King Richard III: Guilty Or Murder?

3700 Words15 Pages
"What is inaccurate, misleading, and merely tiresome is for modern writers to declare flatly that Richard is guilty or to retail as fact the outworn tale of Thomas More." (Kendall 2002, p 495) It cannot be escaped that Richard the Third remains the prime suspect in the mystery concerning the fate of Edward IV's young sons, Prince Edward and Prince Richard. His guilt came first from the insinuation of rumour and then became sensationalised by the pen of Sir Thomas More in his writing of Richard the Third's Biography. There are two significant reasons for Kendall holding More's work in such contempt, the first being that More wrote his account under pressure from the officious, almost paranoid rule of Henry VII, the first Tudor King who, in…show more content…
Her Essay, entitled 'Did Richard III Really kill the Princes in the Tower?' pinpoints Buckingham as her most plausible suspect. Eckford writes that "all along he entertained ambitions of taking the throne for himself. What better way than to support Richard in his claim for the throne, then discredit him by murdering the Princes and claiming Richard had done it" (Eckford, 2000) In accusing Buckingham it is critical to look at Buckingham's desertion of Richard III shortly after the young Princes were last publically seen within the Tower. It is an act that will be tirelessly debated by historians, some saying he deserted in disgust at the offence Richard III committed against the usurped King Edward V and his younger brother Richard, others such a Sir Clements Markham would…show more content…
http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/wigram01.html
Open Document