I notice that the identity of alleged child-murderer Richard III under a car park in Leicester has been confirmed. But the press release from Leicestershire County Council manages not to mention the suspicious circumstances in which Richard ascended the throne at all.
Now, clearly there is no chance of proof beyond reasonable doubt of guilt at this point. And the chances of witnesses coming forward at this point are, frankly, slight. So we're never going to know the truth. Best re-inter him, with a degree of dignity, and without too much hoopla, I say. I'm glad to see that this notorious non-Yorkshireman is not going to be "returned" to York. Leicester and Fotheringhay were the only two candidates as far as I could see, and Fotheringhay already has enough associations with another ambiguous "innocent" "hero".
I suppose life was writ big if you were in the 15th/16th Century Royal Family. You won, or you died. Richard did both. History does not record if, when he was buried, the monks of Leicester Abbey arranged to have "My Way" played - but at least in Richard's case it would be true.
Surely Henry VII is as good a suspect as the late Richard III - and Henry flourished like a green bay tree. Not that that's really evidence against him, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteHenry "in exile abroad the whole time" VII? By remote control? Suspect it would have been easier to kill Richard III and then get the princes, rather than have them killed first. Simplest argument is most likely, I reckon.
DeleteYes, I think Henry found them alive after he took over, and thought they were terribly inconvenient. Wasn't there some record of purchases made for the princes after Richard III allegedly killed them?
ReplyDeleteNot that anyone will ever know for sure what happened, I suppose - but that makes for the most fascinating historical puzzles.