Sometimes kooky people get to run a country. Good
example: Henry of Richmond who became the first Tudor king of England as Henry
VII. Thanks to Tudor apologists, most notably Shakespeare and John Morton, we
have been given the picture of Richard III as a demented and relentlessly self-absorbed
and deformed bungler of power from whom the nation was spared by the exploits
of Henry. Richard of York, this object
of disdain, was rather a man of honorable conduct and courage in battle who had
integrity and administrative skills beyond what kings often have had. And he
did not have that withered arm. Henry, on the other hand, that bizarre
interloper, was simply weird. He once pitted 4 mastiffs against a lion, and
then hanged the victorious dogs for treason because they dared defeat a lion,
the symbol of royalty. (Under his predecessor’s historic Plantagenet family,
the royal symbol had been the leopard.)
Modern times are no different. There have been many
examples. Idi Amin comes to mind, of course.
Oops. I meant to say “His
Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada,
VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and
Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular.”
And then there is Kim Jong Un, dictator of North Korea. His family is
invincible, you know. Something about a special bloodline? Well, maybe not…..last week his Kim Jong Nam,
half brother of the “Dear Leader, who is a perfect incarnation of the
appearance that a leader should have”, to choose only one of that illustrious
person’s titles, was apparently killed in Malaysia by a nerve toxin so deadly
that it is classified as a weapon of mass destruction. Maybe that bloodline IS
so strong that a weapon of mass destruction had to be chosen, and perhaps now
the dead brother may serve as a weapon of mass distraction.
I don't think any historian would dispute the fact that Henry VII exhibited some profound flaws in character and engaged in bizarre behaviors on occasion. Nevertheless, most of those same historians would rank him as a "successful" king. After all, he did end the civil wars known as the Wars of the Roses (admittedly, he was ruthless in doing so), strengthened the monarchy by systematically reducing other centers of power within the kingdom, kept England out of expensive and deadly European wars, and handed his son a full treasury and a secure title to the throne.
ReplyDeleteRichard, on the other hand, did usurp the throne from his young nephew and was directly or indirectly (depending on the perspective of the historian asked) responsible for his and his younger brother's death. He did have a profound spinal deformity (as demonstrated by the relatively recent discovery of his skeleton - found buried under a parking lot). And he did lose the Battle of Bosworth Field (Henry won). Hence, the traditional view that the better man emerged from that conflict has some merit.
I posted a reply at http://gordonfeil.blogspot.ca/2017/03/more-on-richard-iii-and-henry-vii.html
ReplyDelete