Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookpossum
[..] Excerpt From: Markham, Sir Clements R. “Richard III: His Life & Character / Reviewed in the light of recent research.” iBooks.
As Carradine said, the evidence is often found in the account books rather than in "official" accounts.
|
The first part (June 1483, conceivably fits in with other assumptions of Richard's guilt - as Wikipedia (referencing A.J. Pollard) says: 'On 25 June [1483], "a group of lords, knights and gentlemen" petitioned Richard to take the throne.' So there seems no reason why the princes may not have been treated as princes earlier in that same month.
The next part - from the 'Foedera', is a little more convincing, but this is a work of transcription done much later (1704..1735), so I'm not sure how much trust I'd put into subtleties of meaning. As you said, it is possible evidence, the sort of thing that might add weight if there were other evidence being weighed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl
That’s the main reason why the mystery is so intriguing today because there simply isn’t much contemporary evidence available. I’m surprised at how litttle credit is given to More’s writing. It’s the big point of Tey’s message suggesting that it was just gossip in a later era and actually written by someone else (Morton). However Weir argues that it was based on eye-witness accounts, including his own father who was a judge and present at some of the council meetings. In addition she argues that his writing is corroborated independently by some of the contemporary writing to give it further credibility.
|
This is interesting to hear - I really must get a copy of Weir's work. I'm not much of a fan of More - especially not since watching
A History of Britain. Not that I was a fan of Henry VIII, either, but More struck me as the most annoyingly sanctimonious ... Anyway. It would be nice to think that More's history had some credibility, if only so that we can continue to enjoy Shakespeare with a clear conscience.