called Titulus Regius, acknowledging Edward's bigamy, his sons' illegitimacy, and their uncle Richard's right to the throne.

    When Henry VII came to power at the head of a French army, having just slaughtered the popular King Richard, he was desperate to prove his right to the throne. Henry's blood-right in the succession was so shaky that in his claim to the English throne he had written that it was his de jure belli et de jure Lancastriae - by right of conquest and only secondly by right of being a Lancaster, Henry's own mother being the heir of an illegitimate son of the third son of Edward III, Richard's legitimate great-grandfather.

    In order to buttress his claim, he had to weaken Richard's, the man whom he had murdered. Therefore, his first act was to suppress Titulus Regius: He repealed it without allowing it to be read, and anyone found with a copy of it in his or possession was heaved into prison for as long as Henry wished, which often turned out to be forever.

    However, by repealing the Act, he put Richard's nephews back in the line of succession - and made the elder of the two King of England - which he solved by simply having the boys murdered and then having his favorite scribe, the aforementioned John Morton, Bishop of Ely, spread the tale that Richard had done the deed before his death."

    **and the reason many people are upset with thomas more's description of richard III is due to the fact that he was 5 years old at the time of richard's death --- meaning he was too young to understand what was going on at the time and the facts in his book were composed entirely of hearsay

    in fact, he wrote the book out of information gained from john morton, who was enemy to richard III and aquaintance of Henry VII

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    You've read some fiction..!! Haven't you also answered your own question? Where do you think the two skeletons came from that were found in the latter part of the last century? You should look up the word "fiction" by the way.

  • caba
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    I totally agree with JessicaA - very succinct points. Further, I think it was the whole Tudor propaganda/spin machine that cast R3 in such a bad light.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.