A
thoughtful reader responded to my post, http://gordonfeil.blogspot.ca/2017/02/kings-and-idiots.html,
and his comments are to be seen at that link. I think they deserve a reply.
I
agree that the parsimonious Henry died rich, unlike his state when he took the
throne. One of his first acts was a bill of attainder against dead Richard and
those who had fought for York at Bosworth, under which it was legal for Henry
to scoop all their property into his own empty pocket. His taxes are legendary:
if you looked poor it must be because you didn’t spend much and could then
afford to pay a hefty tax, and if you seemed well looked after, you must also
be able to pay a high tax.
Contrast
this to Richard who, when Louis XI of France richly bribed Edward IV and the
nobles with him to abandon their invasion of France, was the only one to refuse
to accept any part of the payoff, asking what the world would think of English
courage after that event.
I
agree that Richard did take the throne from his nephew, but it appears to have
been after much thought and taking the pulse of the public. England was tired
of boy kings. Richard II was still much in memory. For Richard III to take the
throne probably prevented a war that likely would have occurred on account of national
resentment over the influence of the Woodvilles upon the youth, Edward V.
As
to the fate of the two princes, Costain, in his The Last Plantagenets, makes a compelling case in favor of these
lads having lived into the Tudor reign and meeting their demise under the watch
of Henry VII.
I enjoy your posts on history and your analysis of the personalities and motivations of historical figures (even when we reach different conclusions). I am familiar with the works of the major historians on these dynasties (Plantagenet/Tudor) and these individuals (Richard III and Henry VII), including Thomas Costain. I'm sure that you will acknowledge that the view that the little princes lived into the reign of the first Tudor is not the view held by the overwhelming majority of historians. However, even if we were to accept this view, we would still be faced with the fact that Richard III's usurpation of his nephew's throne (and subsequent imprisonment of the lad) placed his life in jeopardy. Hence, my assertion that, whoever actually did the deed (murdered Edward V and his brother), Richard is culpable. Moreover, I do not find the history of failed boy kings a compelling justification for Richard's usurpation of the throne. A good man/uncle could have done an admirable service to his nephew and country by serving in the capacity of a strong, protective and nurturing regent.
ReplyDeleteYou could well be right in your assessment of Richard, but I am not fond of flaunting the fashionable. I do find his long loyalty to his brother dissuading me from thinking he killed his brother's boys.
ReplyDelete