Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl
Oh my. I missed Bookpossum’s long message. I feel so behind everyone by the time I get home from work in the evening, even though Charlie and Dazrin are in my same time zone. Bookpossum’s thinking about dinner Thursday and I’m falling asleep while typing this on Wednesday night!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wearever
Same for me, I falling behind, but I know even if I post late in the evening I know the Australians will see it.  Trying to keep up on the east coast. I'll only get busier as the holiday weekend approaches. |
Me three
I go to bed, and suddenly there’s a party
Thank you everyone, for all the great material you’re posting! It’s fascinating to hear opposing arguments. The more I read outside sources, the more agnostic I feel. I don’t think I could convict Richard without better proof.
There’s no evidence the boys were murdered. For example, they could have succumbed to a virus or infection. Children died regularly - Richard and Edward had several siblings that didn’t make it to adulthood. If it happened during an uprising, there may only have been a private funeral.
There were rumours that the boys were murdered. But rumours about royalty are omnipresent. An hour ago, I read in the grocery line that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are having a daughter. Last month it was twin boys.
I agree with
Catlady the Richard stole the crown. The claim of a precontract is very shaky, with Edward and Eleanor both dead and Stillington the only witness. Tey’s portrayal of Stillington’s news as so unexpected and shocking that that Richard and the Council were forced to change direction is bogus. Claims of a ’precontract’ were a dime a dozen, and the most convenient grounds used to petition the church for an annulment.
Maybe Richard and his supporters sincerely believed it was safer to take the throne than leave the country in the hands of an easily controlled child. Once the Titulus Regius was introduced, Richard may have felt the matter was dealt with, and the fate of boys could be unrelated.
Or Richard could have seized the throne and eliminated his competition. For me, Tey’s strongest card was that the victor writes the history. I found her other arguments weak, and sometimes frustrating
So I’m stuck on the fence. If the boys were murdered, Richard seems the most likely suspect in terms of means, motive, and opportunity. But there are definitely other people with equally strong motives, so without better evidence, there’s room for doubt.