murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

A history talk about whether Richard was the good guy or the bad….

Dudley

http://tinyurl.com/owlk6cm

All good Ricardians already know the fine calibre of our king, so hopefully this talk will be honest. If it is, he will be exonerated. And might gain some new supporters.

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

9 thoughts on “A history talk about whether Richard was the good guy or the bad….

  1. Kalina on said:

    Good guy? What does it mean?

    Like

    • viscountessw on said:

      The titles asks whether Richard III was a good man or a bad man. He was, of course, the good man/guy.

      Like

      • Kalina on said:

        I doubt if the category “good – bad” exists connecting with historical individuals. They were of course “good” or “bad” after contemporary rules but we cannot describe them in such way in the objective substance.

        Like

  2. viscountessw on said:

    You asked, I answered. And I don’t agree with your reasoning.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Kalina on said:

      It,s very interesting that somwhere the qualifications already not used in historical discussions are still alive:)))

      Like

  3. mairemartello on said:

    It’s just a fun and interesting way of saying “Is he a good man or a bad man?” I happen to think he was a very good man although flawed like most.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Well, the title actually asks if he was a murderer or a loyal brother… and if I were to nitpick, I’d point out that this is a false dichonomy and those two are not mutually exclusive; in fact, if Richard in his capacity as Constable of England did convey Edward IV’s order to the Constable of the Tower to murder Henry VI, which is quite likely to have happened, then he was accessory to murder, so you may say he was a murderer *because* he was a loyal brother. But I’m guessing that’s not the alleged murder they had in mind…

    Yes, it is clearly meant to be a different way to say “was he a good guy or a bad guy”. It’s funny that discussions about Richard are always full of these extremes and focused on his personality and morality of his actions. You don’t see debates asking, Was Edward IV a good or a bad man? Was Henry VII a good or a bad man? Was Henry V a good or a bad man?

    I think a discussion on whether Richard was a good or bad *king* would be more interesting. Being a good man and being a good king are not the same thing. Was Henry VI a good man? Probably. He was also a really terrible king. I can’t say I like Henry VII’s personality too much, but I do think he was a pretty good king. Although he was also, without a doubt, a murderer, and a murderer of an innocent: I don’t see how the execution of Edward, Earl of Warwick could be considered anything else. That and many other things would make it impossible for me to say Henry was a “good” man (though I don’t consider him evil, either), but he certainly was efficient, capable and successful as a ruler. You probably couldn’t be a super nice guy and manage to secure such a shaky throne, fill the treasury, and curtail the power of the unruly English nobility.

    Richard certainly had the potential to be a great king, but his reign was cut short, so it would be refreshing to try to put his short reign into perspective – for once, without Shakespearean references, debates about whether he was a nice guy, whether he loved his wife etc. – and judge how much he did manage to achieve. He certainly made some very good and important laws; as a legal reformer, he achieved more than many others did in much longer reign. On the other hand, how much should we count against him that he did not solve financial problems, couldn’t reconcile the differences between the North and the South, and didn’t manage to keep powerful nobles like the Stanleys in check? Is it even fair to hold these things against him considering the difficulties he was faced with, and the personal tragedies that befell him? He was certainly terribly unlucky. How much did he achieve, and how much would he have been able to achieve if he hadn’t been killed at Bosworth? Was his strategy for the battle wrong, and was his final charge a mistake or something that seemed a good idea and may have very well worked? How many of the problems of his reign were sheer bad luck, and how much was due to his own mistakes? Hopefully that debate will address questions like that as well, and not just the old “did he murder his nephews” and “did he usurp the crown” or “was he a nice guy”.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Kalina on said:

      Thank you. It is great:)) And a one problem more for me: Richard represented some human, cultural and moral values I personally love. Henry VII was very good and successful ruler but….

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: