Questions

This is a list of all the questions and their associated study carrel identifiers. One can learn a lot of the "aboutness" of a text simply by reading the questions.

identifier	question
28561	Against whom,demanded one of the councilors,"is the young prince to be defended?
28561	And can no playfellow be found for him except his brother?
28561	And what was it all about?
28561	Brothers have been their brothers''bane, and can these nephews be sure of their uncle?
28561	Davy, Davy,"said the prince,"hast thou loved me so long, and now wouldst thou have me dishonored?
28561	Who are his enemies?
28561	Will she_ never_ die?"
28561	_ me_, my lord?"
36451	''The same night the King said to a secret page of his,"Who shall I trust to do my bidding?"
36451	But what must we think of Morton and Fabyan, who are thus proved to have been guilty of such a fraud?
36451	But why?
36451	Could Morton have been at his elbow?
36451	Going out to Sir James, who was reposing with his brother Thomas, the King said"what Sirs are you abed so soon?"
36451	Had Henry sufficient motive for the crime?
36451	How could they have saved themselves by flight when Tewkesbury was occupied, and the abbey surrounded by Edward''s army?
36451	If there ever was a confession why should there be various accounts of it?
36451	It thus having been shown that he was a murderer when he was nineteen, what more probable than that he killed his nephews?
36451	Of all his prisoners,''he continues,''three only suffered death, the notorious[ why notorious?]
36451	Sir William Parker( or Thurleball?
36451	Their high rank is shown by the order that no livery is to exceed the allowance,''but only to my Lord( Lincoln?)
36451	Then Henry( not Richard) may well have exclaimed''Who shall I trust to do my bidding?''
36451	Was there such a man lurking in the fen country round Croyland?
36451	Were they missing?
36451	What could he possibly do more?
36451	What did he do with them?
36451	Who were these children, if not the King''s nephews?
36451	Why should he commit this wholly useless act of perjury?
36451	Why then is it not''too monstrous to be believed''that the mother should have been eager to obtain the hand of her son''s murderer for her daughter?
36451	Why was not King Richard accused of murdering his nephews in the Act of Attainder?
36451	Why was not this done?
36451	Why was such extraordinary anxiety shown to conceal its contents, and violence threatened against anyone who preserved a record of them?
36451	Why were absurd, improbable,{ 280} and contradictory tales invented, in substitution of the statements made in Richard''s Act?
36451	Why were not Tyrrel, Dighton, Green, and Black Will arrested, tried, and hanged?
36451	Why were they not tried and executed for it?
36451	[ 32] Was this Morton?
36451	published, which alleged their illegitimacy, and its falsehood fully exposed by evidence?
17411	( 38) Who informed Margaret, that she might inform Perkin, of what passed in sanctuary?
17411	And had such weak step been taken, could the murder itself have remained a problem?
17411	And if guilty, how came she to stop the career of her intrigues?
17411	And in favour of whom?
17411	And who can believe his pretended confession afterwards?
17411	And who can tell whether the suddenness of the execution was not the effect of necessity?
17411	Are there outward and visible signs of a bloody nature?
17411	As to the heads of the Yorkists;(47) how does it appear they concurred in the projected match?
17411	Ay; and who told her what passed in the Tower?
17411	But being unlikely, was it not more natural for him to think, that it never was urged by Richard?
17411	But can this accusation be allowed gravely?
17411	But how could lord Bacon stop there?
17411	But why was no enquiry made after Greene and the page?
17411	Can it be doubted now but that Richard meant to have it thought that his assumption of the crown was only temporary?
17411	Could Richard be guilty, and the archbishops be blameless?
17411	Could Sir Thomas More be ignorant of this fact?
17411	Could a Yorkist have drawn a less disgusting representation?
17411	Could both be ignorant what was become of the young princes, when both had negotiated with the queen dowager?
17411	Could not the whole court, the whole kingdom of England, so cross- examine this Flemish youth, as to catch him in one lie?
17411	Did Grafton hear it pronounced?
17411	Did Henry stand in his way, deposed, imprisoned, and now childless?
17411	Did Perkin or did he not correspond in his narrative with Tirrel and Dighton?
17411	Did he publish his narrative to obscure or elucidate the transaction?
17411	Did he try to leave it so?
17411	Did king James bestow his kinswoman on Perkin, on the strength of such a fable?
17411	Did not they to the end endeavour to defeat and overturn it?
17411	Did that look like poison?
17411	Does a lie become venerable from its age?
17411	Does antiquity consecrate darkness?
17411	Does it require more time to ripen a foetus, that is, to prove a destroyer, than it takes to form an Aristides?
17411	Does uncertainty of where a man has been, prove his non- identity when he appears again?
17411	Had so politic a man any interest to leave the matter doubtful?
17411	Had they trumpeted about the story of their own guilt and infamy, till Henry, after Perkin''s appearance, found it necessary to publish it?
17411	Has not this the appearance of some curiosity in the king on the subject of the princes, of whose fate he was uncertain?
17411	Has this the air of a forced and precipitate election?
17411	How came she to know accurately and authentically a tale which no mortal else knew?
17411	How did it import Richard in what manner the young prince was put to death?
17411	How many general persecutions does the church record, of which there is not the smallest trace?
17411	If he did how was it possible for him to know it?
17411	If he did not know it, what was so obvious as his detection?
17411	If he did not, is it morally credible that Henry would not have made those variations public?
17411	If she was fully assured of their deaths, could Henry, after he came to the crown and had married her daughter, be uncertain of it?
17411	If they were illegitimate, so was their sister; and if she was, what title had she conveyed to her son Henry the Eighth?
17411	If they were not destroyed in his days, in whose days were they murdered?
17411	If this fine story of Buckingham and Percival is not true, what becomes of Sir Thomas More''s credit, on which the whole fabric leans?
17411	If those views did not, as is probable, take root in his heart till long afterwards, what interest had Richard to murder an unhappy young prince?
17411	In short, what did Henry ever muffle and disguise but the truth?
17411	Indeed who were the heads of that party?
17411	Is it credible that Richard would have made use of this woman''s name again, if he had employed it heretofore to blacken Hastings?
17411	Is it credible that Richard, if the murderer, would have exhibited this unnecessary mummery, only to revive the memory of his own guilt?
17411	Is it not rather a base way of insinuating a slander, of which no proof could be given?
17411	Is it not, that Hastings really was plotting to defeat the new settlement contrary to the intention of the three estates?
17411	Is it possible to renew the charge, and not recollect this acquittal?
17411	Is it probable that the Earl of Lincoln gave out, that the elder had been murdered?
17411	Is it therefore probable, that he acted so silly a farce as to make his brother''s mistress do penance?
17411	Is this evidence?
17411	Is this full?
17411	Is this your brother?
17411	Margaret, duchess of Burgundy, Elizabeth duchess of Suffolk, and her children; did they ever concur in that match?
17411	Necessity rather than law justified her proceedings, but what excuse can be made for her faction having recourse to arms?
17411	Of the issue of Clarence, whom she had contributed to have put to death, or in favour of an impostor?
17411	Of what importance is it to any man living whether or not he was as bad as he is represented?
17411	On such occasions do arbitrary princes want tools?
17411	Or does it not indicate a voluntary concurrence of the nobility?
17411	Or, what prince ever spoke of such a scandal, and what is stronger, of such contempt of his authority, with so much lenity and temper?
17411	Richard had married her daughter; but what claim had Henry to her inheritance?
17411	Still farther: why was Perkin never confronted with the queen dowager, with Henry''s own queen, and with the princesses, her sisters?
17411	The mistress of Edward she notoriously was; but what if, in Richard''s pursuit of the crown, no question at all was made of this Elizabeth Lucy?
17411	This man, Clifford, was bribed back to Henry''s service; and what was the consequence?
17411	This was indeed essential to Henry to know; but what did it proclaim to the nation?
17411	Thus far we may credit him-- but what man of common sense can believe, that Richard went so far as publicly to asperse the honor of his own mother?
17411	Was Edward''s court so virtuous or so humane, that it could furnish no assassin but the first prince of the blood?
17411	Was he not conducted to Paul''s cross, and openly examined by the nobility?
17411	Was it ever pretended that Perkin failed in his part?
17411	Was it his interest to save Edward''s character at the expence of his own?
17411	Was it his matter to muffle any point that he could clear up, especially when it behoved him to have it cleared?
17411	Was not Lambert himself taken into Henry''s service, and kept in his court for the same purpose?
17411	Was not it consonant to all Henry''s policy of involving every thing in obscure and general terms?
17411	Was not she singularly capable of describing to Perkin, her nephew, whom she had never seen?
17411	Was this sufficient specification of the murder of a king?
17411	Were the duchess(15) and her daughters silent on so scandalous an insinuation?
17411	What became of it?
17411	What can be said against king James of Scotland, who bestowed a lady of his own blood in marriage on Perkin?
17411	What could stagger the allegiance of such trust and such connexions, but the firm persuation that Perkin was the true duke of York?
17411	What feature in this portrait gives any idea of a monster?
17411	What has he left a mystery?
17411	What interest had Henry to manage a widow of Burgundy?
17411	What is there in this account that looks like poison; Does it not prove that Richard would not hasten the death of his queen?
17411	What now becomes of Sir Thomas More''s informers, and of their narrative, which he thought hard but must be true?
17411	What then is the presumption?
17411	What truth indeed could be expected, when even the identity of person is uncertain?
17411	When the house of commons undertook to colour the king''s resentment, was every member of it too scrupulous to lend his hand to the deed?
17411	Who can believe if Richard meditated the murder, that he took no care to sift Brakenbury before he left London?
17411	Who can believe that he would trust so atrocious a commission to a letter?
17411	Who had heard of her guilt?
17411	Who knows that they were not applied to?
17411	Who was handsomer than Alexander, Augustus, or Louis the Fourteenth?
17411	Who were rendered uncapable to inherit but Edward the Fifth, his brother and sisters?
17411	Who would not vindicate Henry the Eighth or Charles the Second, if found to be falsely traduced?
17411	Why did he not conjecture that there was no proof of that tale?
17411	Why did he not convict Perkin out of his own mouth?
17411	Why then not Richard the Third?
17411	Why was it whimsical in Carte to exercise the same spirit of criticism?
17411	Why were they never asked, is this your son?
17411	Would he have loitered at York at such a crisis, if he had intended to step into the throne?
17411	Would not the act have specified the daughters of Edward the Fourth if the sons had been dead?
17411	Yet how did Richard the Third treat his nephew and competitor, the young Warwick?
17411	Yet what was the behaviour of the archbishop?
17411	and what did he try to muffle?
17411	and why was his whole conduct so different in the cases of Lambert and Perkin, if their cases were not totally different?
17411	or, if ignorant, where is his competence as an historian?
17411	whom shall a man trust?