Richard III and Elizabeth of York

Home Forums General Discussion Richard III and Elizabeth of York

This topic contains 2 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Pugzilla66 3 years, 4 months ago.

  • Author
  • #16363


    This morning I found a post on my Facebook about a letter from Elizabeth of York to Richard III that was never delivered and has been floating around for centuries. This letter, if Authenticated, would be explosive. However, I have serious doubts. I was wondering what you all thought of it? Anyone heard anything more about this? I only find one site that this letter is listed (which is the link I provided.) I wanted to see scans or something of the original or something peer reviewed. I am holding skeptically until I see more work done on it.2. Elizabeth of York grew up and was raised by people who were at the heart of the Wars of the Roses. I would seriously hope she would not be stupid enough to incriminate herself and her uncle like that on paper. Her position was not as stable as popular culture would us believe. She was not the only daughter of Edward and therefore replicable, if not in the ideal way. 3. 500+ years is a long time for someone to decide to fabricate a fake to fit their own version of events for what ever reason. Even modern fakes sometimes slip though the cracks. There were Salt Lake City bombings back in the 1980's over Mark Hofmann using old paper and creating forgeries to swindle money. No one's sure how many of his documents are still floating around. 4. The story is simply too perfect. It seems like everything Richard is famous for having allegedly done is referenced this short letter. Not a series of letters. ONE! So either someone has an agenda besides a love sick girl trying to become queen or Richard truly is the monster of Shakespearean Legend. I'm unsure which it is.5. Where this letter has supposedly been posted to is interesting, but still makes me wonder. Hitler was once quote as saying, "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." What's more simple than mail getting lost. What's more amazing that it shows back up after over 500 years? Fits the bill for me. What do you all think?

  • #20270


    I agree that it's too perfect, hitting all the right notes. I didn't know “rat-faced” was used at the time, or for that matter Uncle Dicky. Made me cringe.

  • #20271


    The “Dicky” thing was the first thing that made my eye brow go up (as well as making me kind of sick.) I did some quick searching and apparently “Dick” and “Bill” did exist back as early as the 1300's as diminutives of Richard and William. Unfortunately, after I did this post I found a couple of commentaries later in the day that stated that the site that posted it is a site history site the equivalency of "The Onion" news paper. So I admit to a "DOH!" moment. Even though I tried to find more on it or approach it with the skeptical eye, I admit to missing the obviously explanation of it being a joke. I wish whoever had originally sent this through my news feed had said something and the page it was on said something of it being a hoax. It reads a lot like a tabloid that the writers are intending for the readers to take as fact, even though it can be complete B.S. I tried to take down the post when I discovered the truth, but apparently that didn't happen. So "whoops" on my part.But I guess the larger question is how plausible is this whole scenario between Elizabeth of York and Richard III? I know it's gained some traction after "The White Queen." It makes for a deliciously scandalous story. But historically, do you think there is any grounds for this?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.