Thomas More wasn't a mere Tudor lacky, he was persistent in trying to find the truth of a matter, in the case of his history, he wasn't able to do so and he says so in the text which maybe some people should actually read. He says he is being told the tale but cannot confirm the truth of it. There are several contradictions in it and unfortunately he never returned to them, leaving a very frustrating piece of work. What is needed is a scholarly study and accessible addition in light of that study such as was done for Lancelot de Carles poem on Anne Boleyn, for years dismissed because it gives us controversial information and hints at her guilt. The discovery of several new verses tells us something very different. The work of Joanne DellaNova is something I recommend if you are interested.
I am diverging I know. But it's another example of how 16th century texts are often misunderstood. We don't understand them so we either dismiss them entirely or we take them as ultimate truth. More was basically honest and he was constant for the most part in his work. But More was a radical. He had several beliefs contrary to the political reality in which he lived. He believed in the highest education for both sexes available and ensured his children, 3 girls and one boy and his wife Joan or Jane, took advantage of it. He told his children to treat their partners equally. His Utopia was an international best seller and yet it proposed systems of government to give most leaders nightmares and religious tolerance. More was anything but tolerant of heresy and neither was anyone else. He wrote fiercely against it, he even tried and condemned 3 heretics. Yet, he allowed his dtr to marry Will Roper while the man was still spouting reformed ideals. Roper changed his mind but More gave up trying to convert him, telling Meg she was responsible for him. He even proposed free speech in Parliament in 1522. He had plenty of contractions in his life to keep Henry on his toes. More was a humanist and Meg translated Erasmus, something dangerous at the time, yet her work was popular internationally. So his Richard iii isn't a piece of history, it's mostly allegory and perhaps even morality. We should not be seeing history in it, but More did get his information from somewhere. The question is, are his sources reliable? I doubt it. It's problematic and maybe it wasn't even meant to be finished. Maybe More wasn't satisfied with it. We don't have a confession from Tyrell and he was tried for treason for suspicion in his role in the Edmund de la Pole affair. Tyrell was a Knight and technically he should be beheaded but it wasn't guaranteed. A full traitors death awaited him and it was up to the King to do that. Henry Viii did it most often with people he had once been fond off, including More himself. We are told that Henry vii now decided to blame Sir James Tyrell for the murders of the Princes in the Tower. Henry probably needed closure and here was an opportunity. After several pretenders to his throne, who can blame him? The problem is, the tale only comes to us in Thomas More's history. We don't have any contemporary account to back it up. Henry and Elizabeth were in the Tower at the time of the trial, which was at the Guild Hall. This was what any King did if they were anxious about a trial, which was a foregone conclusion in most cases. Perhaps they were concerned about what he might say and wanted news as soon as possible. Going to the trial might look as if they were interfering. Being somewhere nearby they would be secure and get news soon as well. One might say they wanted the correct outcome.
Tyrell didn't even guard the boys. He was with Richard in York when they vanished. He returned to London on a specific order, for a very short period of time, which some say was to kill them. I find that too obvious. Why kill them at a time you are making your own son Prince of Wales? That is bound to look suspicious. Didn't he return to collect the robes of state? The tale gets very messy the more you probe. Found under stairs 10 metres down more or less disqualified the bones in the Urn. If we are now saying More history is fact, he said they were moved the next day. As for the wonderous magical chain in the will, interesting but it could have come into the family Capell by several means. It is more likely someone gave it as collateral in a debt and couldn't pay the debt. The chain or collar was then family property. How come this clue to murder wasn't mentioned by Thomas More if it really was given by Edward V or taken as evidence of his murder? The Will is made in 1516 so when the History was "finished" or rather left, it was 1518. He probably would know of such a thing, surely being a lawyer. It was in 1522 that the Will was proved, making it public. Why didn't someone come knocking on the door making enquiries as to how this Will arrived? It's all very suspicious. And now it's propping up the traditional narrative and no questions asked? Even Professor Thornton was more reserved than that. Read all of the articles, they are well researched but ask loads of questions. I don't think much has changed TBH. I am not fully convinced by either side. There's still a lot more work to do before this case is proved and it probably never will be. I do lean more towards the Richard didn't do it camp, but it's always a possibility. It's simply case unproven.
I'm not a Ricardian. I honestly don't care about the divisive views of R III as a monarch or murderer, nor do I have any interest in the "princes in the Tower" debate ad nauseam.
I am a historian who writes books and articles and taught history for a few decades. Therefore, I'm always interested in the issue of sources, credible and otherwise. So, in this case, I'd put no more stock in Thomas More's alleged "history" of R III than in Shakespeare's propaganda on the subject. As you noted, More focused on serving the new dynasty, and a potentially well-crafted takedown of R lll couldn't hurt his aspirations. I also agree that the cadre of supporters for this uncompleted and suspect document sustains their belief for various reasons, but maintaining the status quo has to be paramount.
Shakespeare wrote his history plays for political reasons: to celebrate and create the myth of the "Golden Age" primarily by exalting Henry V--he got two whole plays for his glory--and by seriously denigrating R lll. So I think you can't credit More or Shakespeare, allegory versus stage plays.
Thomas More was a Tudor lackey. His job was to give the Tudor dynasty credence and to destroy Richard III's claim to the throne. He did a good job at both. Regardless of the fact that Tudor Henry VIII executed him anyway and the story of his ending is sad, he should have stood up for the truth a lot sooner, IMHO.
What truth? More admitted he was writing what he had been told, he admitted he couldn't discover whether it was true or not. The truth More stood up for he had stood up for his entire life. More defended the Catholic Church in his writing, in his job as a magistrate and later as Chancellor and finally in his arrest, trial and death. He may well have believed what he wrote and not just been pleasing people. I suggest he didn't complete it because it wasn't fit to be published as he couldn't find a satisfactory truth. As we aren't living in his time, we don't know the reasons for him not finishing it. He most likely wasn't satisfied with it.
Thomas More wasn't a mere Tudor lacky, he was persistent in trying to find the truth of a matter, in the case of his history, he wasn't able to do so and he says so in the text which maybe some people should actually read. He says he is being told the tale but cannot confirm the truth of it. There are several contradictions in it and unfortunately he never returned to them, leaving a very frustrating piece of work. What is needed is a scholarly study and accessible addition in light of that study such as was done for Lancelot de Carles poem on Anne Boleyn, for years dismissed because it gives us controversial information and hints at her guilt. The discovery of several new verses tells us something very different. The work of Joanne DellaNova is something I recommend if you are interested.
I am diverging I know. But it's another example of how 16th century texts are often misunderstood. We don't understand them so we either dismiss them entirely or we take them as ultimate truth. More was basically honest and he was constant for the most part in his work. But More was a radical. He had several beliefs contrary to the political reality in which he lived. He believed in the highest education for both sexes available and ensured his children, 3 girls and one boy and his wife Joan or Jane, took advantage of it. He told his children to treat their partners equally. His Utopia was an international best seller and yet it proposed systems of government to give most leaders nightmares and religious tolerance. More was anything but tolerant of heresy and neither was anyone else. He wrote fiercely against it, he even tried and condemned 3 heretics. Yet, he allowed his dtr to marry Will Roper while the man was still spouting reformed ideals. Roper changed his mind but More gave up trying to convert him, telling Meg she was responsible for him. He even proposed free speech in Parliament in 1522. He had plenty of contractions in his life to keep Henry on his toes. More was a humanist and Meg translated Erasmus, something dangerous at the time, yet her work was popular internationally. So his Richard iii isn't a piece of history, it's mostly allegory and perhaps even morality. We should not be seeing history in it, but More did get his information from somewhere. The question is, are his sources reliable? I doubt it. It's problematic and maybe it wasn't even meant to be finished. Maybe More wasn't satisfied with it. We don't have a confession from Tyrell and he was tried for treason for suspicion in his role in the Edmund de la Pole affair. Tyrell was a Knight and technically he should be beheaded but it wasn't guaranteed. A full traitors death awaited him and it was up to the King to do that. Henry Viii did it most often with people he had once been fond off, including More himself. We are told that Henry vii now decided to blame Sir James Tyrell for the murders of the Princes in the Tower. Henry probably needed closure and here was an opportunity. After several pretenders to his throne, who can blame him? The problem is, the tale only comes to us in Thomas More's history. We don't have any contemporary account to back it up. Henry and Elizabeth were in the Tower at the time of the trial, which was at the Guild Hall. This was what any King did if they were anxious about a trial, which was a foregone conclusion in most cases. Perhaps they were concerned about what he might say and wanted news as soon as possible. Going to the trial might look as if they were interfering. Being somewhere nearby they would be secure and get news soon as well. One might say they wanted the correct outcome.
Tyrell didn't even guard the boys. He was with Richard in York when they vanished. He returned to London on a specific order, for a very short period of time, which some say was to kill them. I find that too obvious. Why kill them at a time you are making your own son Prince of Wales? That is bound to look suspicious. Didn't he return to collect the robes of state? The tale gets very messy the more you probe. Found under stairs 10 metres down more or less disqualified the bones in the Urn. If we are now saying More history is fact, he said they were moved the next day. As for the wonderous magical chain in the will, interesting but it could have come into the family Capell by several means. It is more likely someone gave it as collateral in a debt and couldn't pay the debt. The chain or collar was then family property. How come this clue to murder wasn't mentioned by Thomas More if it really was given by Edward V or taken as evidence of his murder? The Will is made in 1516 so when the History was "finished" or rather left, it was 1518. He probably would know of such a thing, surely being a lawyer. It was in 1522 that the Will was proved, making it public. Why didn't someone come knocking on the door making enquiries as to how this Will arrived? It's all very suspicious. And now it's propping up the traditional narrative and no questions asked? Even Professor Thornton was more reserved than that. Read all of the articles, they are well researched but ask loads of questions. I don't think much has changed TBH. I am not fully convinced by either side. There's still a lot more work to do before this case is proved and it probably never will be. I do lean more towards the Richard didn't do it camp, but it's always a possibility. It's simply case unproven.
I'm not a Ricardian. I honestly don't care about the divisive views of R III as a monarch or murderer, nor do I have any interest in the "princes in the Tower" debate ad nauseam.
I am a historian who writes books and articles and taught history for a few decades. Therefore, I'm always interested in the issue of sources, credible and otherwise. So, in this case, I'd put no more stock in Thomas More's alleged "history" of R III than in Shakespeare's propaganda on the subject. As you noted, More focused on serving the new dynasty, and a potentially well-crafted takedown of R lll couldn't hurt his aspirations. I also agree that the cadre of supporters for this uncompleted and suspect document sustains their belief for various reasons, but maintaining the status quo has to be paramount.
Shakespeare wrote his history plays for political reasons: to celebrate and create the myth of the "Golden Age" primarily by exalting Henry V--he got two whole plays for his glory--and by seriously denigrating R lll. So I think you can't credit More or Shakespeare, allegory versus stage plays.
Thomas More was a Tudor lackey. His job was to give the Tudor dynasty credence and to destroy Richard III's claim to the throne. He did a good job at both. Regardless of the fact that Tudor Henry VIII executed him anyway and the story of his ending is sad, he should have stood up for the truth a lot sooner, IMHO.
What truth? More admitted he was writing what he had been told, he admitted he couldn't discover whether it was true or not. The truth More stood up for he had stood up for his entire life. More defended the Catholic Church in his writing, in his job as a magistrate and later as Chancellor and finally in his arrest, trial and death. He may well have believed what he wrote and not just been pleasing people. I suggest he didn't complete it because it wasn't fit to be published as he couldn't find a satisfactory truth. As we aren't living in his time, we don't know the reasons for him not finishing it. He most likely wasn't satisfied with it.