|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
In trying to find for which of his many crimes George, Duke of Clarence got a surfeit of with Malmsey, I found this site, which is well worth browsing but tantalingly tattles not what the Duke's ultimaate crime was. http://abc.interserver.net/menu.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 320
enthusiast
|
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 320 |
Shakespeare has it that Richard had Clarence murdered simply because Clarence is his older brother, therefore standing between him and the throne.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,577 Likes: 1
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,577 Likes: 1 |
I do believe Shakespears's version of Richard III has been well and truly debunked, many times over. See Josephine Tey's Daughter of Time for one sparkling example.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
Slithy may well have it right. Clarence was a bumbler and an extremely bad picker of sides to be on in family feuds. He managed to annoy almost the entire Plantagenet family, but it was Edward IV, his elder brother, rather than Richard III, his younger brother who decided enough was enough. He was attainted for high treason - one of those gloriously vague charges in late mediaeval law - which may or may not have implied that he'd had a go at bumping Edward off during that unfortunate little incident in 1470. You'll remember it well, I'm sure, Bill.
George appeared to lack both common sense and common courtesy. Deadly sins, both, in a mediaeval court as volatile as Ted and Rick's, surely! He interefered in the business of the law courts to his own advantage (a practice called "maintenance") on such a regular basis that the King was probably rather peeved with him. It could have been this which led directly to his arrest, attainder, incareration in the Tower and his eventually involuntarily drinking himself to death. Was Malmsey wine any good? You shouldn't drown your rellies in just any old rubbish, should you?
But it was certainly Edward rather than Richard who orchestrated his demise. Richard wasn't trusted by either of his elder brothers, and quite rightly, although you should remember that the story of Richard III was written during Tudor times. He wasn't exactly going to get good press, was he? Especially not from Bill the Scrivener, who was (God only knows why) a full-time Tudor-booster.
- Pfranz
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289 |
Parm me, Pfranz, but wasn't it Thos. More who was the first to do the deed on Richie Threeth for his Tudor master, Hank the Fat? I thought Willie Shaxper picked up his history from More.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
Yeahbut, Bob, but while More slagged Dick the Turd formally, i.e. developed the official party (Dick was truly Darstardly) line, it was Billy the Scribbler's play which put the final nail in his reputation's coffin in the public mind. Remember, hardly anyone could actually read ... official documents, however nicely written, were just gobbledygook to most people, even if they'd had access to them. I think I read somewhere that Henry Tudor had a list of Richard's crimes read out in churches as a kind of post-hoc justification for being yet another, if unusually successful, Welsh rebel.
- Pfranz
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,399
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
1 members (wofahulicodoc),
325
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
