Friday, July 6, 2018

Book Brag!

A New Treasure!!


I know, I know. what the heck am I doing in posting now, when we all know this will also be on tomorrow's Stacking the Shelves list?! But I could not wait to rejoice in this one finally arriving. I ordered it back in May when my mom gave me an Amazon gift card for Mother's Day and got some books I had been wanting for a long time. The others arrived much earlier, but this one was only just released in the US and now it is

MINE ALL MINE!

As you can tell, I am quite excited to read it. Matthew Lewis is an excellent historian and I enjoyed his book on Henry III entitled Henry III: The Son of Magna Carta. I have his book Richard, Duke of York: King by Right on my shelf waiting for me. (I'm telling ya, seriously, take advantage of Amberley's awesome sales when the entire site is 25-30% off. Shipping to the US is $15 flat.)

I am generally of the mindset that Richard III had his nephews murdered, but I am also quite interested when good quality historians* pen an argument for the opposite view. Lewis may loosely identify himself as a Ricardian, but I know I can expect his work to be thorough and unbiased.

So what do you think - who had the boys killed. Richard III, Henry VII, or someone else? Or, do you think it is possible one/both escaped and lived out their lives under assumed names? Let's chat about it!

Happy Reading!
Sarah

*"Good quality historians" meaning those who are unbiased and after only the facts. They do not blather about on national television, seemingly IN LOVE with Richard and sobbing uncontrollably when it was confirmed he did, in fact, have a curvature of the spine. Not naming any names, but seriously woman, get a grip.

10 comments:

  1. I've always suspected that it was Henry VII's mother that arranged it so her son could take the throne with public support. I always felt that discrediting the boys as bastards was accepted by most people not keen on a boy prince but having them killed turned public opinion against him. I didn't think Richard would take such a dangerous risk. I find the whole subject fascinating!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is one of the great mysteries we will never solve - unless QEII would ever allow the bones found in the Tower when it was being repaired to be tested. I have always thought that they were killed either on Richard's orders, or someone who perceived himself as following Richard's orders. I think Henry VII at some point was told they were killed, so he knew it would be safe to marry Elizabeth/declare them legitimate again.

      Delete
    2. I don't buy the Margaret Beaufort story at all: and think there's a reason why its almost the exclusive preserve of fiction authors. For the whole thing to have worked, Margaret would literally have had to have had the ability for foresee the future.

      She would have had to have known that Richard's own son would die before him, and know that Richard himself would die as Bosworth: because killing the Princes in 1483 would not have put Henry on the Throne. Richard was King, and he had an heir.

      Delete
    3. I have actually read several articles, posts and such citing Margaret Beaufort as the ringleader so to speak, so it is not necessarily ONLY fiction writers who use it. I don't believe she had anything to do with it, but I disagree with your statements that she would have needed the ability to know the future. Kings and their heirs were never completely 100% safe, and perhaps the princes were only her first step in clearing the way for Henry to take the throne. I don't believe that's what happened, but to dismiss it only on the grounds of her needing to see the future is a bit silly.

      Delete
  2. Ah... Historical conspiracies.... [grin]

    If Richard didn't actually order their deaths I think he may have inadvertently done so ("deal with them") and then had to cover things up later. But I do think they went into the Tower alive and never left there breathing. I understand the desire of some to rehabilitate Richard but things like that happened. They were a political danger to Richard's reign and simply couldn't be allowed to live. Dangerous times and all that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you on both accounts - that they were killed in the Tower by Richard's order or perceived order. I also understand this Ricardian movement - to an extent. As much as we abhor the thought of killing children to maintain power, it was not necessarily given a second thought in that time. It was a terrible, violent age and Richard was no different than any other ruler who used ruthless means to keep the crown.

      Delete
    2. I totally agree as well. I think the one thing that prevents me being a Ricardian is the real lack of understanding of the realities of the period. He might have been a 'nice' person, he might have been loyal- but killing alternative claimants was common at that time. Even Normal. The Princes were not the first inconvenient heirs to have seemingly disappeared off the face of the earth. A similar thing happened to King John's nephew. But nobody suggests Prince Louis of France's wicked mother did it.

      Delete
    3. That's because John killed Arthur himself...supposedly...after he captured Arthur who was in turn trying to capture Eleanor of Aquitaine (Arthur's grandmother).

      Delete
  3. I profess my ignorance at not knowing more than the bare bones of the Tower story so can't make an informed judgement but I'm glad my family rapidly descended from its noble ancestry. Far too dangerous!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OOOOH! Tell me more abut your ancestry!!

      ...and of course, I always have plenty of recommendations if you're interested in learning more about this topic! :D

      Delete