Richard III discussion

Ingenuous or ill-fated?

Comments Showing 1-3 of 3 (3 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Ernestina (last edited Aug 25, 2013 12:00PM) (new)

Ernestina (valern) | 76 comments As I browsed through the Memorials of the Order of the Garter, I noticed that the stall vacated by Lord Hastings after he was beheaded in 1483, was then occupied by Lord Thomas Stanley.
Since the appointment of the knights was up to the king, this is really a strange coincidence, if we think about it with the wisdom of hindsight: the seat of the traitor friend was given by Richard III to a man who will seal his fate with the definitive betrayal.

I can't stop thinking: was Richard such an ingenuous person, was it the right political choice in spite of all, or was he ill-fated to such an extent?

message 2: by Oshun (last edited Aug 24, 2013 12:55PM) (new)

Oshun | 47 comments Not sure how to define ill-fated. I do think that Richard's talent and appetite was more for governance than playing politics, but the tragedy, then like now, is that it is often hard to hold onto the position from which to govern effectively without playing the political game. And being good at the political game, often comes without the particular skills and principles which enable one to be good at governance. I guess that means ill-fated.

message 3: by Ernestina (new)

Ernestina (valern) | 76 comments I think you're right, although my idea comes more from a sensation than from real facts, since my knowledge is not that deep.
Playing politics requires compromises, and most of his actions seem to spring from his principles and as a reaction to their betrayal.

back to top