188 Richard III – Knave, Fool or Saviour?

RIII Vpting post 2The time has for the Richard III podcast episode and vote. 3 of the no doubt many possible interpretations of the events of 1483 - did Richard plan to usurp the throne; was he driven to it by fear and events and the situation; or did he step into a breach to save a kingdom? 

188 Richard III – Knave, Fool or Saviour

 Where and when to Vote

You vote on the FaceBook Page, which looks like this – click on the pic to link to it. Voting ends on 29th July, and hopefully I'll be able to tot them up on holiday and let you know the results. Exciting!

RIII Voting post 3

The Voting instructions

Vote on the Facebook page Closing date is 29th July. You can just put Knave, Fool or Saviour; or you can add your every thought. Whatever feels good. And to help, below and a few thoughts about what each means. 

Voting guide

The prizes!

Everyone who votes AND likes the page will go into the prize draw, with 3 fab prizes to be won…

  • First prize is an original Edward IV halfpenny and a replica Richard III gold Angel. 
  • 2 x second prizes – original medieval cut coins
  • It's a prize draw – everyone who likes and votes get's entered into the hat!


13 thoughts on “188 Richard III – Knave, Fool or Saviour?

  1. Dear David (may I call you David?),
    I begin by stating my undying admiration for your podcast and your skills. You, Mike Duncan and Dan Carlin are the essence of what history podcasters should be, and as a U.S. Anglophile, I have to put you at the pinnacle. In the interest of linguistic purity, however, I must point out that your use of “begs the question” in the Fool part of #188 was probably meant to be “raises the question.” I would have communicated privately, but didn’t see an eaddress.
    As I would rather chew ground glass than venture onto FB, I shan’t be in your totals, but my 50+ year exposure to Winnie makes me favor knave.
    Yours for a better and more grammatical world.

  2. Thank you for your vote folks…Andrea, is Saviour a decision?
    Jim, you may indeed call me David, or indeed anything reasonably polite.
    I think the issue we have her Jim; is that I don’t actually know what ‘begs the question’ means. A dreadful confessions. But I’ll work on it!
    Come over to Facebook Jim. Many, indeed most, of my friends see it as a dark place, full of terrors and goblins, bit it’s really not. And it is better than chewing glass, that I promise you.
    Thanks for voting!

  3. I say a fool. Based on two key principles the KISS principle (Keep it simple stupid) and the principle that people are always dumber than we think, So he could not have been that smart or planned any thing that well and he showed himself not to have been a evil genius.

  4. This is my favorite of yours to date. Of course, my vote is knave, with some fool in there for good measure. I love, love, LOVE your podcast! But seriously, David, SERIOUSLY–The Princes in the Tower!! When? Oh When?! I am waiting not-so-patiently, with breath totally un-bated to hear your take on the matter. Will it be another debate, with various perspectives presented and argued about? Oh, I hope so. Whatever form it takes, I will await it’s arrival with great anticipation.
    In a complete diversion, I have read _The Time Traveler’s Guide to Medieval England_ and it is fantastic. For those who have not read it, I highly recommend it.

  5. Hi Allegra…thank you so much, you are very kind ! Really glad you are liking it. And agree – Time Travellirs guide is great; and generally Ian Mortimer is a good read.
    4th September for the Princes! I’ll not make quite such a fuss, but we’ll have a vote again. Not sure I can quite do the debating style thing again for this though; the amount of evidence for each is quite unbalanced, but there’ll be a vote for sure.

  6. Huzzah!!! Though, I can understand why you haven’t done the Princes yet. There’s so much we don’t know, and will never know. But still, looking very much forward to the vote and seeing what others think about it all. Thank you so much!!

  7. Listening to episode 188; how the character of Gloucester influenced his decision to usurp the throne put me in mind to yell abuse at an innocent podcast player just doing its job. Gentle readers, I put this to you:
    “History of england podcast” reminds us often that the concept of successful medieval kingship is to balance interests and portion rewards judiciously. As you describe the court riddled with rivals and (expected for the time) corruption, Gloucester had few options. And, he neither lacked for his own values, nor ambition, nor an ambitious affinity.
    His patrimony, service & factions marked Gloucester always as a prince without the crown.
    This is option 4: a “hate the game, not the player” argument.
    “History of england podcast”: may I ask you to repeat the nature & expectations of kingship and convention in our segment in history. Reason being, it seems to be an accurate prediction of individual actions (though not contingencies & outcomes). Also, when & how does kingship change?
    In that light, Gloucester’s decision was categorically opportunistic, partial & callous. On the other hand, expected & par for the course in power politics.
    Love the show. Please continue the great effort!

  8. Hi Dev, and yes I very much take your point. And yes, delighted to do a piece on kingship; as we go through the Tudor age, it will begin to change a little – but not much, but the government around the monarch does change.
    I still think there’s something a bit exceptional about Richard III. I do agree there are powerful forces driving him to what he did – that’s what I meant by the rather poorly named ‘fool’ category. But the age of the Princes is the thing that makes it a bit exceptional i think, and why there was such a horrified reaction even at the time. because they were young, blameless. In all the other minorities (Henry III, Richard II, Henry VI) actually the political classes had behaved rather well.

  9. David, I was not sure where to put this question, but I will try here first. Have you seen the latest work from Philippa Langley (discoverer of Richard III’s body under car park.)
    Her story was recently pitched on a TV show from WNEt in NYC called “Secrets of the Dead” where she reveals several documents that seem to “prove” the existence of the “dead” princes as your men, on the continent, buying weapons and one presenting himself to the Holy Roman Empire, who believe that he was looking at the young prince (Richard?). she claims that this proves that Richard fif not kill them, but that they escaped, somehow. It is my understanding that history reports that two men were captured by Richard III and revealed to be imposterers. I am not convinced that the evidence demonstrates what she claims. What is your opinion?

    1. Hi Frank, and lovely to hear from you! I hope you and your family are well.

      I did watch the program, and I love the way it brings history to the public eye, and the work they’ve managed to do! Amazing!
      That’s the good side…I found the program was painful to watch, just not my style, and the don’t think the documents proved a thing, great finds though they were. I have no doubt the the dynastic heads of Europe would be quite willing to take a punt on some adventurer to go and cause chaos in an opposing realm. Nor am I convinced anyway that the contrioversy goes to the heart of Richard’s real crime; which is that for personal ends he usurped the throne, destroyed his dynasty and brought more chaos to England.
      There, I have stopped sitting on the fence!

Leave a Reply