Richard III

How bad is he really?

Not that bad for a monarch

He was a good man and the rightful king of England. Tudors were so ass blasted because they lost, so they needed a foreign army to overthrow the rightful king. Had Richard's reign not been cut short he surely would be remembered today as "Richard the Great"

Good men don't murder children. He's not despised just because of "muh Tudor bias"

He didn't kill them, that was all propaganda.

He had no reason to kill them and nor is there any evidence he did. Stop mistaking plays and pop culture for actual history.

>He had no reason to kill them
I can think of one...

>thinking Shakespeare is at all factual

He got cucked by the victors when he lost the war.

Well, you know, other than his people controlling the Tower of London when the two boys disappeared.

That doesn't prove anything, no one knows when the 2 princes disappeared and it's possible the whole story was invented by Tudor propagandists. Edward V was already declared illegitimate to rule so it would be unnecessary to kill him.

wow, it's refreshing to see a new kind of murder denial

Those princes disappearing was either deliberate murder or incompetence so staggering it ought to disqualify anyone involved from being in any position of authority.

Not him, but I've heard some role claim that the Duke of Buckingham, (Richard's right hand man in the capitol) was the guy who actually ordered it, and that the falling out of the two men late that summer is "proof" that it was Buckingham's idea, not Richard's. I don't buy it myself, mind you, but it's not completely ridiculous.

Also there are plenty of good men that have had thousands of children killed through their direct orders..

Through nothing short of boundless greed and psychopathy he completely collapsed the victory his brother had won in the wars of the roses and directly let to their rivals victory.

Utterly crazy man, got what he deserved.

>I'll just kill my nephews who everyone says will probably killed by me lmao perfect crime :^)

unironically did nothing wrong.

>""""""King""""" Henry
>not even English
>not even royal

> I won't kill my nephews because I'm the obvious culprit

What a genius defence you halfwit.

Well I guess he didn't fucking nuke all his brothers old followers for no reason because it's too obviously him as well?

He "nuked" them because they revolted against him dumbass.
He literally had no reason to kill the princes

If he killed Edward's sons to protect his throne, why didn't he kill George's son too? Anything that can be said about the Princes would apply to him too.

Same reason Edward nuked all the Lancastrian supporters he couldn't bribe, presumably.

>Edward V was already declared illegitimate to rule so it would be unnecessary to kill him.

The barons who opposed Richard didn't give a rat's ass about his claims of illegitimacy, thats why at first the rebellion was aimed at rescuing the boy prince.

He was loyal to his brother when he went into exile and had nothing. It was only later that he found out his "brother" was the bastard son of a yeoman.

So? Richard crushed the rebellion and life went on

Non Anglofag here, did they really base based Stannis on him?