Comments on: Prince in the Tower ‘died a bricklayer’ or Did He?!?

By: John C.

John C. — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:41:57 +0000

FWIW, I’ll toss in that Josephine Tey’s “The Daughter of Time” is an interesting read on the subject of the guilt of Richard III

By: John C.

John C. — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:29:14 +0000

Is that the Holy Mackerel of Antioch?

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 25 May 2007 13:40:56 +0000

Sorry, that’s wrong. I have the mackerel card right here.

By: Hjalti

Hjalti — Fri, 25 May 2007 13:30:05 +0000

I though it was Col. Mustard, in the conservatory, with a mackerel.

By: Brett

Brett — Fri, 25 May 2007 09:57:47 +0000

Yep, Shakespeare is my only source, not the countless examples of other men who seized power in similar circumstances*. We see these sorts of people all over the world today and throughout history, they have laid a clear path of behaviors that seem to be much more human than a fantasied perfect knight. Richard may have been an enlightened guy for his time, that doesn’t preclude him from being a murderer by any means. I am of course suspicious of the slanders of Shakespeare, but I am equally nervous of the sugar coating that some Richard fans want to paint their hero with.

* I have been reminded that the internet doesn’t convey sarcasm well. That is sarcasm.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 25 May 2007 09:49:02 +0000

Another one who’s swallowed the Tudor propaganda about Richard III. No doubt you were mainly influenced, as are most people, by the Tudors’ spin doctor in chief Will Shakespeare, who certainly knew which side his bread was buttered on when it came to depicting the royal family’s erstwhile rivals to the throne.

I think you’ll find most serious historians now rate Richard as an enlightened guy, for his time, who did a fair bit of good and was most likely not responsible for murdering anyone in any tower.

Mark in Suffolk