Skip to main content

View Diary: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower (w/poll) (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You're citing Thomas More as a source - (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, TheOtherMaven

    does it bother you that he was five years old in 1783? So he (if it was he) was writing it in Tudor England, under a king who had judicially murdered all the heirs with any colorable claim to the throne, depending on sources who were subject to Henry's displeasure.

    Tey asserts - I haven't researched the point - that the manuscript popularly attributed to More was an incomplete hand-copy of a work found in a finished version in Morton's estate.

    Altogether, I really don't think the "More" document qualifies as decent evidence. Literally. That document does not make me believe that the asserted facts are any more likely to be true.

    •  More made mistakes and his work was (0+ / 0-)

      only a rough draft.  However, the 1674 skeletons go a long way to rehabilitating him.  More was in a much better position to investigate the events then.  There would have been living men who well remembered the events of 1483.  More himself was well placed in the commercial, administrative and legal world, as was his father.  

      Tey made much of the fact that Moore was only five years old, but More never claimed to have personal knowledge of the events.  

      To a considerable extent More's account must be deemed confirmed by the 1674 skeletons.

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Sun Jan 30, 2011 at 07:28:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If, that is, those *were* the Princes' skeletons (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Floja Roja, Cartoon Peril

        We don't know that for an undisputed fact, and we never may. Particularly not if the current Royals continue to oppose the DNA testing that might provide conclusive evidence one way or the other - and so far the Queen won't allow any mucking about with her ancestors.

        There are discrepancies between the discovery and the More account, too, not least his assertion that the Princes' bodies were secretly reburied somewhere else by a sympathetic priest.

        Hearsay evidence doesn't make a strong case, and More's account is suspect on more than a few counts. If it really is More's work, he might have been playing a series of elaborate literary jokes - he was a notorious practical joker, as witness the story about how he allowed William Roper to make his choice of his (More's) daughters.

        Utopia itself seems to have been an elaborate literary practical joke, starting with its name (which means "no place" in Greek) and going on to all manner of baroque fantasies about "ideal living".

        If it's
        Not your body
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        AND it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jan 30, 2011 at 05:34:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  More seems to have been recording what (0+ / 0-)

          he had heard, at least what he deemed to be the more credible stories.  I am not a big Thomas More fan (he did his own persecution of heretics, including burning them at the stake), but I would have to say he was a very good lawyer, and he had a good eye for evidence.

          Any reburial is inconsistent with the 1674 skeletons, but if you allow More to get that wrong, his statement that they were buried "meetly deep" under a heap of stone is eerily consistent with the location of the 1674 box, which was buried not just under the ground, but under the ground in a niche in the stone foundation of a staircase.

          You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

          by Cartoon Peril on Sun Jan 30, 2011 at 09:10:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Still doesn't quite match (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Floja Roja, Cartoon Peril

            and the lack of any reliable scientific dating does raise questions about the identity of the remains. But unless Queen Elizabeth II can be persuaded to renew investigations, or her successor is more reasonable, the matter is likely to remain one of opinion.

            If it's
            Not your body
            Then it's
            Not your choice
            AND it's
            None of your damn business!

            by TheOtherMaven on Mon Jan 31, 2011 at 07:04:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site