The New Murrey and Blue blog

Dealing With Richard’s Critics.

, , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Going in to bat for Richard III on Facebook, or other places, can be quite an experience.

First of all, any positive source you quote, say for example Annette Carson, is almost invariably rejected as biased. (Of course, all the anti-Richard texts are balanced and impartial, right?)

Secondly, people really don’t want to know about cases cited from other reigns and eras. They want to believe Richard was uniquely wicked. Far worse than anyone else who ever occupied the English throne.

I cannot but think that this is because of a desire to legitimate the Tudor usurpation. This is, after all, an attitude with ancient roots. The Tudors (and indeed their successors) wanted to people to think that removing the sovereign from the throne (or plotting to do so) was a heinous act, that justified the ‘traitors’ being publicly dismantled on a scaffold with maximum prejudice. But it begged a huge question. Namely, how did the Tudors themselves come to the throne? Why was it OK for them to remove a crowned and anointed King who had been appointed by Parliament?

One answer was the ludicrous pretence that they were, in fact, the legitimate heirs of Edward III, that the nasty Yorks had somehow usurped. This is such a stretch that even Margaret Beaufort herself, in her private fantasies, must have struggled to square it with reality. After 1471, there is no reasonable doubt that Edward IV was both heir male and heir general of Edward III. You may argue about who Edward’s rightful heir was, but it was definitely not Henry Tudor. That is the rough equivalent of suggesting that Richard II’s lawful heir was Anne of Gloucester, Countess of Stafford. People would laugh at that, wouldn’t they?

The other excuse – er, I mean justification – was that Richard III was so incredibly and exceptionally wicked that God wanted the virtuous and saintly Henry VII to take his place. Now, again, this is one hell of a stretch, but to have any faith in this view you have to believe that Richard III was indeed some degrees worse than Hitler on a bad day. Never mind the facts! He must have been, mustn’t he? It stands to reason! Otherwise, the saintly Tudors would not have prevailed.

I believe the Tudor lovers, to this day, still have this reasoning in their subconscious, at the very least. Though how anyone who admires the blood-stained and paranoid Tudor dynasty can look down on Richard III on a moral basis eludes me.

So, while excuses will be made for (say):

Bolingbroke summarily executing Wiltshire before Bolingbroke became king.

Henry IV having Archbishop Scrope and the Earl Marshal executed after a drumhead trial.

Henry VI having his uncle arrested, and the said uncle having his lands and his offices stripped and distributed before trial, and conveniently dying just at the right time.

Edward IV having Oxford and his son executed after a summary trial on flimsy evidence.

Warwick the Kingmaker lopping the heads off sundry Woodvilles and Herberts without any authority whatever.

No excuses will be accepted for Richard III. None. He was evil. And he murdered his nephews, even though there’s no proof he actually did.

And if Henry VII subsequently executed the innocent Warwick, so what? He had a trial. No doubt he also had a KC to defend him and an impartial jury, because the Tudors would never do anything sniffy, would they? Warwick should have been happy that Henry didn’t just murder him like Uncle Richard would have done – but didn’t, funnily enough. Looks like evil Richard slipped up there. After all, Warwick really was a traitor. The saintly Henry VII said so, so it must be true.

Subscribe to my newsletter

  1. amma19542019 Avatar
    amma19542019

    The prob with Tudor apologists (including Amin) is that they know so very little about the era in general and Richard in specific that any discussion, or god forbid ‘debate’ is pointless. They ‘know’ preset Tudor/BBC narratives, they ‘know’ Shakespeare’s version of ‘history’ and since almost all English history has been revised to include the Tudors (‘here is an early Tudor manor house from around 1340’ … just as all costume, furnishings, literature, are all “anticipating, approaching, close to, very much like … Tudor” – be it from 1380 or 1410 or 1438!) so one cannot really blame the poor innocents out there.

    If I do engage in a comment I tend to stick with Edward of Warwick as Henry VII has NO basis of defense on this one, NONE. I have never seen a scrap of that ‘trial’ much less any mention of Warwick’s defense lawyer(s) (if any) – and in consideration that he had spent his entire life with Henry as a captive, unwilling, without cause, for 14 years, since he was 10 years old, in isolation in the Tower, to the point where he was unable to tell the difference between a goose and a gander (according to his sister – since he had never been around animals (of any sort) I find it ludicrous to suggest he had committed ‘treason.’

    If young Warwick was mentally deficient then H7 murdered a helpless addled man-child, repugnant in the extreme. If Warwick had once been mentally fit, but 14 long years in complete isolation in that cell in the Tower had rendered him quite simple, having never been allowed around his own sister, not once, not even for an hour, or to be with his cousins (like the Queen), never been allowed once outside to the court for the Christmas festivities or on holy days (IF Amin knows differently, I beg him provide just ONE example where he knows of such luxuries for this kid, just one) then I do wonder WHY H7 decided to allow Warbeck such close quarters around this young man who was never allowed to be around anyone!

    To please his Spanish masters, the king and queen of Spain, Henry devised the means of Warwick’s ruin, apparently just discussing a life OUTSIDE the Tower was treason, can you imagine? For some glorious moments the young man was outside, yes, on his way to his beheading, but for a few moments, free of that dismal, wretched cell that had been his ‘home’ – he had once been someone, not the ward of Dorset, I do not mean that, no, he had once been knighted, and treated as if he had a future, as if he would once day be a real scion of his family, nephew of a king, with his own household, at Sheriff Hutton. He was once someone, until Henry of Richmond decided otherwise.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply
  2. Q Avatar
    Q

    Let me try to summarise the reasons behind Tudor apologists:

    Apologists are (self-identified) Tudor decedents (even without DNA proofs)

    Apologists have ancestors beheaded during R3’s rule (highly unlikely)

    Apologists have been bullied by boy(s) named Richard in school (I am particularly referring to Dan Jones here)

    Apologists just don’t care that much about real history and hold to those “traditional views”. Of course, studying and doing research is too much for them

    Apologists are trying to please the current British royals and nobility (to get fame and money)

    Apologists do not dare to “stand against the crowd”

    Apologists (especially “historians”) fear that if the fact that “R3 is good” is revealed, it would become clear to the public that they did nothing/spread only lies in the past. Not good for them

    Apologists feel guilty because they know R3 deserves better comments. To hide and dodge their guilt and bad feeling they try to convince the public and themselves that it is justified to call R3 “wicked”.

    Anything else?

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply
    1. amma19542019 Avatar
      amma19542019

      I would add the Tiktok phenomena, that flaming dumpster fire of opinion and ‘information’ – I was listening to a gentleman (French-Canadian I believe) who has a channel devoted to current geo-political topics with an emphasis on the long view of history – well, a recent Tiktok nearly sent him stratospheric – it involved the Tiktokker’s rant about Britain’s colonizing India, except the kid quite literally got every detail wrong yet garnered millions of ‘liked’ views.
      For our purposes we are no longer dealing with educated viewpoints hiding behind virtue signaling, or even behind the BBC safety screen of all-Tudor all-the time. It’s now Tiktok time, beyond even the BBC and Hollywood and Netflix.
      As for the academic, omg, as one myself, it is a profoundly disturbing reality, this uniform lack of curiosity, the lack of questioning, of probing, connecting dots, or even giving a damn about it, that is so alarming, in my own discipline it is cowardice, financial fear of losing position and possibly a shot a tenure track – say nothing, do nothing, upset no one, least of all department heads and the elites who made their bones following the ‘rules’ and established narratives. For example, I guarantee that the ‘anonymous’ cleric, the Crowland Chronicler, has been known by name for decades by a core of these elite academics but can never reveal that name – it would also reveal his baggage: his complete unsuitability as an impartial ‘witness’ of vaunted integrity. I had avoided doing a deep dive into Crowland out of a misguided assumption that ‘he’ was beyond my depth, that I had insufficient research behind me … well, in lockdown I bit that bullet and dove in, eyes wide open: Crowland, is a fraud. “Anonymous” as a cover has proven worthy research – it has so far kept him in the safety of academic isolation – and now you know another reason why Ricardians are different from Tudor apologists!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Q Avatar
        Q

        Dear friend, thank you for your message. I am not sure whether you are British but since we have some sort of “freedom of speech” on this platform:
        I come from a country with long tradition of monarchy but they are gone now. People will argue about historical figures and have their different opinions. But the government will not actively “direct” public opinions on any of these figures because it does not descend from any of them. I am afraid I cannot say the same thing for UK, because you know that the current British royals recognise Henry Tudor as their ancestor. Also Percies, Stanleys, Herberts,…they all have their descendants till today. If the “common belief” “R3 is bad” is shaken, the situation won’t look good for them. People (not only Ricardians but the majority of the population) would question why Henry Tudor and those who follow him are allowed to sit on the throne in the first place. Also why Percies and Stanleys are not punished for letting French army (with Tudor) to invade England. This is my opinion why there is unfair treatment about R3, Ricardian views. You can see in some books of those “historians” that Henry Tudor can be bad but R3 cannot be good.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. dorahak Avatar
    dorahak

    You make me want to read Josephine Tey’s The Daughter of Time again. Which I think I will. Team Richard has the best defenders!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. amma19542019 Avatar
      amma19542019

      Oh yes he does! When you’re in the right, it’s easy.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  4. amma19542019 Avatar
    amma19542019

    Dear Q,

    Not a Brit, just a mutt (Americans often refer to themselves like this) my dad was the only one in his family to even bother to finish middle school, his parents were completely illiterate, I’ve seen the ‘x’s on the Census sheets my daughter has tracked down. They expected to be deported (monthly) and sent back to the hellish nightmare of Russia (they were Polish or Ukrainian or Czech who knows). In many ways that side of the family is closer to the villeins and actual peasants of Europe of Richard’s day than anywhere in the 20thc (ok, eastern Europe was still 14thc). That I went all the way through grad school is the result of where I was born, in NY, to NY parents, and Americans are ornery cusses when told they can’t do something, which you may have noticed. My mom’s heroes were Jefferson and Mark Twain, one genteel and one ornery but both obstinate cusses.
    So it is not in my craw to give up – Richard was no Clifford, he would no sooner spill the blood of his own nephews than he would anally impale dead men upside down at Southampton to abuse their corpses (as Edward did, while history has decided to blame Worcester; perhaps Edward standing beside Tiptoft meant he had conferred his kingship to his Constable as well? Took the afternoon off?) Nor did Richard kill his hostages, as the golden brother did. But for the landowning classes none of that really would have been a bother, it was what Edward did with property inheritance rights that was so incendiary, and eye popping even today. Edward coarse behavior did not exist in a vacuum, generations of men, gentry and peers, alike, had been coarsened by the French wars that had gone on for three and more generations, often to the ruin of once prosperous families. The example of Lord Moleyns, a loose cannon if there ever was one, is a case in point, his wretched conduct makes the Cliffords and Stanleys appear milquetoast by comparison, is it any wonder Edward and then Richard would have no luck with Walter Hungerford, his (almost completely abandoned son)? (You say Edward? yes, he allowed the family attainders to stand).
    As for the royals today, well, good luck with that Urn and pinning their virtue and legitimacy on Harry of Richmond! GL Harriss neatly shot “Tudors” parentage to bits in his excellent biography of Cardinal Beaufort (see pg.178-9, footnote of course, everything worth reading is always in the footnotes) – much like scholars who ‘know’ but cannot say Crowland is X (and as such a highly compromised ‘authority’) so too Edmund Beaufort fathered Edmund “Tudor” with Catherine of Valois. Harriss’s detailed reasoning is actually quite painful to read, one feels for Owen Tudor, badly used by Henry VI’s inner court powers, espied by Humphrey of Gloucester for the decoy that he made to be, resulting eventually in someone called Henry “Tudor” – a Beaufort on both sides, his parents were first cousins.
    If the royals do not wish to ascribe to that scenario for validation there is always ‘conquest’ – it was good enough for William the Norman bastard and while Henry of Richmond did not plan, finance, strategize, nor fight at Bosworth his fanny was there and the French regent Anne de Beaujeu expected residuals. That H7 would soon reneg and betray his Breton supporters is no surprise.
    The Urn is even less reliable than H7’s moral fiber, the ‘bones’ within were contaminated at the time of ‘discovery’ and a jumbled mess, toss into a heap with other refuse by workers who did and still do find ‘stuff’ at the Tower. Henry Pole, unfortunate son of father (same name, executed shortly after both were thrown into the Tower by cousin H8) was prob 9 or 10? when imprisoned, but never emerged, and was never seen again – if those are his bones, he too carries the DNA that would be in any bones from Edward V or his brother. Henry Pole was the grandson of Margaret of Warwick, sister to the murdered Edward, (28 Nov 1499) to appease the wishes of the Spanish King and Queen. Both Margaret and Edward were first cousins of Edward V, the DNA, if it could be found intact and not hopelessly damaged, could just as easily be that of another victim of Henry VIII.
    If female bones, why not the young daughters of Edmund Mortimer? They were imprisoned in the Tower with their mother, Catrin verch Owain GlynDwr, just after the Siege of Harlech, where their father Edmund Mortimer died. Owain’s wife was also captured and send to London’s Tower, she did survive, but not Catrin and Mortimer’s young daughters, placed there by Henry IV. Should the DNA be viable and provide some feasible markers I would love to know if we have DNA from the Mortimers, also Richard’s family, ancestors on his father’s side.
    In fact, Katherine Mortimer, the incredibly prolific daughter of Roger Mortimer, 1st earl of March (exec. 29 nov 1330) who would marry the 11th earl of Warwick, Thomas de Beauchamp – their 15+ children include virtually every ennobled name you that you read about with Richard (Cliffords, Ferrers, Fitzalans, Staffords, le Strange, Basset, de Ufford that is these were the Earls of Arundel, the de Bohuns, Ormonds, earls of Suffolk, even Anne Boleyn is a descendent), one could say Katherine Mortimer, and her numerous sisters, (who married the de Berkeleys, Audleys, Grandisons, Laurence Hastings, 1st earl of Pembroke, Thomas de Braose) easily CREATED the roots of nobility of the 14th and 15th centuries which branched out from that point on!
    Good luck with that Urn!
    So, Q, take heart, facts and resilience and pugnacious determination on our side, what does the Tudor-apologist have? the BBC and worn out double-speak, ye gods.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Q Avatar
      Q

      Dear Amma(if I may say so),
      Thank you for the informative insights! As for the bones in that urn, I am almost certain they have nothing to do with E4’s sons, otherwise there will be enough “Tudor fans” who want to use it to seal the “bad reputation of R3”. On the other hand, if the bones are proven not to be the boys, it won’t look good for the British royals either because it was Charles II who produced this argument. More people would question about the “traditional views” produced by Henry “Tudor’s” descendants

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

Leave a reply to Q Cancel reply