I was meh about THE LOST KING right up until I heard the name “Richard III.” That made me stop, because the Richard III people are — what do the kids say, these days? ‘Extra?’ They are very extra. So any movie about them finding the remains of Richard III should be extra, too.
And lo! It is. But in a good way. I might have to see two non-genre films this year.
Moe Lane
PS: Henry Tudor probably did have the princes killed, and then blame it all on Richard III. I say this mostly because Henry Tudor was an absolute ruthless bastard, not to mention a usurper. Pruning down the family tree like that would be right up his alley.
My money’s still on Buckingham.
For anyone wondering what the fuss is about, I recommend Sharon Kay Penman’s “The Sunne in Splendor”.
(As an author, she’s really good, or meh, with not much in between. This one, “Falls the Shadow”—on Simon de Montfort and the Baron’s War, and “When Christ and his Saints Slept”—on Stephen I and The Anarchy—are ones I heartily recommend.)
Alternatively, GRRM’s “A Song of Ice and Fire” borrowed MANY its characters from The Wars of the Roses.
Eddard Stark, Tyrion Lannister, and Stannis Barthenon were all interpretations of Richard III.
The current House of the Dragons borrows from “The Anarchy” period of English civil wars between the daughter of Henry I (Empress Matilda) and Henry’s nephew Stephen.
The late Dr Marvin Lomax of the Tulsa University history department was an unapologetic and vocal member of the R3S when I knew him in the 80s and 90s.
And Mark Wallace (aka Master William Blackfox) had expressed a… fascination with their fascination.
I have a copy of one of the last Blackfox sketches up on my wall: me, my then-girlfriend-now-wife, her sister… and my then-girlfriend-now wife’s recent ex-boyfriend, who paid for the sketch. That particular Pennsic had an awkward moment or two.