h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have an article about Richard III (primarily about Shakespeare's play, but I've also included some historical background) which I would appreciate feedback on...

http://www.h2g2.com/A394841

Gooday Roaster Amoeba,

A couple of bits of feedback on your article Richard III. Richard II ruled for a bit more than 'several years'; 1377 to 1399, this year is the six hundredth anniversary of his death (1400).

Edward III did not leave 'seven sons'; at his death in 1377 there were only three still living - John of Gaunt, Edmund of Langley and Thomas of Woodstock. Richard II was the only surviving son of Edward III's oldest son, the Black Prince, who had died in 1376.

The likelihood is that the protagonists in the Wars of the Roses never used roses, red or white, as their badges. Henry VI's son, Edward Prince of Wales was killed on the battlefield.

I did enjoy reading your piece, but I have to ask - in what respects was Richard III 'not all bad'? Take care,

Walter.

Hi Walter,

Thanks for your comments... I shall work on doing a revision to the article in the near future... My problem with writing an article such as this is, I'm more of a fan of Shakespeare than of history, but I wanted to make it historically accurate...

In the paragraph near the end of the "Historical Background" section, I have listed a few of the things that King Richard III did, that in my view were fairly positive, thus making him "not all bad". These are not mentioned in the play, obviously, but they still happened (at least according to my sources... )

RA

Wasn't Thomas of Woodstock the one who used to smoke weed, drop acid, roll around in mud, and play Jimi Hendrix tunes badly on his Fender Stratocaster, or have I got him confused with someone else?

Gooday Roasted Amoeba,

I agree with you that Shakespeare's Richard III is a great work, and I think that he comes closer than most historians to discovering the 'real' Richard. Olivier's film version is a stunning portrayal, but like you I thought Ian Mc's was excellent as well. But Richard usurped his two nephews, and it is hard to argue against his guilt in having them put to death. That alone makes him, in my view, a very bad man. Have you tried the Richard III Society (American Branch) web page - it is a terrific site for all sorts of stuff that you would probably find really helpful. Good luck with your article.

Walter.

Actually, I used the Richard III Society pages (American and English branches) for some of my research...

It is not really known, as far as I know, that Richard III *definitely* killed the boys. It is known that they were housed in the Tower of London, and then they disappeared, and nothing was ever heard of them again. Some bones were found in the Tower, during a search in the 1930's, and these are thought to be the bones of 2 children about the right age. But although it seems likely to have been Richard, it has never been proved... Of course, I agree with you that if it *was* him, as seems likely, then he was an extremely evil man.

I have to say, Ian McKellen's adaptation of Richard III is one of my all-time favourite Shakespeare plays on film... it's not just a "filmed play", it's actually been converted to cinematic form...

Gooday Colonel Sellers,

No you are not confused, it is the same Thomas but in a later incarnation, when he opened up the family estate for the greatest gig of the century. Turn down the brightness and take care.

Walter

Gooday Roasted Amoeba,

You have a great intro page - anyone whose interests include history and Shakespeare can't be travelling too badly. BUT, Richard III is in the frame on circumstantial evidence and the balance of probabilities. I mean, he puts the boys in the slammer, takes the throne, and the Princes are never seen alive (or dead) or heard of again. Where I come from, that would have him banged up for sure. He is in charge of the Tower, it isn't as though someone could just go in there and have their wicked way with the kids without him knowing about it. And don't forget, Tyrell confessed to arranging the boys' murder which he didn't have to do, since he was at the time already headed for the gallows for treason. Thomas More actually names the two murderers. Richard's problem is that ALL of the evidence/facts point to him. I hope so anyway, because he has always been my favourite villain - any successful rehabilitation of his reputation would be hard to cope with. Take care,

Walter.

I always thought that Thomas More lived decades after it all happened, so wasn't there at the time.

Anyway, I'm here to mention my article on HMS Warrior:
http://www.h2g2.com/A405064

Heh heh... I know what you mean. Richard III is fairly unique among Shakespeare's title characters, I guess...

As far as I know, although Richard put the Princes into the Tower, that didn't necessarily mean he was putting them in prison. They were housed in the royal apartments, and presumably would have been treated as royalty. They were seen occasionally, until about October 1483 (apparently), from which point they were never seen again. I think that "the Tower" has since gained a reputation as an evil and foreboding place, but at the time it was used for many purposes other than holding (and perhaps murdering) prisoners.

I'm not trying to pretend that I know definitely whether he was good or bad - but I don't think that the evidence is particularly conclusive either way...

Gooday Roasted Amoeba,

The Richard III Society should give you honorary membership for so ably defending old Crookback! I really look forward to reading your finished article, and good on you for giving us the chance to share views. Take care,

Walter.

Gooday Bluebottle,

It is true that More was just a shaver when Richard III eliminated the Princes in the Tower, but he had access to all of the main players (except Richard), and to official records. But enough of that, I have to skip along - I want to take up your invitation to read HMS Warrior. Take care,

Walter.

Just to play Devil's Advocate - More didn't have access to the two people who really knew who killed the Princes - the Princes themselves.

Gooday Bluebottle,

In the same vein, who can say if the Princes knew who killed them? Fould deeds in the dead of night while they lay sleeping etc. Take care,

Walter.

Hi Mustapha,

I just wanted to point you in the direction of my article on Monivea
(http://www.h2g2.com/A398108) which includes quite a bit of local history. I'd welcome your thoughts on it, while I wait for some photos to come back from the chemist's to jazz it up a bit.

You might also want to link to an article we recently had released on Galway City - http://www.h2g2.com/A320275 - which is healthily laced with historical stuff.

Maybe you'll have to start a special Irish wing

Gary/GVI

Mustapha - you still around??
I've got an article on the Pepper Pot, Isle of Wight, UK
http://www.h2g2.com/A422803
and one on Hovercraft:
http://www.h2g2.com/A397668
The historical society has at least a month's worth to update!

Still around, mi amigo! My new job has had me scrambling around at odd hours, and doing anything more than posting comments has been on the backburner. However I have been monitoring your situation - hold onto your hats...

Say, my latest guide entry on Countess Elizabeth Bathory should be of interest. It's unfinished, but I'll rectify that soon.

http://www.h2g2.com/A430598

Rectify away!

Wow! Mustapha sighting!!

I suppose this is as good a time as any to mention my University of Life project on the formative days of America. I have already completed Seeds of the American Revolution: http://www.h2g2.com/A424072 and The Declaration of Independence: http://www.h2g2.com/A430561

And if anyone wants to contribute other stuff to what I'm doing, the project's homepage is here: http://www.h2g2.com/A415865