Homeworks academic service

Historical evidence why richard iii was labeled a tyrant and a murderer

And Now We Come to the End: During the Christmas break in 2016, I decided to devote one week to get a general feel for the history of England. I wrote a light-hearted story that poked fun at the legend of Robin Hood and Richard the Lionheart, the man I was said to be named for.

Then one day while researching my Richard, I stumbled across another Richard. I came across the Smithsonian article I have reprinted above. My hat goes off to Linda Rodriguez McRobbie who wrote a very succinct summary of the Richard III history, the controversy surrounding his name, and the discovery of his bones.

The moment I read this line. McRobbie could just as easily been talking about Richard the Lionheart, a fictionalized hero if there ever was one. Could there just as easily be a fictionalized villain named Richard as well? It is my understanding that every English schoolboy and schoolgirl find themselves immersed in the War of Roses at some point, but my history lessons concentrated more on the Alamo and the Battle of San Jacinto. That is why I enjoy travel so much because it gives me a chance to explore worlds I never knew about before.

After reading the Smithsonian article, my one-week adventure turned into a two month journey through the History of England. And what exactly have I learned? One thing I learned is the more I know, the less I know. This was a humbling discovery to be sure. As an example, at one point I was convinced that Lord Stanley, the devious one, historical evidence why richard iii was labeled a tyrant and a murderer very well have been the one who murdered the Princes in the Tower.

I was very curious why no one but me thought this way. After all, I am brilliant, yes? So I emailed Mr. Gareth Streeter, one of the best writers I had come across. On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9: I have been immersed in the War of the Roses for two months. I find myself most fixated on Lord Stanley. I agree with you that Margaret Beaufort is not likely to be a 'sinister child killer'. I have yet to find a source that points the finger at Lord Stanley, but I have a sneaky feeling I am missing something.

Surely Stanley could find a henchman or pay a guard to do the deed. However, since I am unfamiliar with how tight the security was in the Tower, maybe this idea is out of the question. Would you be willing to shed some light on the matter? Why does Lord Stanley keep getting overlooked? He would have much to gain with a grateful stepson Henry on the throne. Streeter was kind enough to reply. Friday, February 10, 2017 6: Did Lord Stanley murder the Princes in the Tower?

Hi Rick, Thanks for your email. You're not alone in pointing the finger at Lord Stanley. Historical fiction writers such as Philippa Greggory have implicated him, although as an accomplice to Margaret Beaufort.

Have you read the Croyland Chronicle c. Collectively these give us a fair bit of info about how the Princes were drawn further deeper into the tower and all but Richard's closest and most trusted servants were dismissed and denied access to them.

It is this that is at the heart of the compelling - although circumstantial - evidence that the poor lads could only have been killed on Richard's orders or at the very least, he would soon have found out about it. To me, it seems strange that if Stanley had done the deed, that Richard would not have been able to trace it back to him. Exposing the killer would have done Richard a favour - he could make historical evidence why richard iii was labeled a tyrant and a murderer clear that the boys were dead but also that he was blameless.

Such a scenario would probably have meant the Tudors never came to power. I hope you enjoy your visit to the UK! Who are these guys? This was the moment I realized the more I know, the less I know.

Historical evidence why richard iii was labeled a tyrant and a murderer

The game of getting it right when it comes to History is a lot more difficult than I realized. Let me share a funny story. Once upon a time, I was watching a Houston Rockets basketball game with a friend.

During the game, a player who was rarely used was put in at the end of the game. He missed one shot after another and made several mistakes.

I severely criticized the athlete to my friend. Too slow, can't shoot, can't play defense! I was so sure of myself. By chance, a couple months later I found myself guarding this man in a pickup basketball game at a city gym. It was, as they say, a quirk of fate. I was surprised to see the man wasn't much taller or bigger than me.

For a moment there, I thought I could hang with this guy. This gentleman went around me so fast I never even took a step. He got to the rim and dunked the ball!!

Then he came back, slapped me on the butt and smiled. Then he did it again. It was almost like he 'knew' that I had disrespected him. I would never criticize this man again nor would I ever criticize another pro athlete for the rest of my life. This man had taught me a very valuable lesson. With that lesson in mind, I am well aware that various comments I have made in my long saga may very well be misinformed.

I am hardly an expert, but I do enjoy writing about history. Therefore, let it be known my main purpose is not to convince anyone I am right, but rather to amuse and inform. Let me add one more thing - I have not made anything up. I simply share what I read; you have my word on that.

Now I would like to discuss the Fog of War. During the 1471 Battle of Barnet, fog. However, more often Fog of War represents 'confusion' during historical evidence why richard iii was labeled a tyrant and a murderer. Medieval battles were notorious for confusion because visibility and communication were often limited.

I contend that there might be a third meaning for Fog of War. During my research on the Battle of Bosworth, I found several delightful inconsistencies.

Let me share them with you. I think you will enjoy them.

Historical evidence why richard iii was labeled a tyrant and a murderer

Example One of the Fog of War: The 'Over My Belly' Contradiction. So, which story do I believe? Which one is correct? After flipping back and forth between websites, I decided they very easily could both be correct. Perhaps this was a phrase that had common usage back in those days. It is pretty amazing all the phrases we have in our language that we take for granted.

And yet we have so little understanding of where they come from. The phrase 'Lose One's Head' has come to mean 'not thinking straight' or 'lose one's temper'. Obviously this phrase had a somewhat different meaning during the War of the Roses.

Back in Nineties there was a well-known email that made the rounds titled 'Life in the 1500s'. This email explained the origin of many common phrases of today. My favorite explanation was 'Raining Cats and Dogs'. We have all heard of thatch roofs, well, that's all they were. Thick straw, piled high, with no wood underneath. These roofs were the only place for the little animals to get warm. So all the pets; dogs, cats and other small animals mice, rats, bugs lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery so sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof.

Or they got so wet they deserted the roof to find drier places. Thus the saying, "it's raining cats and dogs. Sounds plausible, but my bullshit detector suggests someone very easily could be 'pulling my leg'.

Hmm, I wonder where that phrase come from?