Richard III: His Life & Character, Reviewed in the Light of Recent ResearchMarkham, Clements R. (Clements Robert), Sir
History
Richard III: His Life & Character, Reviewed in the Light of Recent Research
Markham, Clements R. (Clements Robert), Sir
Great Britain -- Kings and rulers -- Biography; Richard III, King of England, 1452-1485
They thus complied with the wishes of {262} the reigning powers,
and furthered their own interests. The truth, if they knew it, would
have been their ruin.
[Sidenote: The story published by Rastell]
Such is the detailed accusation which was finally put forward. It
contradicts the story of Morton, in his alleged conversation with
Buckingham, who says that the princes were murdered long before the
King reached Warwick, and while Buckingham was still at Court. On the
face of it there is no confession in this long story. It is a
concocted tale, and, indeed, this is fully admitted. It is merely
represented to be the most probable among several others which were
based on various accounts of the alleged confession. If there ever was
a confession why should there be various accounts of it? The silence
of Fabyan, and of Polydore Virgil, who must have heard of the
confession if it had been made, seems conclusive against the truth of
the story of a confession.
Even this selected tale, as we have received it, is full of gross
improbabilities and inaccuracies. For instance, Tyrrel, who is said to
have been knighted for the murder, had been a knight for twelve years,
and was also a Knight Banneret of some standing.[22] The first thing
that strikes one is that, if the story had been true, Henry must have
heard the main facts when he came to London, after the battle of
Bosworth. For Sir Robert Brackenbury's supersession during one day,
with the delivery of all the keys to Sir James Tyrrel, must inevitably
have been known to his subordinates. All the officials of the Tower
must have known it, and must also have known that the boys disappeared
at the same time. Many persons must have been acquainted with what
happened. Some of them would certainly have been eager to gain favour
with {263} Henry by telling him, when he enquired about the missing
princes. Yet there is no accusation in the Act of Attainder against
Richard or Tyrrel, and it is pretended that nothing was known until
1502. This proves that the story was a subsequent fabrication.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account