Historical figures that got blamed for something they didn't do.

Sep 2018
96
Roman Empire
#22
That's right until that time many claimed that his spinal abnormality was Tudor propoganda or fictional embellushments to prove that he was evil. Obviously it was exaggerated , but it was also true.

It was claimed or suspected by contemporary accounrs that he was guilty of their murder, and it's really hard to disagree. Obviously there have been lots of theories over the years, but the one obvious person is Richard himself. And even if he DIDN'T do it, he put them in a situation that allowed it to happen. If he had let his brother's son be crowned then it is highly unlikely that he would have been murdered.
But if he did let his brother’s son on the throne, perhaps he would have gotten imprisoned and murdered, there was no love lost between Elizabeth and Richard, guy acted as swiftly as he did more to protect himself than anything. I believe Richard would have been keen on murdering his nephews only once he had definitely secured the throne with an heir, and I think he never attempted to justify himself on the matter because he simply didn’t know how to explain things. Who would have believed him if he had said that they had disappeared out of the blue?
 
Feb 2016
3,957
Japan
#23
Cromwell often gets accused of burning Drogheda to the ground and slaughtering its population. In truth, he captured the town and had its military garrison put to the sword. And over half of them were English.

The inhabitants were mostly left alone.... except the priests.
 
Aug 2015
2,200
uk
#24
But if he did let his brother’s son on the throne, perhaps he would have gotten imprisoned and murdered, there was no love lost between Elizabeth and Richard, guy acted as swiftly as he did more to protect himself than anything. I believe Richard would have been keen on murdering his nephews only once he had definitely secured the throne with an heir, and I think he never attempted to justify himself on the matter because he simply didn’t know how to explain things. Who would have believed him if he had said that they had disappeared out of the blue?
I agree , his brother's sons were more Woodville than Richard's side of the family. After all he'd done he almost certainly would have been arrested on trumped-up charges, convicted and executed. Richard did the only thing he could other than fleeing the country or starting another civil war.

As for explaining himself; he was king, he didn't need to. Everyone knows what happens to kings or princes that are usurped.
 
Sep 2018
96
Roman Empire
#25
I agree , his brother's sons were more Woodville than Richard's side of the family. After all he'd done he almost certainly would have been arrested on trumped-up charges, convicted and executed. Richard did the only thing he could other than fleeing the country or starting another civil war.

As for explaining himself; he was king, he didn't need to. Everyone knows what happens to kings or princes that are usurped.
That’s also true.
 
Jan 2015
2,961
Rupert's Land ;)
#26
I think Churchill received more blame for Gallipoli than he deserved; although certainly he deserved a measure. Faulty decisions and procrastination by the commanders and admirals at the front were most of the problem to me.
Concur with this. It was the first one I thought of.
Agreed.

Also
Percival blamed for the debacle in Malaya (His superiors deserve greater portion of blame)
Monty blamed for massive mistakes in Market Garden, for units he didn't command.
 
Aug 2012
791
Washington State, USA.
#27
I have to go along with Number 24 and say Marie Antoinette. She by no means caused France to go broke, and even made an effort to reduce her spending when the people demanded it. It was support of the American Revolution that really caused France their economic problems. Blame the Sun King Lious the 14th for creating the culture of extreme opulence that the royals lived under.