tahsgirl Posted May 29, 2010 Report Share Posted May 29, 2010 Hi!I'm planning on doing my Historical Investigation in medieval english history, about the princes in the tower legend, specifically focusing on whether or not Richard III was their murderer. Since most of the evidence for and against Richard in this topic is kind of circumstancial evidence, I was going to take two very differing Historians interpretations of the evidence and contrast them against each other. This means I wont really have any primary sources, because there are virtually no primary sources on this topic. Is this idea ok or should I change it to something with primary sources? Also, if there are any strong Ricardians out there I would love to hear your opinions!Thanks in advance! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeG Posted May 29, 2010 Report Share Posted May 29, 2010 (edited) Unless the topic is OK with your teacher, I think you should change it to something with more primary sources if you really can't find any. Also, there has to be some primary sources somewhere, or where could the historians have gotten their information? If you have these books, try looking at their bibliography and see what they used as sources. I've often done that to find sources. Edited May 29, 2010 by JoeGuff Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.