I am a Ricardian and have been since those halcyon days when I was university student and read Josephine Tey's famous and acclaimed 1951 detective novel,
The Daughter of Time (from Sir Francis bacon's quote - Truth is the daughter of time not of authority) voted #4 of 100 best mysteries of all time by Mystery Writers of America and voted #1 in the top 100 Crime Novels of All Time, by the equally prestigious UK Crime Writers Association in 1990.
In sum, Tey's arguments are -
- There was no political advantage for Richard III in killing the young princes. He was legitimately made king.
- There is no evidence that the princes were missing from the Tower when Henry VII took over.
- Although a Bill of Attainder was brought by Henry VII against Richard III it made no mention whatsoever of the princes, which it most certainly would have done if Richard had a case to answer. However, there never was any formal accusation, much less a verdict of guilt.
- Henry VII never produced the bodies of the dead princes for public mourning and a state funeral, which he would have if he could have.
- The mother of the Princes, Elizabeth Woodville, remained on good terms with Richard.
- The Princes were more of a threat to Henry VII as the foundation of his claim to the crown was, at best, significantly more remote than theirs and at worst, non-existent.
What history does tells us for certain is that when a Duke, Richard III had a reputation for being an outstanding administrator, good and fair in his dealings, but his reign as king was too short for his potential to be fully realised. However, it can perhaps be glimpsed in his laws and achievements. Many of our present-day ideals such as the Presumption of Innocence, blind justice, and Clear Title, can be traced directly back to King Richard III.
Whatever gloss is put on it, Henry's claim to the throne was quite shonky; to many historians, illegitimate, and to constitutional lawyers, illegal. The Tudors remained ultra-sensitive to claims of illegitimacy and outright regicide until the death of Elizabeth, thus the great William Shakespeare was indeed writing to appease the Tudors in most of his history plays. He would have been quite aware that Richard wasn't a nasty, ugly hunchback, for starters. This perception has been perpetuated by Laurence Olivier's film portrayal of the King, although Olivier was merely acting a part, as it was written.
Today's Royal Family does indeed care about history's prejudice and treatment of Richard III. Our Society's endeavours are perhaps best summed up by our Patron, HRH Richard, Duke of Gloucester:
"…
the purpose—and indeed the strength—of the Richard III Society derives from the belief that the truth is more powerful than lies; a faith that even after all these centuries the truth is important. It is proof of our sense of civilised values that something as esoteric and as fragile as reputation is worth campaigning for."
Well said, Your Grace.
