Quote:
Originally Posted by Victoria
I do agree with you - Richard usurped the throne, and both boys posed a threat. And I didn’t buy the argument about the princes’ mother and sister either. Fear for your own survival and protecting other family members are reasons enough to do whatever you’re told - whether by Richard or Henry.
But apparently historians have tried to make cases against other suspects, such as Buckingham. An article from the Independent mentions others. (I don’t don’t know if it’s a credible source). https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-10466190.html |
Don't know anything about Buckingham, but as far as Richard and Henry go, the motive for Henry to kill the boys would have been exactly the same as Richard's motive. And Richard got there first. He had already betrayed his nephews by taking the crown and locking them up, beginning the process that culminated in their deaths. (Which makes him morally culpable at the very least.)
Tey's defense of Richard seems to be based largely on (1) Richard's looks, (2) disdain for More because his account was secondhand, (3) the subsequent behavior of the princes' mother, and (4) an expectation of tonypandy tainting whatever is inconvenient to the case she's making. Is that enough? Not to my mind.
I'm reminded of the Casey Anthony case. She had a motive, she failed to report her child missing, she made up an elaborate lie about a kidnapping, she'd had a dead body in her car--and yet, somehow, her defense team explained away each piece of evidence as though it were disconnected from the whole pattern. Is that what the revisionists do with Richard? Seems like pieces of the evidence can be explained away with alternate interpretations, but it strains credulity that all of them need to be. If a couple of pieces in a jigsaw puzzle are missing, generally the picture is still obvious.