A new rant on historical accuracy in fiction

First rant here: I never understood the point of inaccurate historical movies

Second rant will refer mostly to the Wars of the Roses and how historical vision of what happened has been overturned by historical fiction and the rich imagination of people obsessed with conspiracy theories.

Official story is this: You have two families, House of York and House of Lancaster. The House of Lancaster came to the throne by overthrowing Richard II. In doing so, they opened a bit of a can of worms. Since Richard did not have children, the question was should his heirs be the descendants of an older branch via the female line (this line eventually led to the House of York) or a younger branch via the male line (House of Lancaster). When Henry VI, Lancaster king, turned out to be a disastrous ruler, the question was back on the table. After years of conflict, the House of York won, Henry VI and his heir was killed and the whole war presumably over. But in 1483, Edward IV of York died leaving as successor his son Edward V, a minor. Richard III, adult brother of Edward IV had Edward V and his brother declared illegitimate and locked in the Tower of London. Both boys disappeared. Richard was blamed for their disappearance and assumed death, which led to people starting to look elsewhere for a more appropriate king. Since the conflict had led to the death of pretty much every viable candidate, the alternative became the future Henry VII, who was a descendant of a bastard line of the Lancaster house and had virtually no real right to the throne. Henry's mother, Margaret Beaufort, struck a deal with dowager queen Elizabeth Woodville, arranging a marriage between Henry and the daughter of Elizabeth and Edward IV, Elizabeth of York that would unite disgruntled Yorkist supporters (who viewed Richard's dethronement of his nephews as an usurpation) with whatever was left of the Lancaster supporters. Henry invaded, Richard died on the battlefield, the Tudor dynasty prevailed and the Wars of the Roses ended.

That is the gist of the official version. Up until the early 20th century, very few people argued with it, and William Shakespeare's depiction of the story in many of his plays led to a generally vicious impression of Richard III. This image has been challenged by the emergence of the Richard III Society, a group of people that argued that the image of Richard was painted by Tudors precisely to strengthen their very weak claim to the throne and that in actuality he was an extraordinary king who just had the bad luck to lose on the battlefield.

It is true that the death of the princes in the Tower has not been proven at all, let along their death at the hands of Richard. On the other hand, when becoming king, Richard executed without trial  a series of opponents, which in itself shows the ruthlessness of a man determined to be in power whatever the cost. Does this prove he killed the princes? No, but it shows he was capable of it.

Anyway, in their rush to disprove Richard's guilt, the Society has started hunting for alternative suspects. Obviously as the eventual winners, the Tudors were top of the list. However, it was really hard to explain how Henry Tudor would have been able to kill them since at the time of their disappearance he was an obscure noble exiled in Brittany. The chances that he would have been able to arrange such things, despite having no political sway, were minuscule. To overcome this obstacle, the Ricardians are arguing either that the princes survived the Tower or that they were killed by someone else in Henry's name. That someone was identified as his mother, who at the time was married to a Yorkist noble whose defection to the Tudor side was decisive in the final battle.

Additional to the fact that Margaret's son became king there is really nothing else to link her to the disappearance of the princes. No contemporary sources mention her as a suspect. And yes, history is written by the winners, but at the time of the princes' disappearance there were foreign ambassadors at the English court that wrote home letters of what was happening, letters that survive and mention nothing of her as the whole story was happening. As such, while not impossible, the theory does not have many legs to stand on.

Since this theory came to life, a new image of Margaret Beaufort as ruthless child-killer has emerged. In the recent years this image is supported by the writings of Philippa Gregory who has written a series of fiction books on the subject. In these books, Margaret is described as having been convinced of her son's eventual ascension to kingship from pretty much the moment he was born (despite the fact that the Wars of the Roses which will end up being the reason why all those dozens of people that had a stronger claim than he did died before their time, had not even begun at that point). As such she is described as having plotted for years to bring him to that position.

Of course, there is the age-old argument that fiction is fiction and people know the difference. But is it quite like that? Ever since Philippa Gregory became famous and her writings read by millions of people I have noticed the emergence on the historical forums of people who describe the Wars of the Roses as the Cousins' War (term used exclusively by Ms Gregory) and stating as fact that the Tudors spent the entire conflict plotting for the throne (when in fact what they did was support Henry VI and his son while they were alive, two people who had a considerably stronger right and would have kept them away from it).

I am willing to debate on the potential of these theories, but I am struck by how sure of themselves some people are when stating these facts and how they "can't stand her" [Margaret Beaufort], she was "harsh" and ambitious and so on. They don't say "I think", they are stating it as fact. And when asked for sources, they are scandalized.

I understand that we are all free to have whatever beliefs we want. But they must be based on something, and if they are based on fiction we might as well acknowledge it. If not, then you should be able to provide a valid argument for your beliefs. I can list books and sources that back my beliefs. You can argue that they are not correct, but if you don't have a similar list, what is your argument based on? No one can travel back in time to know what these people were like, so our only source of information is what was written and some archaeological findings. If none of these back your theories, you cannot state them as facts. And "the winners destroyed all the evidence", while a valid argument to counter the official theory and open people's minds to alternatives, does not confirm any alternative theories if there is no added evidence.

So next time you tell me that fiction is fiction, maybe you wanna think about all these people that get an impression based on it and then they get opinions they state as facts, but which they can't support with anything other than a big mouth.