General Discussion

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)

72. I studied history too,

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:23 PM

Feb 2013

and that book was a large part of the reason why. And while some historians earn trust, far too many do not.

But my studies led me to conclude that Richard didn't do it. Maybe I can't be trusted either since I like my roses white.

Edited to add: There have been three mock trials held in recent years, one in Britain (1984), and two in the U.S. ('94 and '97 I think). The ones in this country involved 3 Justices from the Supreme Court. All of them found Richard not guilty.

Which is not to say he was, but certainly casts doubt on the slam dunk case history books claim.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

83 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Discuss Richard III and the War of the Roses [View all] brentspeak Feb 2013 OP

Hey, now. You watch what you say about Henry VII! kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #1

Wow! shenmue Feb 2013 #3

That's probably umpteen-bazillionth, lol. kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #4

My father claims that lineage, too. PDJane Feb 2013 #51

Why, again?! nt UTUSN Feb 2013 #2

Weelll... ananda Feb 2013 #5

There's the theory that Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, killed the princes brentspeak Feb 2013 #8

Hotspur was never 'on top' (even in Shakespeare); he was not royal muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #11

Disconfusion. ananda Feb 2013 #13

Well, to say Hotspur was on top at first would be to come in half way through muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #16

Thanks for bringing up SheilaT Feb 2013 #52

+1 truebluegreen Feb 2013 #55

Hold on a sec. I need to go read his wiki page real quick MattBaggins Feb 2013 #6

I gave you a heart for that reply...nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #21

Fun movie. Blue_In_AK Feb 2013 #7

And anyone who doesn't think that the power that be aren't Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #9

I love you Brentspeak CatWoman Feb 2013 #10

You're welcome! brentspeak Feb 2013 #75

Well, SOMEbody doesn't like the Welsh! P.S. I became a teacher of Brit Lit because, in grade 2, WinkyDink Feb 2013 #12

Nah Spider Jerusalem Feb 2013 #14

Wow! That would make for a great Alternative History novel. madinmaryland Feb 2013 #17

Losing nobles were treated differently during the War of the Roses brentspeak Feb 2013 #19

Well, civil wars were somewhat different to fighting in France Spider Jerusalem Feb 2013 #22

Interesting concept. HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #26

Now, more than ever, frogmarch Feb 2013 #15

"Probably" ? aquart Feb 2013 #29

No, I wouldn't convict frogmarch Feb 2013 #46

Winston Churchill got his information....where? aquart Feb 2013 #34

Interesting! Thanks for frogmarch Feb 2013 #48

Ye bloody paved over me grave flamingdem Feb 2013 #18

Elizabeth (or her minions) killed a lot of people, too AnnieBW Feb 2013 #20

as opposed to what Mary and her minions did to the protestants, jews, etc. etc. etc. CatWoman Feb 2013 #23

Need I point out that Elizabeth and Mary were both Tudors? truebluegreen Feb 2013 #57

Word that AnnieBW Feb 2013 #80

True. truebluegreen Feb 2013 #81

Cromwell Statue Outside of Parliament AnnieBW Feb 2013 #82

Justice! truebluegreen Feb 2013 #83

Elizabeth killed as few Catholics as she could. aquart Feb 2013 #30

Interesting OP. cali Feb 2013 #24

Well, no. Blood squats way less than no blood. aquart Feb 2013 #28

"way less"? why? cali Feb 2013 #31

Legitimate vs legitimated heirs. aquart Feb 2013 #35

They were legitimized by Richard II cali Feb 2013 #36

"Most experts" think the one who benefits most is NOT a likely suspect? aquart Feb 2013 #38

So Richard didn't benefit? LOL. cali Feb 2013 #41

Under Richard, they were bastards and could not rule. aquart Feb 2013 #42

yes, but they poised a real danger in that many would have cali Feb 2013 #45

Henry VII had to make those boys legitimate lapislzi Feb 2013 #49

This OP is one of the reasons I LOVE DU. cliffordu Feb 2013 #25

What you said! JimDandy Feb 2013 #33

I'll third that. Jackpine Radical Feb 2013 #54

We've got good conversation, JimDandy Feb 2013 #60

Skål, JD. Jackpine Radical Feb 2013 #61

Pandora's playing in my headphones... AmBlue Feb 2013 #69

Nice! JimDandy Feb 2013 #73

Your evidence about the princes would be...? aquart Feb 2013 #27

Plight Shaw joesdaughter Feb 2013 #32

Richard III d_r Feb 2013 #37

Yes, Game of Thrones is meant to remind you of the Wars of the Roses. aquart Feb 2013 #44

at least he wasn't the hunchback he was portrayed as Skittles Feb 2013 #39

He WAS called, appropriately, "Crookback." WinkyDink Feb 2013 #59

At the end of the day, does it matter all that much? He's the subject of a pretty famous play Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #40

Does truth matter? Hopefully, to Democrats, it does. aquart Feb 2013 #43

Oh, come on. Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #64

No kidding dsc Feb 2013 #77

I'll take Hanse davion. (Battletech early fiction has all nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #47

I hope this isn't too OT, but frogmarch Feb 2013 #50

Think Mafia turf wars on a larger and much bloodier scale. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #53

Read: Winter King by Thomas Penn--WONDERFUL bio on Henry VII... Moonwalk Feb 2013 #56

Philippa Gregory, in her book, The White Queen, tavernier Feb 2013 #58

The War of the Roses. randome Feb 2013 #62

I recommend everyone read "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey truebluegreen Feb 2013 #63

It's a great fun book, wonderfully written. I've read it 3 or 4 times. cali Feb 2013 #65

I studied history too, truebluegreen Feb 2013 #72

I've recently watched the th '96 trial with Rehnquist cali Feb 2013 #78

"Cute." truebluegreen Feb 2013 #79

"Daughter of Time" is a great book. Cyrano Feb 2013 #66

It was a notorious propaganda scheme DearAbby Feb 2013 #67

Robert Baratheon had no legitimate claim to the Iron Throne of Westeros, either, which by rights Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #71

I think you mean Elizabeth of York brentspeak Feb 2013 #74

thank you, yes. N/t DearAbby Feb 2013 #76

I think it was Henry VII's mother JoDog Feb 2013 #68

I'm gonna roust some rabble!!! jpak Feb 2013 #70