Reply
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: (Off topic) Thomas More

LOL Laurel. Just play some music:smileyhappy:




Laurel wrote:


Everyman wrote:


Choisya wrote:
you seem unaware of the other side's arguments.

I am well aware of their arguments, your ad hominem attack notwithstanding.

You seem unaware that being aware of arguments doesn't mean one has to agree with them.

You are free if you choose to see More as a hero, wonderful guy, great Catholic, martyr for his faith, and all that. I appreciate how much you revere a man for his religious convictions.

I am free if I choose to see More as a dishonest author and convicted traitor, both of which he unquestionably was, and a man who chose to walk a knife's edge and fell off.

That we emphasize different aspects of his life doesn't mean that either one of us is acting in bad faith or ignoring opposing arguments.




YAWN!


Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: (Off topic)

[ Edited ]
Yes and Yes Lizzie Ann - The monarch is Defender of the Faith, the faith being the Protestant Church of England. Prince Charles has said that he wants to be Defender of the Faiths and there is speculation that he will try to change the Act of Settlement to not only include Catholicism (and Camilla:smileyhappy:) but to include Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. to reflect the multicultural aspect of the UK. However, he cannot do this without a majority in both Houses of Parliament.



LizzieAnn wrote:
Is the Archbishop of Canterbury the highest position in the Church of England? Does the monarch still retain the title of Head of the Church of England?



Choisya wrote:

Exactly LizzieAnn - he gave himself the powers of a Pope and those powers still reside in our monarch today via the Archbishop of Canterbury. One of the arguments in the Northern Ireland question today, from the Protestant point of view, is that if Northern Ireland became a Republic (as the IRA wished it to do), Irish Catholics would give their allegiance to the Pope and would force Protestants to do the same. Irish Protestants, particularly the Rev Ian Paisley, Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party frequently refers to Irish Catholics as 'Papists' and opines that they are more loyal to the Pope than the Crown. It is a very very fraught subject and I think, to be honest, it is best not discussed here.:smileysad: Suffice it to say that Sir Thomas More died for his faith, is considered a Catholic Martyr and was canonised. Therefore he is St Thomas More, patron saint of lawyers and statesmen. He shares his feast day, June 22nd, with St John Fisher, the only Bishop during the Reformation to have kept his allegiance to the Pope.

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-27-200704:23 PM

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: (Off topic) Thomas More


Choisya wrote:
I do not think you are acting in bad faith but you do not seem to have acknowledged any of the arguments from a catholic point of view and appear to be taking an entirely one sided Protestant view.


I understand that you think this. You have said it over and over.

But it is false, and is simply an ad hominem attack. And I find it very sad that you find it necessary to keep repeating this personal attack over and over.

At least among this educated group of people on BNBC you cannot make a false accusation true simply by repeating it over and over (though I admit that there are politicians who believe that you can, some of whom you might have worked for in your career).

I do you the credit of assuming, without actual proof, that you understand what you deem both positions, and don't charge you, because you so strongly advocate what you call the Catholic position, with failing to understand what you call the Protestant position.

I do not know why you have this compulsion to keep trying to claim that I don't understand the positions simply because I don't agree with your view of them.

Where you fail is in your apparent inability to understand that one can understand a position without agreeing with it.

I understand what you call both the Catholic and the Protestant positions very well. I also understand the legal position, which is neither Protestant nor Catholic. I also understand that what you call the Catholic position was by no means adopted by all, or even a majority of, English Catholics, but was very much a minority position among English Catholics; to call it the Catholic position is thus somewhat misleading, and is more a matter of pasting later views onto the events of the time. The true English Catholic position, if we look to what was actually happening at the time, was to reconcile within their minds their taking the Oath and their continued adherence to the Catholic faith.

The fact is that the situation was simply not as simplistic as you seem to believe.

I think we have gone on this tack long enough, if not too long, discussing a man who, whatever his virtues, which I have never denied existed, was, as I have factually stated, a dishonest historian and a man accused of, tried for, convicted of, and executed for treason.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: (Off topic) Thomas More


Choisya wrote:
A Catholic lawyer, pleading the Catholic cause for Sir Thomas More, would interpret it differently.

Sir Thomas More was a Catholic lawyer pleading his cause. The jury heard him, and didn't agree with his positioin. That's the way British law works.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: (Off topic) Thomas More's Sainthood

It is NOT an attack of any kind Everyman and I do not advocate either position - I don't really care enough about any religious point of view to take such a position. As you well know I am much more likely to say 'a pox on both your houses'. Because I do not care either way I am trying to see it from both points of view, that is all - I am pleading for tolerance. Having lived through 30 years of Catholic v. Protestant 'troubles' I know what intolerance can do. What I do know is that the Catholic position vis-a-vis More's Sainthood is very strongly held indeed over here, especially in Northern Ireland (I can't speak for the USA) and I am anxious that no-one reading these posts sees only one side of the question being supported. That is all. If I have offended you then I am sorry and I hope that others at least will see that this was not intended and was by no means an ad hominem 'attack'.

I agree that the religious issue topic should be closed but I am still interested to know why you consider More, as you originally stated, dishonest. Did he have evidence of Richard III's good character which he ignored, for instance? It seems to me from my reading of history since I was a girl, that the majority of history books have given Richard a bad character (helped along by Shakespeare as well as More) and that it is only recent scholarship that has enabled historians to turn that around. You may have been like me in that I have always distrusted the stories about Richard because I felt they were such a caricature and because I learned about the power of the Tudors and the Protestant supremacy long ago. I also felt sorry for Richard III because he was portrayed as being disabled. Not being a monarchist I tend to distrust any tales told about king/queenship because there were/are always too many sychophants around.




Everyman wrote:

Choisya wrote:
I do not think you are acting in bad faith but you do not seem to have acknowledged any of the arguments from a catholic point of view and appear to be taking an entirely one sided Protestant view.


I understand that you think this. You have said it over and over.

But it is false, and is simply an ad hominem attack. And I find it very sad that you find it necessary to keep repeating this personal attack over and over.

At least among this educated group of people on BNBC you cannot make a false accusation true simply by repeating it over and over (though I admit that there are politicians who believe that you can, some of whom you might have worked for in your career).

I do you the credit of assuming, without actual proof, that you understand what you deem both positions, and don't charge you, because you so strongly advocate what you call the Catholic position, with failing to understand what you call the Protestant position.

I do not know why you have this compulsion to keep trying to claim that I don't understand the positions simply because I don't agree with your view of them.

Where you fail is in your apparent inability to understand that one can understand a position without agreeing with it.

I understand what you call both the Catholic and the Protestant positions very well. I also understand the legal position, which is neither Protestant nor Catholic. I also understand that what you call the Catholic position was by no means adopted by all, or even a majority of, English Catholics, but was very much a minority position among English Catholics; to call it the Catholic position is thus somewhat misleading, and is more a matter of pasting later views onto the events of the time. The true English Catholic position, if we look to what was actually happening at the time, was to reconcile within their minds their taking the Oath and their continued adherence to the Catholic faith.

The fact is that the situation was simply not as simplistic as you seem to believe.

I think we have gone on this tack long enough, if not too long, discussing a man who, whatever his virtues, which I have never denied existed, was, as I have factually stated, a dishonest historian and a man accused of, tried for, convicted of, and executed for treason.


Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: (Off topic) Thomas More's Sainthood

I am still interested to know why you consider More, as you originally stated, dishonest. Did he have evidence of Richard III's good character which he ignored, for instance?

It has been about twenty years since I studied More's history of Richard III with some care, so I don't have all the details at my fingertips today. Actually, having seen and greatly liked A Man for All Seasons and then read a review of the play that raised questions about More's honesty, my intent was to vindicate More. But the more I read, the clearer it became to me me that More knew perfectly well that he was writing lies, but that it was necessary for the Tudors, whose right to the throne was, let us say, less than convincing, to discredit the Plantagenets, and More was quite happy to oblige his masters and do a hatchet job on a man who was actually quite a decent king.

I don't blame Bolt for overlooking this in his play. He had an agenda, and wrote a very good play, later turned into a very good movie. That he ignored a large pustule on More's character is understandable.

I am not going to go back and dig up replicate all the work I did then, or try to prove that conclusion to you if you want to think differently. If you think More's biography of Richard III was an honest, fair portrayal and accurately represented the facts as he knew or had access to them, I will not try to change your mind. We will just agree to disagree right away and move on. You won't persuade me of that view, and I have no interest in trying to persuade you of my view. I studied the issue, I came to a conclusion, and I am satisfied that my research at the time was sufficient and accurate and that the conclusion I drew, that for all his virtues More was perfectly willing to tell lies for political purposes, was and is sound.

Next issue, please.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1,101
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

More on More's HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III

Choisya, I had the same thought, and I found the quote below, from Richard Marius's 1984 Thomas More, at the same website (for The Richard III Society, American Branch) where you found some information for me earlier.

Since More did not publish his work or even finish it, it is hard to make the charge of "Tudor propagandist" stick, and he seems throughout his tale to sift evidence in a genuine effort to find the truth.

http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/marius1.html
Here's a link to RM's biography at bn.com:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/BookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?bnrefer=BRITISHCLASSICS&EAN=978067488525...


Choisya wrote:
If his life of Richard III was, like many others, based on the Tudor writings and the Tudor prejudices of the time, he may have been honest in his view of Richard III because he knew no better. ... I would therefore call More misinformed.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: More on More's HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III

If you're going to cite Marius, pmath, cite also his recognition that while More didn't publish the work, he worked on it for several years, it was one of his longest prose works, and it was published posthumously and, in part at least because of his reputation, was highly influential in the trashing of Richard III. It worked its way into Hollingshead, which as I expect most of us know was a primary source for Shakespeare.

But I said i wasn't going to get into the facts of the controversy, and I'm not. When you have studied the question thoroughly, reading both supporters and defenders of More, you can let us know your findings and I'll see whether you come to a different conclusion about his honesty than I did when I undertook that same study. I suspect, though, that if you do a careful study of the issue, you will come to the conclusion the the History was either a deliberate slander or, as was suggested about thirty years ago, a gross parody never intended to be taken seriously.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: (Off topic) Thomas More's Jokes.

I have not at any time said that I thought what More wrote about Richard III was fair and accurate but I have never read anything which proved that he was dishonest when he wrote what he did. I would not judge anything on a play or a film but would look at more academic evidence, which I thought perhaps you had. More might have been happy to oblige his masters - most people at court were - most people close to kings/presidents/prime minsters are - but that is a long way from saying that he was dishonest. The Tudors gained power in 1485, More wrote his History of Richard III in 1557, 72 years later. He was a child when the Battle of Bosworth was fought. What records there were about the Plantaganets would have been destroyed by the Tudors and other stories would have been invented which put them in a bad light - to the Victors the Spoils. People lived much shorter lives so it was even unlikely that there were people around who remembered Richard III, especially at court, where Plantaganet supporters would have been dismissed or killed. For me, it does not make sense that a scholar with the sort of integrity that made him die for his faith would stoop to telling lies about a former king just to please his master.

However, the other argument put forward is that More, who was a famous jokester, wrote this History as parody of the truth, at the expense of the Italian Vergil and his earlier unlikely tales about Richard, because he had quarrelled with Vergil. Erasmus thought, for instance, that the description of Richard with one shoulder higher than the other was a private joke about More's own appearance. More was also short, dark and pale faced, as he described Richard. The story of the Princes in the Tower is thought to have been lifted (again as a joke) from the fable of the Wicked Uncle and another thing that militates against it being a proper historical work by a scholar is that the dates given are often wrong. More did not publish the work, it was published after his death and has been read as 'truth' ever since, his canonisation adding to the mistaken myth. So what you are seeing as 'dishonest' may have been conceived as a satire. I find that to be quite a plausible explanation, given More's widespread reputation for playing jokes upon his contemporaries, which was something I was going to raise when we discuss Utopia. You may like to look into this aspect of More's character before writing him off altogether - especially as he is the Patron Saint of Lawyers and you might need his good offices sometime:smileyvery-happy:




Everyman wrote:
I am still interested to know why you consider More, as you originally stated, dishonest. Did he have evidence of Richard III's good character which he ignored, for instance?

It has been about twenty years since I studied More's history of Richard III with some care, so I don't have all the details at my fingertips today. Actually, having seen and greatly liked A Man for All Seasons and then read a review of the play that raised questions about More's honesty, my intent was to vindicate More. But the more I read, the clearer it became to me me that More knew perfectly well that he was writing lies, but that it was necessary for the Tudors, whose right to the throne was, let us say, less than convincing, to discredit the Plantagenets, and More was quite happy to oblige his masters and do a hatchet job on a man who was actually quite a decent king.

I don't blame Bolt for overlooking this in his play. He had an agenda, and wrote a very good play, later turned into a very good movie. That he ignored a large pustule on More's character is understandable.

I am not going to go back and dig up replicate all the work I did then, or try to prove that conclusion to you if you want to think differently. If you think More's biography of Richard III was an honest, fair portrayal and accurately represented the facts as he knew or had access to them, I will not try to change your mind. We will just agree to disagree right away and move on. You won't persuade me of that view, and I have no interest in trying to persuade you of my view. I studied the issue, I came to a conclusion, and I am satisfied that my research at the time was sufficient and accurate and that the conclusion I drew, that for all his virtues More was perfectly willing to tell lies for political purposes, was and is sound.

Next issue, please.


Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: More's HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III - Misinformation or a Joke?

You can hardly blame More that a work published after his death was influential in trashing Richard! It is fairer to blame the Tudors who published it who would know full well what the effect would be and would also suppress the idea put forward by Erasmus (who did not live under Henry VIII) that it was all a joke!

The idea that it was a parody was suggested by Erasmus, a contemporary of More, and has long been around. The problem with this idea is that it does not fit in with the revered, saintly image (even before he was a Saint) that the Catholics had of him and so it has never been widely promulgated. I think we may see it come more into prominence in our time because some of the intolerance has gone out of the Protestant v. Catholic arguments in the UK over the past quarter century, especially as religion itself has been on the downturn here and does not engender the same 'quarrels'. Incidentally, I spoke to Danielle about More - she is of a catholic family - and she confirmed that in France he is accorded the same reverence.

I have read widely around More, both 'supporters and defenders', because I have read a lot about Utopias, as part of my political studies, and my personal jury is still out. I veer between believing that he was misinformed by the propaganda of his day or that it was a prank too far. I have not, however, read anything that makes me think he, a scholar and a Christian with great integrity, was dishonest.

However, I feel about him much as a I feel about the Shakespeare v. DeVere argument - what the heck does it matter at this late stage? If the damage to Richard III can be repaired all well and good. Let everyone RIP.




Everyman wrote:
If you're going to cite Marius, pmath, cite also his recognition that while More didn't publish the work, he worked on it for several years, it was one of his longest prose works, and it was published posthumously and, in part at least because of his reputation, was highly influential in the trashing of Richard III. It worked its way into Hollingshead, which as I expect most of us know was a primary source for Shakespeare.

But I said i wasn't going to get into the facts of the controversy, and I'm not. When you have studied the question thoroughly, reading both supporters and defenders of More, you can let us know your findings and I'll see whether you come to a different conclusion about his honesty than I did when I undertook that same study. I suspect, though, that if you do a careful study of the issue, you will come to the conclusion the the History was either a deliberate slander or, as was suggested about thirty years ago, a gross parody never intended to be taken seriously.


Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: More's HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III - Misinformation or a Joke?


Choisya wrote:
You can hardly blame More that a work published after his death was influential in trashing Richard!

Sure I can. He wrote it, he spent years writing it, he didn't destroy it even though he knew well ahead of time when he was going to be executed and could easily have given instructions for it to be destroyed. Sure I can blame him.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: More's HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III - Misinformation or a Joke?

Ok do that. But if he wrote it as a joke, why should he order it to be destroyed? I prefer to be more forgiving - I believe it is good for the soul I haven't got.:smileyvery-happy:.



Everyman wrote:

Choisya wrote:
You can hardly blame More that a work published after his death was influential in trashing Richard!

Sure I can. He wrote it, he spent years writing it, he didn't destroy it even though he knew well ahead of time when he was going to be executed and could easily have given instructions for it to be destroyed. Sure I can blame him.


Correspondent
rbehr
Posts: 354
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: More's HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III - Misinformation or a Joke?

I'm going to be joining this group for A Man For All Seasons and Utopia. I'm new to this format, but am thoroughly enjoying the background on the subjects I'm getting in these posts even prior to starting the discussions. I'm a former "techie" who now has more time to read and enjoy good literature. I'll look forward to a learning experience.
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1,101
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

To rbehr: Welcome!

[ Edited ]
I'm very glad to hear you'll be joining us, rbehr: the historical background is indeed very interesting. If you haven't already read AMfAS and U, I hope you enjoy them both!


rbehr wrote:
I'm going to be joining this group for A Man For All Seasons and Utopia. I'm new to this format, but am thoroughly enjoying the background on the subjects I'm getting in these posts even prior to starting the discussions. I'm a former "techie" who now has more time to read and enjoy good literature. I'll look forward to a learning experience.

Message Edited by pmath on 03-10-200708:43 PM

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: More's HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III - Misinformation or a Joke?

Hello Rbehr and Welcome to the British Classics threads. This thread on Richard III is only as 'aside' to the Man for All Seasons and Utopia threads, which I hope you will enjoy when they open later in the month. Meanwhile go to Message Listing and nosy through the other threads. Which copy of the play and books will you be using?




rbehr wrote:
I'm going to be joining this group for A Man For All Seasons and Utopia. I'm new to this format, but am thoroughly enjoying the background on the subjects I'm getting in these posts even prior to starting the discussions. I'm a former "techie" who now has more time to read and enjoy good literature. I'll look forward to a learning experience.


Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: More's Life and his History of King Richard III

[ Edited ]

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-19-200707:05 PM

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: More on More's HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III

Thanks pmath - I have only just notice your post here. I have just finished reading Peter Ackroyd's Life of Thomas More and came across this interesting comment on the Richard III question:-

'This curious document has baffled many commentators; the fact that its English version breaks off inconclusively, for example, has been explained either by More's loss of interest or by his susceptibility to current political issues. But it is possible that his life of Richard III was designed to be a rhetorical and grammatical extercise. [My italics.] More began composing the work at the time he had been given permission to teach grammar at Oxford, it may have been the basis of exercises given to his own school or even to the boys of St Paul's: There is asudden reference to a 'scole master of Poules' for no good reason. It was composed in both Latin and English and thus complies with the methods of composition and translation which he inmpressed upon his own children - one the surviving Latin manuscripts of the work is prefaced by the explanation that it was written exercitatious gratia ('for the sake of practice).'




pmath wrote:
Choisya, I had the same thought, and I found the quote below, from Richard Marius's 1984 Thomas More, at the same website (for The Richard III Society, American Branch) where you found some information for me earlier.

Since More did not publish his work or even finish it, it is hard to make the charge of "Tudor propagandist" stick, and he seems throughout his tale to sift evidence in a genuine effort to find the truth.

http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/marius1.html
Here's a link to RM's biography at bn.com:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/BookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?bnrefer=BRITISHCLASSICS&EAN=978067488525...


Choisya wrote:
If his life of Richard III was, like many others, based on the Tudor writings and the Tudor prejudices of the time, he may have been honest in his view of Richard III because he knew no better. ... I would therefore call More misinformed.



Frequent Contributor
book-nut
Posts: 131
Registered: ‎11-25-2006
0 Kudos

Re: More's HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III - Misinformation or a Joke?



Everyman wrote:

Choisya wrote:
You can hardly blame More that a work published after his death was influential in trashing Richard!

Sure I can. He wrote it, he spent years writing it, he didn't destroy it even though he knew well ahead of time when he was going to be executed and could easily have given instructions for it to be destroyed. Sure I can blame him.




Everyman,

When Thomas More was sitting in the tower, waiting to be executed, I'm sure "saving Richard III's reputation" was the last thing on his mind. REALLY!!!!

As far as I'm concerned, I don't understand why you're defending Richard III so vehemently. The jury is still out on Richard III's character, forget about More's! There's still no proof that Richard III did NOT murder 'the princes in the tower.' Personally, just based on the ACTIONS of these men (and how they lived their lives), I'd be much more likely to believe Thomas More than Richard anyday.
Frequent Contributor
book-nut
Posts: 131
Registered: ‎11-25-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Thomas More's UTOPIA and Robert Bolt's A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS



Everyman wrote:


Choisya wrote:
You seem not to realise that More is a Catholic Martyr, much revered by Catholics and canonised by them because they saw/see his act as defending their faith.

I am perfectly well aware of that. But it played no part in Henry's ire at More's refusal to attend his wedding, and was not, as far as I am aware, even brought up in his trial. It may have been in the background, but the way Catholics today see him is irrelevant to the way he was treated at the time.




Also... I certainly don't agree here either. More was not executed for "not attending Henry's wedding to Anne Boleyn." But this incident was the beginning of his protests against Henry's actions. For one thing, More had been very close to Catherine of Aragon, Henry's first wife, and did not approve Henry's actions in attempting to divorce her (a royal princess of Spain) in order to marry a woman most Londoners considered (and called) "the concubine." Whether or not Henry's actions were right or wrong, Thomas More's personal convictions were that Henry's actions were wrong, and he simply did not agree with them. Unlike most of the other churchmen and politicians during that period, More wouldn't go along with Henry because, to put it in the simplest terms possible, he believed Henry's actions were wrong, even though in showing his feelings he was well aware he might lose his head. Personally, I wouldn't call that "dishonesty", rather... "courage".
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: More's HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III - Misinformation or a Joke?



book-nut wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, I don't understand why you're defending Richard III so vehemently. The jury is still out on Richard III's character, forget about More's! There's still no proof that Richard III did NOT murder 'the princes in the tower.' Personally, just based on the ACTIONS of these men (and how they lived their lives), I'd be much more likely to believe Thomas More than Richard anyday.

Have you ever read Josephine Tey's Daughter of Time? That's the book that started me thinking again about Richard III. The more I looked, the more it seemed as though the picture of Richard painted by Shakespeare, who got his information from Holihshed, who got his information primarily from More, was vastly wrong. What I found is that as kings of the period go, Richard was well up there on the good guys scale.

As to saying that the jury is still out, well, sort of, but not really. He has been "tried" three times for murder.

In 1994, ITV (British TV) put on a trial of Richard before a retired Lord Chancellor and a randomly-selected jury in a replica of the Old Bailey. He was acquitted.

In the U.S., in 1996, at the Indiana University School of Law a three judge panel headed by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist heard Richard's case and acquitted him.

Then in 1997, the Lawyers' Committee for the Shakespeare Theater in Washington, D.C. held a mock trial before Supreme Court Justices Rehnquist, Breyer, and Ginsberg. The burden of proof was not the criminal burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt," but was the civil burden of "more likely than not." Again, he was acquitted, by a 3-0 vote. (One report says that Justice Breyer seemed to be of the opinion that the Duke of Buckingham was the culpable party.)

So far, I don't know of any distinguished legal panel which has heard the evidence and found Richard guilty.

So at the moment, the jury is in, and Richard is ahead 3-0.

As to why I care, well, first it's a fascinating mystery, and second, isn't there an obligation to oppose injustice even if the person wrongly accused is dead? Our country has numerous times in the past exonerated people who were wrongfully convicted, and felt that it was important to set the historical record straight. Isn't Richard deserving of the same opportunity to have his name cleared of the accusation of a dreadful crime which he most probably did not commit?
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Top Kudoed Authors
User Kudos Count
1
1
Users Online
Currently online:4 members 357 guests
Please welcome our newest community members: