9 of 10 people found the following review helpful
Richard III and the Murder in The Tower.,
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Richard III and the Murder in the Tower (Paperback)
This excellent book deals with the one and only murder that Richard III is guilty of, namely the murder of Lord Hastings, in 1483. The book expects that readers will have some knowledge of the period and events, so therefore may not suit everyone.
Richard is a much maligned king evoking strong feelings even today. This book gives the facts, and from it emerges ( for those who are interested) a more balanced outlook of a true, King of England.
One person has pointed out that he did in fact murder members of his brothers family,( his brothers-in- law) this is true, but it was mainly as an act of self preservation. As for "The Princes" there is no proof whatsoever that they were murdered and until such times as The Queen allows the bones in Westminster be removed and examined, this will continue to be the case. I still suspect Margaret Beaufort, she was the only one to directly "gain" from their deaths, i.e. Henry VII being her son. Henry VII and Henry VIII murdered many more, and created the reputation of "The Tower" for death.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 25 Aug 2013 13:08:24 BDT
'Only murder'? What about Rivers and Grey? Princes? As a criminal lawyer I find Ricardians incredibly naive.
In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2013 00:32:48 GMT
M. Powys-lybbe says:
The Reviewer does in fact refer to the killing of the brother-in-law (Rivers & Grey).
Much more interestingly he refers to Margaret Beaufort, sole architect of Richard's death. She made use of all her relations which included Catesby by marriage (& she did include it). He had done legal work for her and her nephew Buckingham. For her son to get his crown she had to get rid of Clarence & his son, the Princes, Buckingham, and Richard and his son. It took her 8 years, but she did it. Catesby at the battle of Bosworth but not fighting? (as Hancock suggests), yes of course, who do you think pinned Margaret's little notes to people's tents? So much the product of a frustrated woman who could not fight physically. Mentally she was unbeatable.
Posted on 18 Aug 2014 04:37:43 BDT
Just what did Margaret Beaufort have to do with the execution of William Lord Hastings ordered at the Tower directly from the lips of Richard lll? If you have read the book and realise that it is about the case around this event, then why are you babbling about the princes?
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Aug 2014 13:29:28 BDT
M. Powys-lybbe says:
Yes but why did R III order the execution of Hastings, for years a good friend? Someone convinced him that Hastings was behind the attempts on his life. We are even told who that someone was: William Catesby. Catesby did legal work for Margaret Beaufort and her nephew Buckingham. One has to notice little things said by the chroniclers & letter-writers, eg. "All of Lord Hastings men become the Duke of Buckingham's men" after Hastings' execution. Such a blanket move does not happen by chance. Clearly it was pre-planned.
And for the closeness of Margaret Beaufort to the Catesbys,note that she raised his two nieces, Elizabeth & Eleanor Zouche, at her own establishment at Collyweston, & arranged their marriages. No one could say she was ungrateful. We know that just before Buckingham left Richard's train and headed off to his seat at Brecon, Margaret Beaufort had a long conversation with him. Oh to have been a fly on the wall - they both wanted R's downfall, she to put her son on the throne, Buckingham to put himself there? Who was kidding who?
The Princes of course had to be got out of the way, but this is not the subject of Hancock's book.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›