Well-said and I more or less agree with your points! 😀
P.S. I like to think of myself as a ‘fan’ of Richard III (meaning someone who quite likes him, sympathizes with him, and defend him *if* it seems necessary) and now I generally tend to look on the bright side of things and be more optimistic about Richard (I for one think he didn’t murder his nephews, though he does have motives) but I will never in a hundred years justify and condone his worse deeds/actions, especially as an adult) and I try my best to be more open-minded about certain things even when ATM I don’t stand with those views/opinions/speculations, etc. So there you go 🙂
1. Clear him of all the crimes laid at his door by Shakespeare, More &c.
Despite the fact that common sense tell us this is impossible, it pops up every now and then, a wan hope, the most wishful of wishful thinking. A good many of the crimes of Shakespeare’s Richard are patent nonsense. Putting those aside, the accusations that this discovery* won’t solve are: 1. did Richard usurp his nephew’s throne? 2. did Richard order the deaths of his nephews? 3. did Richard poison his queen? 4. was Richard planning to marry Elizabeth of York? Nor will it absolve him of the deaths of four men, executed (so far as there’s any evidence) without trial. Assuming the remains are Richard’s, they will tell us nothing about his personality or his personal history. They will certainly tell us nothing about his guilt or innocence.
2. Prove Shakespeare, More &c right.
View original post 1,733 more words