Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
Richard's guilty. Motive, means, opportunity.
If he didn't kill the princes, who did?
Is there any real doubt that he stole the throne from his nephew? If he did that, then all else follows--as long as they lived, they were a danger to him. Why else did he lock them up in the Tower? Who else had the slightest motive to kill them? Or had access to them?
I don't care how many faux trials return a not-guilty verdict. He did it.
|
Clearly Josephine Tey failed to convince you. Yes, there is more than doubt that he "stole" the throne, and there is the document Titulus Regius to prove it.
"Locked up in the tower" - yes, the Tower was used as a prison, but it was also a royal residence. After all, castles have dungeons, don't they, but not everyone living in a castle was imprisoned there by any means. The princes were, at least for a time, living in the royal residence in the Tower.
However, if you aren't convinced
Catlady, nothing I can say will change your mind, and that's okay. Of course I don't know, any more than anyone else, whether he did it or not, but I find the whole thing a fascinating historical exercise. History isn't black or white - it is dappled.