Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Richard III And the Princes In The Tower

Did he kill them? If he didn't, who did?

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 3910/18/2013

Cui bono?

Henry VII.

Needed to solidify his claim to the throne after defeating Richard III at Bosworth Field.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 109/30/2013

[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 209/30/2013

I like to think those two princes would have been Beliebers.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 309/30/2013

We don't know. More importantly, was he gay?

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 409/30/2013

Don't look at me.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 509/30/2013

Pedo alert!

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 609/30/2013

They were also ahead of Richard in the line of succession, so he also had a motive.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 709/30/2013

Fond uncle, it's said.

Dramatic license by WS.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 809/30/2013

Were the princes uncircumcised?

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 909/30/2013

Avaunt thou dreadful minister of hell!

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 1009/30/2013

yes r7 but there are records that he'd sent them to some distant castle for safety and paid for their upkeep. They could've died from disease, any number of things.

At any rate, they were too young to be on the throne and RIchard needed to forestall the Woodvilles so he crowned himself.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 1110/01/2013

Prince Phillip finished them off.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 1210/01/2013

Once Edward IV's marriage was declared invalid (because technically Edward was already married to someone else when he married Elizabeth Woodville), all the children, including the two princes, became illegitimate, so Richard was next in line. He didn't need to kill the boys.

However, after Henry VII took the throne after Richard was killed at Bosworth, he had to solidify his claim and did so by marrying the boys' eldest sister Elizabeth. But he had to re-legitimize her first. By doing that the two boys became legitimate once again, and if they were still alive they had a better claim to the throne than Henry. So Henry DID need to kill the boys.

If you want a really good book that is incredibly well researched, yet reads like a modern detective story, go find "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey. Look on Amazon or ebay for a copy. I promise it's worth hunting it down.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 1310/01/2013

I second r13. Beware of "The Princes in the Tower," by Alison Weir, the Darwin Porter of this subject.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 1410/01/2013

"If you want a really good book that is incredibly well researched, yet reads like a modern detective story, go find "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey. "

Terrific book, and it's the reason I clicked on this thread.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 1510/01/2013

Prince Phillip had them killed, just like Diana.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 1610/01/2013

They were killed by Henry VII or his mother, the formidable Lady Margaret Beaufort.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 1710/01/2013

Diana had them killed? I didn't know that.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 1810/01/2013

Interesting that no one has mentioned the current TV series on Starz featuring all of these figures. The White Queen. It portrays Richard as loving, loyal, brave and kind of hot.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 1910/01/2013

"...after Henry VII took the throne after Richard was killed at Bosworth, he had to solidify his claim and did so by marrying the boys' eldest sister Elizabeth. But he had to re-legitimize her first. By doing that the two boys became legitimate once again..."

I want to know what Elizabeth thought about being married to a man who may well have killed her brothers, but apparently that hasn't gone down in history.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 2010/01/2013

R1, R13 and R14 all ignore the fact that the princes were more than likely dead by the time Tudor took the throne. R11 cites nonexistent documentation of their removal from the Tower and upkeep elsewhere.

Cui bono, indeed.

I have read everything that the great Josephine Tey ever wrote, and enjoyed "The Daughter of Time" very much. However, her lovely and clever fiction does not account for the unlikelihood of the princes surviving an additional 2 years in the Tower after their purported deaths in 1483 (during which time no witnesses ever have emerged). Tey lacked information that has emerged since her story was published.

However, I will grant some possibility that their deaths actually were caused by Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, rather than Richard III. Buckingham, who died that year as well, found the boys standing in the way of his own claim in his attempt to topple Richard. Yes, he switched allegiance to Tudor, in a way, but that was when his own chances dimmed. And he acted in rebellion overtly on the assumption that the princes were dead.

The notion that their being neutralized by illegitimation left them harmless is naive. As long as a son of Edward IV was alive, no one - not Richard or Henry Tudor - was secure.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 2110/01/2013

It was the grandfather of Jack the Ripper wot done them in.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 2210/01/2013

[quote]after their purported deaths in 1483 (during which time no witnesses ever have emerged

Over 500 years ago! and we're still debating it. I love a historical mystery but I wish science would invent a time machine.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 2310/01/2013

Two unexplained sets of skeletal remains were found in Edward IV's and Woodville's tomb in St. George's Chapel, labeled as a son and daughter whose bodies were later found elsewhere in the crypt. This was at the end of the 18th or beginning of the 19th centuries. (The royal crypts at Westminster Abbey and Windsor are oddly untouched and unexcavated - the difficult-to-locate journals on Victorian-era work in the Abbey are fascinating and show how hapazard and un-royal the burials actually were. All that stacking and piling.

Anyway, the suggestion was that the bodies of Edward V and his brother eventually were returned to Elizabeth Woodville, presumably after her and Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth became queen consort of Henry VII. Silence was golden, and surety. She and her agents would have had them quietly interred at Windsor with their father.

Some examination of the remains at Westminster Abbey from the Tower discovery would assist, but the royals have been adamant about not opening up the issue.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 2410/01/2013

[quote]Some examination of the remains at Westminster Abbey from the Tower discovery would assist, but the royals have been adamant about not opening up the issue.

I wish the queen would just let them test the bodies. At least it would prove that it was indeed the princes. And what of the rumor that Elizabeth Woodville was able to smuggle out her younger son Richard? At least it would finally put to rest if it really was Edward V and Richard, Duke of York (and not an imposter).

So who did it? Was it Richard? Even though he had the two boys made illegitimate, they were still a threat to his throne. Or Henry Tudor, who had a very small claim and needed both Richard and the boys out of the way. Margaret Beaufort and Lord Stanley had access.

Why did nobody ever produce the bodies? Henry the VI was murdered but was still provided with a proper funeral.

This is probably the best historical mystery ever. Lots of suspects, no definitive proof on either side.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 2510/09/2013

Hmm. I wonder if Charles would be more amenable to testing the remains. Something to look forward to.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 2610/09/2013

Richard III loved them and sent them to a farm out in the country where they could chase rabbits all day in the sun.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 2710/09/2013

T'was Buckingham. He ingratiated himself to Richard, while promising Elizabeth Woodville and her family he was on their side. Elizabeth W was a very aggressive, active conspirator, flailing around going with anyone she thought would help her.

Buckingham was a duplicitous, ambitious, craven despicable man, and had the guards replaced, and the attendants at the Tower apartments as well. Richard had entrusted Buckingham with the care of the two little Princes.

Richard was first informed that the boys were missing, then later that they'd been kidnapped. He was later informed one had died of the flu. Then, much later, he realized they were murdered. It took Richard far to long to fully appreciate Buckingham's treachery.

Buckingham was a cunning nasty piece of work. But Richard was very distracted. He was dealing with the death of his own son and then his beloved wife, as well as all the political intrigues and wars. R21 is essentially correct.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 2810/09/2013

Why wouldn't the current queen want them tested?

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 2910/09/2013

Has she given a reason?

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 3010/09/2013

[quote]It portrays Richard as loving, loyal, brave and kind of hot.

That was his reputation prior to the Tudors taking the throne, R19. The victors write the history. It wasn't safe to write anything favorable about the House of York, certainly not about the last Plantagenet king, Richard III.

I haven't seen "The White Queen" yet. I'll download the "let's have more nudity" American version one of these days.

t

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 3110/09/2013

Henry Tudor was always up for undermining Richard before he ever set foot on English soil. Very shrewd, opportunistic fellow. Richard had the loyalty of many lords. He was a popular king with the people too.

When Tudor's/Buckingham's rumors and whispering campaign started about him killing his nephews, he began to lose valuable allies.

Elizabeth Woodville was not popular nor were her relatives. At one point, before they went to the Towers, her sons by her first marriage tried to kidnap the two princes.

She was trying to make an alliance with Henry Tudor back then, and ironically, Richard feared for the boys' safety, since their existence barred Henry from the Throne.

Richard had sworn to his brother Edward whom he adored, that he would protect the boys and he took that oath very seriously. Bottom line? Richard got played.

He was a brilliant commander of soldiers in a battle, but he had no aptitude or patience with the political intrigues. It was also said of him that he was too trusting, often gave people the benefit of the doubt long past the time when they'd proved treacherous. I love RIII, he was my special research project long years ago.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 3210/09/2013

[quote]Richard had sworn to his brother Edward whom he adored, that he would protect the boys and he took that oath very seriously. Bottom line? Richard got played.

He had Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville deemed illegitimate (that Edward was precontracted to another woman before Elizabeth) thereby making Edward's children bastards and unable to claim the throne. And then Richard crowned himself. I don't think he had any intention of crowning Edward V.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 3310/09/2013

R31 is correct in that the winners write history. Now everybody thinks poor RIII was a murderous hunchback. Thanks, Shakespeare!

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 3410/09/2013

"Once Edward IV's marriage was declared invalid (because technically Edward was already married to someone else when he married Elizabeth Woodville), all the children, including the two princes, became illegitimate, so Richard was next in line. He didn't need to kill the boys."

Royal English offspring were often legitimized and deligitimized and then legitimized again. Look no further then Margaret Beaufort who descended from John of Gaunt by out of wedlock, Elizabeth I and Mary Tudor were both declared illegitimate and yet ascended to the throne. And part of Henry VII's claim to the throne rested, in addition to his being Margaret's son, being married to Elizabeth, the daughter of Elizabeth Woodville by Edward IV, who was also declared illegitimate.

So any assurance that a declaration of illegitimacy would be enduring would be completely misplaced. Simply holding Edward and Elizabeth's marriage invalid didn't mean that that decision wouldn't later be disputed and reversed.

Therefore, while Richard III may not have had the princes murdered, one can't argue that he didn't because he would have been convinced their survival wouldn't eventually foil his reign.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 3510/09/2013

r29, because she's a cunt.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 3610/09/2013

[quote]I haven't seen "The White Queen" yet. I'll download the "let's have more nudity" American version one of these days

It's entertaining enough and Max Irons is hot.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 3710/09/2013

r30, lack of imagination

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 3810/18/2013

As I read my history, Richard was coerced by Buckingham when he declared the princes illegitimate.Buckingham was manipulating the situation.

Apparently there was a disreputable priest who knew the "secret" of Edward's prior marriage, and threatened to expose the fact that Elizabeth Woodville was not legal. Woodville was very unpopular and her family was hated.

They were also troublemakers and were actively undermining Edward's last wishes. He put Richard in charge as regent until the eldest son was of age. Elizabeth wanted to be regent and her brothers and oldest son were conspiring against Richard.

Anyway, Buckingham very shrewdly exploited all these divisions and problems hoping to advantage himself. Henry Tudor, watching from afar, let it all go down.

Richard's biggest flaw was that once you gained his trust, you owned him. He was a very excellent warrior, and a crap politician. His brother Edward excelled at both, but politics was his meat.

by Elizabeth Woodvillereply 3910/18/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.