Quote:
Originally Posted by CRussel
Certainly, blanket statements about who was the rightful king, and who was murderer/usurper can be made. But I think the evidence at this late date for any sort of absolute statements of _fact_, are a bit OTT. That being said, I'm solidly on the side of Richard III as being the legitimate king, if only by virtue of the fact of his having been actually crowned. And even after reading alternative accounts, I'm not convinced he murdered the "princes in the tower".
|
Agreed - definitive statements aren’t really possible. We just don’t know enough. There’s so little evidence that the discovery of a single new source document could swing the discussion in an entirely different direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookpossum
Titulus Regius was created by “the Lords Spiritual and Temporal” and then ratified by Parliament. The church was very involved in the whole matter.
|
I stand corrected
And honestly, though I’ve enjoyed reading some background material, I know virtually nothing about English history. But even if “Lords Spiritual” helped draft the document, isn’t their silence about Edward’s bigamy during his lifetime suspicious, and ethically problematic? Could their support for Richard reflect other things, such as fear, currying favour, etc?
Despite the lack of evidence, something about this story seems to provoke strong opinions and firm conclusions. Maybe because it treads on our values. This discussion and background material has been interesting and informative. But I wonder if it’s actually changed anyone’s mind? It’s only shifted mine marginally - I have a bit more space for doubt.