#richardian

[pixelcanvas]

I live for Richard iii

[great-things-hang-on-a-kiss]

John sassdown-Hill

[great-things-hang-on-a-kiss]

Oh for the love of god. APPARENTLY new evidence was found imply Richard III's guilt while researching a book about Anne Neville. Funnily enough this same theory/evidence was in  Philippa Gregory's FICTIONAL account of Anne Neville's life....Brilliant researching there, mate. 

[great-things-hang-on-a-kiss]

Psychologist Professor Mark Lansdale has made a brief profile of Richard III and has come to the conclusion that Richard III may have had “intolerance to uncertainty syndrome” – which may have manifested in control freak tendencies. Also that he was cautious in all his interactions with others because of his curvature of the spine.

I think the “intolerance to uncertainty syndrome”  is a load of bollocks for a start. Of course he wouldn't be happy about uncertainty! From the age of 9, uncertainty meant the threat of death for him and his family. By 17 he was a commander in the army and saw what could easily happen to him. And at 19 he saw the most powerful man in England, Warwick, killed at the Battle of Barnet. Warwick had more men and was a much better (and experienced)  commander. But because of a bit of fog, Warwick  was defeated. I think it's perfectly logical that Richard wouldn't like uncertainty given that he's life was constantly on the line. He constantly faced uncertainty which could result in death . That doesn't mean he has a syndrome where he can't tolerate uncertainty or he'll freak out if he doesn't have his way. In fact the only time I can recall Richard having a hissy fit was when Edward was bribed by the french not to go to war. And that was because Richard wanted their lands back in France (like his father did) and thought Edward was being greedy and dishonorable. 

And even if Richard did have control freak bitch fits, who could blame him?  with the amount of stress and drama that went on during his life, I wouldn't blame him if he freaked out. Also his scoliosis could have caused him intense pain which would make him prone to freak outs every once in a while.  Again that's doesn't mean he had “intolerance to uncertainty syndrome”, it just means he had a reaction and expressed human emotion. Something everyone does. 

Now in regards to being cautious in all his interactions with others. Richard was widely known to be quiet, solemn and serious, he wasn't as charismatic or brash as George or Edward. You could blame his spine, and i do think it played a small part, for his quiet manner but there are other things to consider. Richard was the runt of the York's litter of 13 children. He wouldn't have had much attention and even as an adult, his mother favored her other children above Richard. As a child, Richard was sent to live with strangers in the low countries and then was sent to be Warwick's ward, he would have been introverted because he barely got to settle anywhere. He then had to watch a life time of betrayals. No one could be trusted and most people were eager turncoats. He would have been reserved in any dealings he had with people because of past experiences and the politics of the day, not just because his spine was crooked.  

 Reading the article, I noticed they kept mentioning that they wanted to see if Richard was the psychopath that Shakespeare portrayed him as. They went into this study looking for a psychopath and I know for a fact they wouldn't have came out without giving him some kind of condition. I can appreciate their research and their attempt at fixing Richard's reputation. But they could have just said that he was a man. A man that lived in an intensely brutal world and  perhaps his mental state reflected that not just that he was a "Control Freak". End of the day he was a normal man. Not a  psychopath or a Control Freak. 

Suck it.