Hello everyone and welcome to the History England episode 188, Richard III, Naive,

Foul or Savia.

So this week I'm going to do my very best to put forward three different interpretations

of the taking of the throne by Richard III.

These are the three you vote for on the History England Facebook page, whereon I have posted

today.

The first interpretation is Naive, the conspiracy theory if you like.

The Richard Gloucester was an evil, scheming man who lusted for power and planned for power.

And planned either before Edward IV died, but if not, certainly before the events at Stony

Stratford.

The second is Foul or the cock-up theory if you like.

This has it that Richard was a victim of circumstances of the situation, who started out fully intending

to see his nephew's crown, but by his actions and people's responses found himself compelled

to seize the throne.

A guy who did no more than you'd expect of the time.

On the third is Savia.

This says that we should take Gloucester at face value.

That he was faced with a situation where the success of the dynasty and security of the

realm depended on him stepping forward to take the throne.

On the principle that he who speaks last speaks loudest, I'm going to argue the Savia

viewpoint last.

I always thought that was an established phrase, but the way but a quick Google search reveals

...