#but what I can't stand is them distorting very clear historical events like the Stoke campaign for their little crusade

[blackboar]

Sorry if it's a dumb question. But if people say Lambert or Perkin were the Princes, why did they wait so long to come back?

Richard stole their birthright slurred them their mother and sisters as a whore and bastards. So why the hell did they never appear in his reign and get an army? Yeah it's a short time and they were young but no one's asking them to fight. Plenty of men would've helped.

Like if everyone thought they were dead, Henry's sorta avenging them by killing Richard and marrying Elizabeth. He's the good guy! So why wait.

The best explanation I have is Richard was holding them, and would've kept them in prison until they died, but when Bosworth happened someone let them out.

I mean, if they lived, wouldn't taking two boys hostage, killing protective male family, and never letting them see their mother again, and never have any life at all, be pretty shitty behavior as it is?

So it's kind of a paradox. If Richard didn't kill them, even if they weren't Perkin or Lambert, he was expecting to leave them in jail forever. So he ruined their lives and was cruel for no reason. If he was ready to hurt two children, he sounds like the type of guy who would finish the job and kill them.

So if I follow the whole "they survived" theory through, Richard ends up sounding guilty anyway.

Well, do you know why Lambert Simmel's revolt never happened during Richard III's reign?

Because the rebellion was made by Ricardians. It's Richard III's sister funding mercenaries led by Richard III's former Lieutenant of Ireland/nephew and his former best friend, landing on Richard III's stronghold and attracting Richard III's former supporters (the Harringtons, Broughtons, Scropes).

Lambert Simmel being Edward V. Makes. No. Damn. Sense.

As for Perkin Warbeck, the fact that he waited years speaks volumes on his authenticity. He was aware that this was an issue, hence his justifications about his brother Edward V being killed by people whom he does not name the sponsor before being put in custody by said killers who seemingly have no trouble killing a 13-year-old but think it's too immoral to kill a 10-year-old. Then they free him after a bunch of years in Flanders.

Two options: either they work for Richard III, in which case they should have no trouble freeing him after he gets killed. Either they work for the Tudors/Tudor-linked, in which case he wouldn't ever be free. What convince me that Perkin Warbeck isn't Richard of Shrewsbury is his own weird version of events, not whatever his opponents said.

And indeed, it's to vindicate Richard III but less as an innocent man than a victim of his time. In the long run, they can't canonize him, considering many of his past deeds. But what they wanna do is pin the portrayal of someone unfairly treated by his contemporaries and posterity. Using a famous mystery in which one can muddy the waters enough to instigate doubts is great for them because then, they can avoid talking about his career as a duke, his actions as a general or his very real ambitions and aspirations. I do not get their hyperfixation on Richard III & morality. I personally outgrew it when I was 16 years old. Richard III doesn't interest me for that. Their picture of a martyred (?), progressive (??), proto-socialist (???) Duke of Gloucester is so strange it's a bit fascinating.