tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7534539169157708222.post1060851453331893959..comments2024-03-26T12:19:52.801-04:00Comments on Tea at Trianon: Richard III and the Fall of the House of Yorkelena maria vidalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17129629173535139807noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7534539169157708222.post-52534980208310627702013-09-15T12:02:16.390-04:002013-09-15T12:02:16.390-04:00No, it is not. In the north of England, which Rich...No, it is not. In the north of England, which Richard administered for many years, he was greatly loved for his just government.elena maria vidalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17129629173535139807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7534539169157708222.post-64195673369725022592013-09-15T02:32:34.097-04:002013-09-15T02:32:34.097-04:00The right to trial was more honored in the breach ...The right to trial was more honored in the breach prior to Richard. Richard also introduced one of the key aspects of the right to trial in English and American law: that the burden of proof rests with the government, rather than the defendant. That, along with trial by jury, constitutes the fundamental limitation on government power via trial. It is not the act of a tyrant. Mark D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05000893614655251587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7534539169157708222.post-32125868757939666902013-09-01T21:04:53.376-04:002013-09-01T21:04:53.376-04:00The need for a trial in order to have a conviction...The need for a trial in order to have a conviction preceded Richard III, although it was during his brief reign that the ability to post bail was instituted. I do agree with you that Richard was, with the exception of the executions of Rivers, Hastings and Grey, who were executed without trial, a just ruler in many ways. I don't think he was personally responsible for whatever happened to young Edward V and Richard Duke of York. It is not as if he had a reputation for massacres or child murder or any other atrocity.elena maria vidalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17129629173535139807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7534539169157708222.post-39940706413088679162013-09-01T19:43:48.057-04:002013-09-01T19:43:48.057-04:00Or, perhaps tasting power, Richard was not incline...Or, perhaps tasting power, Richard was not inclined to surrender it to his nephews? It is difficult to tell whatever happened. Richard has had the misfortune of having two of the prime Tudor propagandists -- Thomas More and William Shakespeare -- write his story. FWIW, I don't think it can be conclusively proved that Richard had the Princes in the Tower executed. <br /><br />What we can say about Richard is that prior to the rebellion that toppled him, his reign was marked by a concern for legal reform, for introducing limits on government power, for establishing the need for trial in order to reach conviction. Hardly the work of a tyrant. As the regime crumbled and his enemies began to swarm, who knows what pushed Richard to take the steps he did, to take the crown and seek to preserve Plantagent rule. Mark D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05000893614655251587noreply@blogger.com