|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 921
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 5:52 pm: | 
|
Who do you think killed them?
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 496
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 6:45 pm: |
|
By far the most likely explanation accepted by historians today is that the murder was undertaken for the BENEFIT of Richard III but that he was not technically RESPONSIBLE for it.
The political situation was such that had Edward V been King 'proper' then his advisors would have exploited the position and created a great deal of national turmoil and thus by removing the blameless children from the equation, Richard III could ascend the throne.
We have to remember, of course, that Richard was almost certainly not the monster he is regarded as historically. That is due to Shakespeare's efforts to please Elizabeth I and by proven doctoring of his portraits to make them appear sinister.
There is also no real evidence to show that the bones found in The Tower were indeed those of The Princes. I think it just as likely they were taken out of the country or secreted in an ecclesiastic environment - but such views are nothing more than supposition and I am not one for theorising.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 435
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
I finally have a couple of minutes to devote to this fascinating subject.
Thanks for starting what could be an interesting thread Ally and for your sterling response, Philip.
Let me begin by making it clear that I think very highly of Richard III, but I see him as a man of his times (not ours). Some romantic novelists seem to forget this!! I believe that Richard had the potential to be one of our better kings, but I also believe that he probably was responsible for the deaths of his nephews. Simply a matter of political necessity probably - and no worse than the Tudors or John in terms of ruthlessness. But he was king and the boys disappeared - ergo, Richard bears the blame as he must. But, I do NOT believe that he deserves the black reputation he has gained.
A slight quibble (no more) with your post Philip. I do NOT think RIII was "responsible" for the deaths of the Princes in that he either did the deed or was present at the time. I believe that he must bare the responsibility for their disappearance however, because they were in his care. If another killed them without Richard's knowledge, he must still take the responsibility for not having kept the boys more safely.
If they were taken abroad, or to the north, then the responsibility is still his. ONLY if it could be shown that they were alive until Bosworth and then died violently under Henry VII would RIII be totally exonerated.
Now, what happened and why (to answer Ally's question) do I think there are more issues here.
1. I think there is considerable circumstantial evidence that the children of Edward IV were illegitimate, as he had been betrothed to another woman (who still lived) at the time of his marriage.
2. There is some indication that Edward IV himself may have been illegitimate - the son of an archer in the Rouen garrison by Cecily Neville, Duchess of York.
3. The Wydevilles were using the boy king, Edward V, as a political puppet to gain control of the kingdom in 1483.
4. Against this background, Richard of Gloucester had no alternative but to act politically to defuse the Wydeville problem. Once he was made aware of the illegitimacy of the boys, he had to take the throne.
5. Richard's own life (and that of his family)would have been in danger had edward V remained King, as on coming of age (probably at 14 on the basis of precedent) he might have sought revenge for the overthrow of his Wydeville relatives, who had brought him up.
6. Once the boys were declared bastards and Richard king, the lads remained a potent threat as a focus of revolt/dissent, or as an alternative King (probably a puppet as in the readeption of Henry VI in 1471). Most deposed kings were killed (Edward II probably but not definitely c 1337, Richard II 1399ish and Henry VI in 1471). The boys' deaths were therefore not inevitable but likely.
7. Richard was a man of his time and could be ruthless - he had seen his father, uncle, 2 brothers (Rutland in battle, Clarence in the Tower) die violent deaths. He had been in the battle during which his cousin and mentor Warwick was killed, and if Henry VI was murdered, he probably at least consented to the decision. State killing was thus nothing unusual to him.
8. Rumours of the boys' deaths emerged as early as late 1483, and Richard failed to produce them, to the detriment of his regime. I find this compelling, as he did not have to do more than state that they were alive - so far as we know, he did nothing.
This, of course, just scrapes the surface of the issues I see as relevant. I find the skeins of logic winding back to the 1450s, and forward to the Tudor period. Much evidence has been lost or destroyed and we have to draw conclusions from what people did - in this regard the case is quite like JtR.
I hope that this has given you some indication of my thinking on this fascinating subject.
If you want more, and it won't bore you, I'll happily debate this 'til kingdom come.
Regards,
Phil |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 499
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 10:38 am: |
|
Hi Phil.
Phew, your knowledge on this item outstrips mine considerably - and of course I accept and concur with your view that though not responsible he can be seen as needing to bear the responsibility (oh, the semantics of our wonderful sorely abused common tongue!).
I understand now it is almost certain that Edward IV should not have been king at all as daddy wasn't Henry.
I did find out recently that my best friend is descended from Edward IV though. In my mind, he thus needs to add the suffix 'Sickert' to his surname.
Is that too obtuse?
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 935
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
George
I understand now it is almost certain that Edward IV should not have been king at all as daddy wasn't Henry.
His father certainly wasn't Henry.
The claim is that his father wasn't Richard, Duke of York.
It's an interesting claim, but many people are extremely sceptical about it.
Chris Phillips
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 506
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
I was just looking quickly at a list of lineage. As you can tell, this one is not my area of expertise. I'll go and do an Edward II to myself.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 440
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 5:35 pm: |
|
It is factually true though that Richard of York, (a hero of mine incidentally) hardly celebrated the birth of Edward of March (in theory his eldest son and heir) at all, but made a big song and dance of that of Edmund of Rutland his second son. He seems consistently to have preferred the company in exile of Edmund too (they died together in battle at Wakefield).
This may have been an attempt to keep father and heir apart and to spread the risk, but after Richard's death in 1461, Edward took a long time to give his father's corpse seemly burial.
Edward's mother "Proud Cis (Cecily Neville, the pious Duchess of York, who lived to be around 90) threatened to reveal edward's illegitimacy when he married Elizabeth Wydeville. That is somewhat out of character for Cecily.
Not a strong case, but a strongly circumstantial one that deserves more thought that it has been given.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 441
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Don't do that Philip, you might singe your hairs and the poker doesn't deserve it!!
Incidentally, there is some evidence that Edward II might have survived and lived out his life in Italy. Fascinating stuff. In some ways I hope it's true.
Phil |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 626
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 8:51 pm: |
|
Hi all,
If you are interested in this subject (almost as big in terms of historical writing as the Ripper) may I suggest the following titles to you.
You can of course start with Josephine Tey's DAUGHTER OF TIME, which gives one of the most positive swings of the story for Richard (and points at Henry Tudor as more likely to have killed the boys after Bosworth). However it is a novel, based on 19th Century research by Sir Clement Markham among others that is now somewhat outdated (the novel itself was written over half a century ago - I first read it for an English history course in the 1970s).
But more recently:
1) RICHARD III: THE GREAT DEBATE - MORE'S HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III; WALPOLE'S HISTORIC DOUBTS (ed., with and introduction by Paul Murray Kendall) (New York: THE NORTON LIBRARY - W.W.Norton & Co., c.1965). Kendall, a leading historian and biographer of the Yorkist period (including a biography of RICHARD III) presents the historic debate pretty well in his introduction, and then republishes (and edits) the two oldest versions of Richard. Sir Thomas More took the negative image that Shakespeare built on. Horace Walpole attempted a more skeptical view of the story that More and historians presented ("skepticism" was the philosophical trend in Walpole's day, thanks to David Hume). The introduction by itself is worth a look at.
2)THE MYSTERY OF THE PRINCES: AN INVESTIGATION INTO A SUPPOSED MURDER by Aubrey Williamson (Chicago: Academy Chicago, Publishers, c. 1978, 1986). Williamson takes a more positive view of the odd events of 1483, suggesting that the boys were only removed from power but not killed. He does bring the evidence that has been used up to date.
3) ROYAL BLOOD: RICHARD III AND THE MYSTERY OF THE PRINCES by Bertram Fields (New York: Harper Collins - Regan Books/Perennial, c1998, 2000). Again pro-Richard, and does a good job up to a point. When analyzing anti-Richard writers like Alison Weir he does tear into problems in her interpretation. But his reconstruction of what would have happened to Richard, the Yorkists, and England if the boys and their supporters had held onto power goes to far. The last chapter basically says that the entire history of the world (most of which did not depend on the dynasty ruling England) would have been so different that we would not have had the World Wars. At that point the book becomes junky.
It is a never ending debate on these possible murders, which reminds me of a similar never ending debate we all are engaged in. I feel that Richard probably did have a hand in it. Unfortunately for Edward V and his brother the Duke of York their father died too early. Had Edward IV lived to, say, 1492 Edward V would have ascended the throne a young man with the nation knowing he was capable of governing on his own. Of course, if he had become a wastrel or a weakling it might have made it still possible to overthrow him. By the way, one of the keys to Henry Tudor's success was the support of the French. But had Edward IV lived longer the French might have slowly lost interest, especially after the death of their spider king Louis XI. His son was more interested in French expansion into Italy.
I thought Edward II was given a terminal case of
burnt hemorrhoids in 1227 at the order of his unfaithful Queen and her lover Mortimer. What is the evidence regarding his living out his life in Italy?
By the way, before we leave the Princes, there was a biography about last year or the year before that came out about Perkin Warbeck, the pretender who threatened Henry VII's throne. I don't remember who wrote it, however.
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 447
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 2:00 am: |
|
Paul Doherty's book (published last year) which is now in paperback summarises the evidence well.
I'll check on the Warbeck author tonight - the book is downstairs and I don't have time to fetch it. I found it heavy going, to be frank. But Warbeck is interesting.
I think one clue to the mystery of the Princes may lie in why prominent Yorkists, including their aunt, supported pretenders such as Simnel and warbeck. And why the pretender was in both cases assuming the role of the younger son, the Duke of York, NOT Edward V.
Did Edward die of natural causes in custody? or was it known that he had somehow not survived? If that was the case, I find it strange that Richard III did not expose the body as was done with Henry VI, who probably died violently, but natural causes were claimed.
it also seems to assume that Richard of York survived and was widely accepted to have done so.
Interesting discussion forming up here. Thanks to all.
Phil |
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 508
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 5:48 am: |
|
Hi Jeff.
Edward II underwent his unusual colonic irrigation in 1327. In 1227 he was not eligable to be King on account of the fact he wasn't going to be born for about another 70 years.
Blimey - I do know something after all!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1433
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 9:49 am: |
|
Hi all
To give Richard III the benefit of the doubt, there was a major practical detail for shunting the young princes to the side if not actually killing them. That is, that England had just undergone a devastating and bloody civil war, so the last thing that was needed was a weak ruler and an uncertain situation. So for the country's benefit, it probably was best that Richard grasped the reins of power. Unfortunately, Henry Tudor's plotting led to Richard's downfall within a couple of years of his accession.
I certainly do agree that the blackening of Richard's reputation came about through Shakespeare's efforts to please Elizabeth Tudor in painting a flattering picture of her grandfather in relation to the "Monster" Richard.
The real Richard, as has been stated, was a prince of the times, Machiavellian to some extent. But he was hardly the markedly bloody murderer that his Tudor successors turned out to be in sending their rivals, difficult retainers, or wives (in the case of Henry VIII) to the block and other deaths, which they turned into high art.
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 459
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
It has been argued that Thomas More's "Richard III" - on which Shakespeare's play was partly based - was actually a humanist critique of Henry VII. It was not safe to criticise the first Tudor directly, so More used as a surrogate the disgraced "usurper", including obvious factual errors and knowing that his audience would know that what he said was not true of Richard.
I am not sure that I fully endorse the theory, but it is an interesting slant.
Minority governments had proved disastrous twice in 100 years. Both child-kings, Richard II and Henry VI ended up as deposed and murdered adults. The sermon written by Richard's Chancellor, Bishop Russell of Lincoln (my home town, incidentally) for the opening of Parliament was on the text, "Woe to the realm who's ruler is a child" (or something close). they knew what potentially lay ahead.
My own view is that when the Bishop of Bath and Wells revealed that he had officiated at the betrothal of Edward IV to someone other than Elizabeth Wydeville (something that Clarence probably knew and died for in 1479), Richard had no option but to take the throne.
I think all the context and circumstantial evidence points to such a last minute revelation.
Dr Argentine, Edward V's physician, is said by Mancini to have indicated that the lad was in ill-health. I think that he may have died of natural causes and that this was known to the Court at least (no pretenders took his name later). Richard of York may have been spirited away, or been murdered.
But I certainly think that Richard was capable of having ordered their murder. He acted decisively in executing hastings, Rivers et al during the "coup".
On the other hand, Buckingham's actions and even more his motives are highly enigmatic. It is possible that if he was scheming for the throne after Richard's coup de main, then he could have killed the children, then used their deaths to blame Richard and cause dissent to aid his rebellion in 1483.
Richard refused to see his old ally before the latter's execution, which may indicate some deep loathing - possibly knowing that the Duke had killed his nephews. There is also an old story that a skeleton, assumed to be Buckingham's was found with the right hand severed as well as the head - was this the hand that killed two young brothers?
This might explain why neither Richard nor later Henry VII could expose the bodies or say precisely what had happened. Again perhaps Buckingham killed edward, but young Richard was saved, but no one knew where he was.
All fascinating stuff.
The bodies in the urn at Westminster? I'd say 60:40 for, on the grounds that not too many bodies of children that age could be secreted in the heart of the Tower. But it is not impossible and Tanner et als investigation I find inconclusive.
Enough for now,
Phil
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 857
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Wasn't it More who wrote that Richard III was born with teeth?
Anyway, I agree that Richard III really had no option than to kill the princes. It's pretty evident the impact even a pretender to the throne would have. However, I think he was motivated by his own survival rather than an interest in the kingdom; the Queen's faction would have stripped him of everything, wouldn't they? Richard's mistake was not anticipating the eventuality of his brother's demise. He should have made friendly with his sister-in-law or just gone into exile in the first place. Once Edward died, Richard was on a mad scramble to maintain his position and property. One step leads to another, and so on. Eventually you have to seize the throne to survive; eventually you wind up dead on Bosworth Field.
At least that's what I took away from Weir's book, which I haven't read in a long while. I can't remember if she was one the one who compared him to Richard Nixon (the eventual paranoia) or if I made that up. I agree with the likeness though.
Dave |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 461
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 3:28 pm: |
|
David, Richard's demise was not inevitable. By all accounts (I mean that literally) he came within a hair's breadth of killing the Tudor. Bosworth was winnable and almost was!!
Nor am I certain that Richard was as niave as you suggest. He may have been planning the coup from the start - though I think to ensure he emerged as Protector, not King. He countered the Wydeville seizure of power with tremendous energy and elan, and a good deal of cunning.
Edward IV's sudden death may or may not have been a surprise - I remain uncertain. I see him, by the 1480s as similar to Henry VIII in height, girth and looks (though perhaps Edward was more strikingly handsome than his grandson. I feel it is a shame that out "Sun King" lacked a Holbein to capture his majesty and charisma.
Edward might well have lived another five years or so or longer, even two and his son would have been of age to rule - though undoubtedly under Wydeville tutelage. Rivers and the Queen had seen to that. For Richard of Gloucester, that would have been an even worse scenario as he would have had no official locus (ie as Protector) to over-rule his in-laws.
This I think why he had so carefully built up his "palatinate" in the North - somewhere the Wydevilles had no authority and where their writ would not run. Had things been different, I could almost see the North (England from Humber to Mersey, less the Duchy to the Scottish border) as becoming a separate country by the 1600s. Think how different the outcome of the Pilgrimage of Grace or the Rising of the Northern Earls, even the Reformation might have been in a different context and with a unified and well administered and conservative North!! |
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 192
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
The War of the Roses is a fascinating subject and it caused me to spend a couple of days at St Albans and Barnet last year to at least get the feeling of where some of the battles took place.
On the subject of Richard III, one point that could be important that I'm not sure has been raised yet, is the fact that Richard had a son Edward (1473-1484) born to Anne Neville. I think it must be likely that Richard was prepared to dispose of his nephews to first put himself and then his own son on the throne of England.
It was all to do with self preservation. Richard of Gloucester was very likely to have been executed if the Woodvilles gained power over the mind of the young King Edward V. Richard had to act. To paint him as the chief villain of the times would be wrong, I hope Phil would agree that most of the main players at that time were villains. I just believe that Richard had to gamble by having his nephews killed and seize the crown.
Neal
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 465
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Neal - I think I understand where you are coming from. But I think order of events is important.
I think if edward V had been:
a) legitimate;
b) managable;
Richard would have kept him as King. But it turned out (in all probability) that he was neither. Richard then had to decide what to do...
As for all the major players being "villains", is I think to impose modern morality on a different age with differing values. Politics had a fatal aspect then - leaders could be killed in battle (for instance) as were Richard Duke of York, The Earl of Salisbury and his sons Warwick and Montague, Richard III himself, Edward of Lancaster, and numerous other peers and knights, not to mention common folk.
The rules were not the ones we know today, but that does not IMHO make C15th politicians and noblemen " villains", not do I think it helpful to understanding the period to apply such labels.
Phil |
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 193
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 7:18 am: |
|
Phil,
I should point out that I don't consider the men above to be anymore villains than politicians of today or of any other era, and I'm certainly not prone to falling for the modern spin of modern day history writers.
On the contrary, I look back at the medieval times as a part of history that is undervalued in modern times. Other people would strongly disagree, but I consider Henry II, Edward I, Edward III, Henry V, and Edward IV, as five of England's greatest ever Kings. If only England was as great now...
On the subject of Richard III, I strongly believe there was an injustice that denied his family the crown. His father Richard of York was the rightful King of England above Henry VI. Therefore, I believe the Yorkist cause was a legitimate one, and it's difficult to understand why Edward IV allowed Henry to survive so long after seizing the crown for himself.
I just feel that it was difficult to find a true ally back then. After all, Warwick turned against Edward because of his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, as did Edward's brother George Duke of Clarence. And that's why I believe that it was probable that Richard Duke of Gloucester got rid of his nephews whether they were legitimate or otherwise.
Neal
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 467
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 9:31 am: |
|
I was SO angry over "Braveheart" because of the way the film traduced Edward I (whom, like you, I regard as one of our greatest kings) that i have not watched a Mel Gibson film since.
If you like Edward, Neal, do you know the medieval murder mysteries wriiten by Paul Doherty, which have the king as a character?
In studying the whole period from the 1440s through to the 1490s, I have found that many of the problems and much of the loyalty you mention are linked.
A Wydeville theme runs through from the 1460s to 1483, partly because they were such a grasping bunch of parvenues that they alienated much of the "old" nobility. Hence, in part, Warwick's and Clarence's defections.
The linked theme of the illegitimacy of Edward IV's marriage may also link Clarence's unhappiness, plotting c 1477-79 and death; the bastardy of the boys and thus Richard's taking the crown.
I agree wholly too that Richard was quite capable of having given the order for the boys to be killed if that had been necessary. Something tells me, however, that his tactics would have been different afterwards had he done so. Thus I hold Richard responsible, even culpable (unless/until any proof emerges of their surival) but my suspicions of actually ordering the deed, is focused on Buckingham these days.
Sorry if I misunderstood your previous post, Neal.
Phil
Phil
|
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 194
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
By coincidence, there is a programme on (British) Channel 4 next Thursday, about the "Princes of the Tower". I think it may go on to relate to Perkin Warbeck?
I totally agree about Braveheart, and most of the films about British history that come from Hollywood seem to be lies, lies, lies. Although, I think Russell Crowe might like us?
I'm not sure whether I'm right about this Phil? But wasn't it the same Lord Stanley that was supposed to come to the aid of Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth, who was at the same time married to Margaret Beaufort mother of Henry Tudor? It would certainly question Richard's judgement to rely on the step-father of your enemy.
If I am right on this point, then I do accept that Richard might have relied too much on supposed trusted associates to carry out acts on his behalf? In which case, maybe Buckingham did order the boys to be killed?
It's very interesting as to why Richard remained loyal to Edward when Warwick and George turned against him. Could Richard have had ambitions for himself that early, to show loyalty for a possible illegitimate brother whose offspring he thought might never become King, rather than George. Or was it just that he hated Margaret of Anjou and Henry VI more at the time than the Woodvilles/Wydevilles?
Neal
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 629
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 4:42 pm: |
|
Hi Neal,
My guess is that Richard was quite close to brother Edward, as opposed to George (who kept jumping from one group to another). George was quick at uniting with Warwick and the Margaret of Anjou in 1470, but was just as quick to distance himself from them as their jerry-built government under Henry VI began to fall apart. By the way, I find it curious that while so much is written about the fates of Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York, nothing is written or speculated about the fate of George, Duke of Clarence. How did he die in 1478? Did he really die, drowned in a cask of Malmsey wine?
How? If the story is true I have frequently wondered if he was trying to flee the prison he was in and got stuck in a barrel which got filled up with wine.
As for the great empire building kings of the Plantagenet period, I can understand the admiration one might feel for Henry II, Edward I,
Edward III, Henry V, and Edward IV, but oddly I have mixed feelings about one of them (as the French might have about three of them. Edward I
was the monarch who (in 1290) kicked the Jews out of England. Whatever his reason (tied with anti-Semitism of course, but also dealing with financial and bankings matters), Edward set an
example for intolerance that the French copied in 1300, and the Spanish and Portuguese after 1492. He's hardly a fan of mine.
[Oddly enough, if Gibson was not the bigot he really is, BRAVEHEART might have shown a contingent of soldier supporters of Wallace and the Scotts who were Jews expelled from England. It would have been curious if it had been in his movie.]
Regarding Lord Stanley, Richard apparently did not trust his Lordship, but needed him. He thought he had Stanley under control by holding his son and heir hostage at Bosworth, but Stanley still double-crossed him.
Jeff |
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 195
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Thanks Jeffrey,
I'm a bit rusty on this subject and forgot about Richard holding his son hostage to stop Stanley switching sides. As you say, it didn't work.
Neal
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 470
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 2:08 am: |
|
I think that in 1483-85, Richard had little choice but to use those members of he nobility who were not absolutely in opposition to him (for instance Oxford). In part this recognised the crucial importance of magnates in their localities, in terms of delivering troops, loyalty, taxation, law and order etc. In part also, Richard in 1483 was essentially a NORTHERN magnate with relatively few contacts in the south - he needed help to govern.
Added to this is, I think, a different approach to families than we have today.
I have wrestled for a long time over the way in which Cecily Neville (Richard's mother) could have dealt with the viscissitudes within her own family.
Her sisters were married to men (Buckingham, Norfolk) who were at time in opposition to, or even killed in battle against, her husband. Her eldest son was responsible for the deaths of her nephews (Warwick and Montagu): and I could go on.
Lord Stanley's marriage to Margaret was an odd affair. I seem to recall that she had given up sex completely after the difficult birth of her son when she was about 13. It seems to have been a matter of the merger between two great landholdings. Richard may have had suspicions of Margaret but still have considered that, pragmatically, Lord Stanley would remain loyal.
The hostage things is late (Bosworth) and should not be taken as delineating the relationship, IMHO.
On Richard and Edward IV, I think it was her-worship, purely and simply. Edward was the sun in Richard's boyhood, a glorious, romantic figure. He didn't know him well, but idolised and idea.
Richard and George, by contrast, were raised together and knew each other well. Later, it was Richard who helped bring George back to the fold in 1471. But after Tewkesbury, they were rivals over various estate matters and I think their differing characters came out. Both were grasping, but Richards key note was loyalty (his motto was Loyalty Binds Me - Loyaulte Me Lie) and he may have been distanced by Clarence's treachery and shiftiness. George essentially was out for himself - and if he discovered that edward was illegitimate and so were his children, then george may have brooded on the fact that he should be king.
On the butt of malmsey, there is a portrait of Clarence's daughter, Margaret Countess of Salisbury (who was horribly executed under Henry VIII) in which she wears a small model barrel on a sort of charm bracelet. This has been taken as confirmation of the legend.
I think Clarence probably simply requested and was granted the most congenial death he could imagine.
This thread just goes on getting more interesting. Thanks to all who have contributed.
Phil |
Belinda Pearce
Sergeant
Username: Belinda
Post Number: 33
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
I think horrid Henry Tudor did it.He had a far greater motive than poor maligned Richard |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2361
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 5:49 am: |
|
there is a programme on UK TV about just this subject, i think it's a dramatisation, not sure, saw an advert and thought of this thread. anyway, thursday 9pm Channel Four. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 471
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 8:05 am: |
|
Belinda - a late C19th early C20th writer called Sir Clements Markham wrote a book to prove Henry VII did it. In doing so, alas, he simply transferred to Henry VII all the sort of "black propaganda" that has traditionally been associated with Richard. (As pointed out above, I think, Josephine Tey based her novel "Daughter of Time" on Markham's book. Incidentally, under the name Gordon Daviot, she also wrote a play about Richard: "Dickon".)
For myself, I think both Richard AND Henry were capable of having done the deed. But there is, if anything, less evidence of the children being killed after 1483 than there is for before Bosworth. There can be no doubt, from Mancini, from the chronicles and from the subtext of the Buckingham rebellion, that the rumours of the Princes deaths were widespread in 1483 and believed. That is unpalatable to those who believe that Richard was a saintly, romantic character, but seems to be the plain fact.
The Mail of Sunday TV pull-out recommends the C4 programme, which appears to be a dramatisation of how Richard of York might have survived to become Perkin Warbeck. I can't wait to see it.
Phil |
Belinda Pearce
Sergeant
Username: Belinda
Post Number: 34
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
I don't know what Richard was really like but Tudor has more motive, his claim to the throne was very tenuos indeed.I'd love to see that programme about Perkin Warbeck but I doubt if it will screen here in a hurry.I hope it comes out on DVD |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 472
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
Had Tudor more motive? I wonder?
He made himself king by right of conquest. he carefully avoided owing his crown to his marriage to the sister of the Princes. OK if she was legitimate, so were the boys - but her legitimacy was not that important.
Interestingly, he dealt with pretenders quite leniently. Simnel ended up in the kitchens and as a royal falconer, IIRC. Warbeck was not executed until his existence was a threat to the Spanish marriage.
I'm not trying to say I'm right and you are wrong here - just testing the water, as it were.
Phil |
Belinda Pearce
Sergeant
Username: Belinda
Post Number: 35
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 11:54 am: |
|
The way I see it as Tudor's only claim came through a female ancestor, Richard was the kings son and no one really wanted a regency with a boy king so Richard would have had support that Tudor would never have gotten therefore he had every reason to get those boys out of his way |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 473
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
But surely, Belinda, Richard doesn't seem to have had the support.
Hastings and others with cause to dislike or fear the Wydevilles gave him backing against them as Protector.
But the moment the possibility arose that he might take the throne, Hastings and others opposed him and actually appear to have joined WITH the Wydevilles in a conspiracy of some sort. hastings paid the ultimate penalty.
Richard clearly could be ruthless and quick when required.
It is also clear that Richard never gained support from magnates and landowners in the south, who quickly rose against what they saw as a "northern" government.
All this has been characterised as an argument or split within the Yorkist faction. the tudor government was actually, in terms of continuity of policy and many personnel, a Yorkist one. We trace the beginning of modern Government in England to Edward IV's second reign as much as Henry VII.
So I am not sure that Richard did have the support you suggest. In some ways his throne was more precarious and less stable than that of Henry.
The rising (broadly named as Buckingham's) in 1483 was the moment where the boys might have been used as a focus of popular dissent. it was then, according to the records of the time, that they "disappeared". I don't know whether Richard had them killed or not, but for the ruthless man he had shown himself, it would have been the opportune time to remove them from the political board.
Note that Henry kept another heir senior to him, Clarence's son the Earl of Warwick, alive for many years.
Just my ideas - interested to hear your response,
Phil |
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 196
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
Phil,
I was just wondering if there is any record of Elizabeth of York's opinions about the fate of her brothers after she was safe as the wife of Henry Tudor?
I was thinking that maybe it was possible that the Princes died of natural causes such as cholera or another such illness common to the times?
Opposition to this theory would suggest that Richard would have then had no reason to conceal their deaths? But I would suggest that even if they did die of a disease, no one would have believed that Richard hadn't murdered them anyway, so their deaths were kept quiet?
In fact, could the Tudor propaganda machine have removed all record of the Princes deaths by natural causes, once Henry Tudor became King?
Just a theory.
Neal
(Message edited by neal on May 08, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 474
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 1:57 am: |
|
I don't believe that there is any record of Elizabeth's views on the subject. Her mother, however, was reconciled to Richard but fell out of favour with Henry - make of that what you will.
The logic of what happened, as I see it, can be summarised this way:
Did they die?
No but were secretly taken to some stronghold such as Sheriff Hutton, for safety (ie they left the Tower but did not die). Richard kept their whereabouts secret to avoid them being used politically. So no deaths but no need for publicity.
On the same scenario, after Richard's death at Bosworth one or both (Edward might have died of natural causes) were either spirited away - explaining why pretenders were always Richard of York - or killed.
Again, if they were alive in Richard III's lifetime there was no need to make any announcement, Henry VII may not have known what happened.
The scenario with which Belinda will be pleased, is that I cannot see Henry VII finding the boys alive and protecting them!!
If they died - of natural causes:
Richard may have feared to say anything because he would have been thought to have killed them. But it was given out that Henry VI died of essentially "unhappiness" and yet most people assumed he had been murdered - no one seemed bothered.
He killed them, but kept things quiet so he did not get the blame. We have been over this one.
Someone else killed them and disposed of the bodies and neither Richard nor Henry was certain of their fate. This would certainly explain why neither said anything - they didn't know.
The puzzle to me is that C15th precedent suggests that either King could have been quite flagrant about ruthless action and not needed to have worried either way - kill them, expose the bodies publicly so everyone knows they are dead (but you say they did of say the plague) and no one can impersonate them or argue they are still alive.
What might militate against this is that following his taking the throne, Richard was so unpopular (and knew it) that he dared not exhibit the dead bodies of children because it would really turn London and the south against him.
Something not mentioned on this thread before, is the possibility that Richard killed them, and his hitherto ally, Buckingham was so appalled and incensed that he turned against Richard and rose in rebellion. This would explain his motives better than anything else. But this scenario suggests a much less sympathetic Richard.
Anyway, some ideas to think about.
Cheers,
Phil
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 483
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
One suspect that hasn't been mentioned so far is Henry Tudor's mother, the Lady Margaret Beaufort. It's not suggested that she did the deed herself, but the reasoning is, her son had no chance while the Princes lived. Dead, they might also be used to blacken Richard's name. However, her attainder for treason after Buckingham's rebellion covers much but there is no mention of murder.
Make of her what you will - I think of her as a poisonous, over-pious dwarf - I don't see her as a realistic suspect.
Phil |
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 198
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 2:52 pm: |
|
What was the truth of the alleged "Tyrrell" in all this, as I remember I read somewhere once that it seemed beyond coincidence that the name of Tyrrell had come up again to do with the murder of a King. Tyrrell having been the name of the killer of William II over 300 years before.
The suggestion being that "Tyrrell" was a convenient name put forward for the assassin of Edward and Richard, due to it's previous association with regicide. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 490
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Coincidence, I think nothing more. Though an interesting one.
Other than legend, there appears to be nothing to connect James Tyrell to the death of the Princes, except his confession which was strangely convenient in its timing.
Two pardons appear to be general ones and IMHO probably have no connection to the murders. Tyrell was probably a jack-of-all-trades around the court.
But who knows, maybe he escorted the boys out of the country? There is one legend that the boys and their mother stayed at Tyrell's family home in Suffolk during Richard's lifetime and were then spirited abroad, maybe by Tyrell. But I know of no confirmation of that story.
Phil |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 633
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 10:16 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Phil - just a minor point of clarification. Sir Clements Markham was more than just a writer at the tail end of the 19th Century who decided to champion Richard III. He was a leading figure in the Royal Society pushing exploring polar exploration. He was one of the big boosters of Robert Falcon Scott's two polar journeys, the second of which (in 1911-1912) led to the death of Scott and his four companions returning from the Pole after Amundsen beat them. If you read SCOTT AND AMUNDSEN by Roland Huntford, Markham was one of the men who reedited Scott's papers and journals to make him the tragic hero of British tradition rather than the bungler he may have actually been. I only bring this out because it does show that Markham could be...shall we say selective, regarding written evidence. Another reason to use his biography of Richard with some caution.
[Markham's family had distinction of a kind - his cousin Albert Hastings Markham was on a polar expedition in 1878 (I think the Nares Expedition) which made the highest North up to that time. However, Albert Markham's career was marred by one tragedy - he was second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet in 1893 on board H.M.S. Camperdown, when it rammed and sank H.M.S.Victoria (flagship of that fleet). Some 322 seamen were lost, including Vice Admiral Sir George Tryon. Tryon was responsible for the disaster during manouvers, when he ordered the two lines of ships to turn in towards each other at too close a distance. Markham was officially cleared, but many felt he showed a timidity in the incident and his career never really recovered.]
I have heard that James Tyrrell was the descendant of Walter Tyrel, who "mistook William Rufus for a deer" in 1100. James, later Sir James, was to fall from Henry VII's favor after the last Perkins Warbeck revolt. Then he was arrested and tortured, and supposedly made his confession of killing Edward V and his brother. Whether Tyrell had actually supported Warbeck's revolt or Henry decided to use the opportunity to kill off any further adventurers from making claims to his throne with a "confession" is a point I can't answer.
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 494
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 4:49 am: |
|
Jeff - as an indication of Markham's importance, his bronze bust still stands (as far as I know) outside the HQ of the Royal Geographical Society in Kensington. I used to pass it often.
He lived, of course, in an age when heroes were in fashion, and men (who now would be regarded as distinctly "odd) such as Gordon became popular figures. I was brought up on lives of "Great Britons" which were air-brushed to remove any scandal or possible stigma. Markham was thus a man of his time, and probably saw things in black and white. Certainly his biography of Richard is not a subtle or sophisticated work.
It must also be seen though in the context of a great debate with Professor (R?) Gairdner, a professional historian, who also wrote a major biography of Richard III. Markham's book is something of an over-fervent response to Gairdner's book, which while revisionist in its way, still left Richard with heavy stains on his escutcheon.
On the Tryon (1893) naval disaster, the book "The Rules of the Game" (actually about the deep background to Jutland) has a good chapter on this. It was also guyed in the classic British film, "Kind Hearts and Coronets" with Alec Guinness.
Phil |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 635
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 8:14 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
A yes, the end of Admiral, Lord Horatio D'Ascoygne (if that is how that name is spelled). But only the Victoria sank in the reality - not both ships. (The wreck has been located in the last six or seven months, if you use Google to look up "H.M.S. Victoria". Divers found it sank straight down - that is the stern is buried in the sandy bottom so it looks like it still is sinking underwater). The best account of the sinking is in Richard Hough's ADMIRALS IN COLLISION. A nice essay on it is in Commander Rupert Gould's ENIGMAS. The connection with Jutland is that Jellicoe was a survivor of the "Victoria".
Gairdner was the leading scholarly historian of the English Late Middle Ages into the Tudor and Stuart periods. He also was involved in a long controversy about the Gunpowder Plot (he insisted on the Catholic Conspiracy theory led by the Jesuits, leading at least one Jesuit to insist it was a scheme of King James I and Robert Cecil to entrap the Catholic leadership).
I think Gairdner's first name is Samuel.
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 512
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
You might be right about Gairdner's first name - I was without my books when I wrote the post. I feel he is a good example of someone considered a fine scholar in his own day, but now overtaken, and rather discredited because of his clear prejudices (as with Guy Fawkes). That apart, his research was of a high standard.
Interesting stuff about the Victoria. I was aware of Hough's book (though I have not read it - I must) from others.
Thanks,
Phil |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 640
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 9:05 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
I have been looking into the Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th edition) that I own, into the article on "Gunpowder Plot" in Volume 12. The article is by one Philip Chesney Yorke, M.A., and it's bibliography (p. 729) mentions the Gardiner - Gerald Controversy of 1897:
"The most recent controversy concerning the nature and origin of the plot can be followed in WHAT WAS THE GUNPOWDER PLOT? by John Gerald, S.J. (1897); WHAT GUNPOWDER PLOT WAS by S.R.GARDINER (a rejoinder) (1897); THE GUNPOWDER PLOT...IN REPLY TO PROFESSOR GARDINER, by John Gerald, S.J.; THOMAS WINTER'S CONFESSION AND THE GUNPOWDER PLOT by John Gerald, S.J. (with facsimiles of his writiing) (1898); Eng. His. Rev. iii, 510 and xii, 791; Edinburgh Review, clxxxv, 183; Athenaeum 1897, ii.149,785,855,; 1898, 1, 23; ii, 352, 420; Academy, vol. 52, p. 84; The Nation, vol. 65, p. 400. A considerable portion of the controversy centres round the question of the authenticity of Thomas Winter's confession, the MS. of which is at Hatfield [the home estate of the Cecil family], supported by Professor Gardiner, but denied by Father Gerard principally on account of the document having been signed "Winter" instead of "Wintour," the latter apparently being the conspirator's usual style of signature. The document was deposited by the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury for inspection at the Record Office, and was pronounced by two experts, one from the British Museum and another from the Record Office to be undoubtedly genuine. The cause of the variation in the signature still remains unexplained, but ceases to have therefore any great historical importance."
Actually the nature of the Gunpowder Plot as genuine conspiracy of English Catholics v. entrapment scheme is still being debated.
Gardiner (correct spelling) is like another historian I mentioned on a thread concerning Druitt recently (the one about the 1871 census). One of the fellow schoolboys of Monty was last named Trevelyan, and I wondered if he was related to the historians of that name. I had to explain George Otto Trevelyan and his son George Macauley Trevelyan (ironically there seems no connection that we can find between them and Monty's schoolmate). At the same time that Professor Gardiner wowed the public about Gunpowder Plot and Richard III, George Otto Trevelyan was the leading British historian on the political causes of the American Revolution's beginnings in Great Britain from 1763 to 1776. Unfortunately, although his book is still useful to modern scholars (like Gardiner's books), his thesis was that the root cause was the evil Tory politicians who were reactionary, power-hungry, corrupt, and stupid. While stupid is still a possibility, most modern scholars wonder why Trevelyan thought the Whigs (he was from a Whig family) were all saints and no sinners. We still have some lasting effects from Trevelyan's history. G.B. Shaw read it and it was used in his planning the treatment of General Burgoyne's campaign and defeat in 1777 in the play THE DEVIL'S DISCIPLE. Unfortunately, despite the entertainment value of that play, the story of Burgoyne's campaign being sabotaged because Lord George Germain did not mail out important orders to General Sir William Howe to support Burgoyne (supposedly because Germain was impatient to begin a brief vacation he had been planning) is now known to be totally false. Trevelyan popularized that story.
His son George Macauley Trevelyan wrote about the Stuart period, and is a better historian.
Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 9:37 am: |
|
Sorry if its already been mentioned but you may be interested in Channel 4 tonight Thurs at 9.00pm.
Historical drama based on the Two Princes. Apparently someone landed with 8,000 men claiming to be the Duke of York to fight Henry seventh.
Has good reveiws. Enjoy. Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 532
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
The programme seeks to link Richard Duke of York (usually assumed dead in the Tower) and the (Flemish) pretender Perkin Warbeck who claimed to be him.
Warbeck is often assumed to be an illegitimate son of Edward IV - the facial resemblance and colouring are striking. Was he actually a son by the Wydeville woman? Who knows? He married the daughter of the King of Scots and had great manners... but what does that tell us?
Phil |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 535
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 2:00 am: |
|
I'm afraid I rather quickly lost interest in the documentary last night. Well researched, and the actor playing Warbeck had the most stunning resemblance to how I feel the young Edward IV might have looked. But it was a flight of fancy.
Got Margaret Beaufort (the poison dwarf) right though!!
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 981
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 4:08 am: |
|
Phil
I thought it got increasingly "fantastic" as it went on.
For example, the scene in which Henry VII interrogated Warbeck, with his wife, mother and two ambassadors looking on, and ended by wrestling him to the ground, was unbelievable. I really don't think that's how Henry did things.
And the scene in which Lady Margaret revealed the real princes chained up in a dungeon was straight out of a Hammer film (in fact, I think it's straight out of a particular Hammer film starring Beryl Reid, in which someone's kept chained up in the cellar, isn't it?).
Chris Phillips
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 138
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 6:57 am: |
|
Chris I cant agree more..
I was enjoying it very much, stretch of the imaginations though it might be, up until they reveal the real princes still in a dungeon with there tongues cut out! what the hell was that all about...
They should line up the script writers and shoot them...sorry to get touchy but I cant stand obvious holes in the story line. All they needed to reveal was she new Warbeck wasnt the Prince of York because she new where both boys were berried and the same would happen to his son unless he confessed.
Gave up and went to bed after that...it was all going so well up until then..
Oh well, guess I'd now like to find out more about the real Warbeck.
Will those TV chaps ever get it right? You've got Shane Ritchie playing Abberline next. Oh Joy.
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 538
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
I saw the latter scene and that was the point I turned it off!! I agree.
I grow increasingly tired too of this modern style of shooting scenes in a real place, but with crumbling walls and flaking plaster.
These interrogations would have taken place in civilised surroundings - with panelled walls, tapestries etc. It is often misunderstood (and was in this piece) that the Princes were NOT "imprisoned in the Tower. It was then a royal residence with a palace (now destroyed) within the walls and it was the traditional place for kings to spend a few nights before their coronation. Elizabeth I did so. This was largely because they then rode through the streets of London to Westminster.
The use of seemingly period locations gives an impression of the C15th as uncivilised, uncultured, uncomfortable and unseemly. It was anything but for the nobles and gentry. No one wonder kids have a cockeyed view of history!!
It's good to know that it is not only JtR who gets short-changed where TV is concerned.
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 985
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 8:12 am: |
|
Phil and Jeff
I was interested enough to get Ann Wroe's huge book on Warbeck out of the library this morning.
A quick check through the index confirmed that the leading part in the interrogation attributed to John Argentine was sheer invention. His only connection with the case is a brief reference to his having attended the princes in the Tower in 1483.
Chris Phillips
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 142
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Very true phil.
Its difficult because reconstruction filming is very expensive but your write about the distorted veiw of history.
Its not just TV people who get this wrong the Elgin Marbles were bleached because they thought they were meant to be white.
my veiw is that its best to keep recon as abstract as possible and leave what we dont know (or what we cant afford) to the imagination.
Thanks for the tip on Ann Wroe's book. I will keep my eyes peeled. I had an incling that he facts had been stretched rather. I'm afraid I'm on the trail of Robinhood this weekend, so chasing Warbeck is probably being a bit hopefull.
Still channel 4 did do a good job on henry the eigth and I'd rather they were making this sort of thing than not at all.
Have good weekend.
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 542
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 3:03 am: |
|
jeff, you surely cannot be serious about liking that ghastly farce on Henry VIII?
It reduced one of the most cultured men of his day to a barbarian; it had no sympathy for the period and seriously distorted history. Have you ever seen the Keith Michell (BBC) series from the 70s or the later film in which he starred? Much better.
Phil |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 645
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Hi all,
In today's New York Times, Section 9 "Styles", p. 1 and p.7 there is an article about Mr. Bert Fields, the prominent attorney turned writer who wrote ROYAL BLOOD, about Richard III and the two Princes. Now he has finished a second book on Shakespeare, in which he claims that the plays were not written by Shakespeare. He has worked seven years on it.
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 552
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Wonder who he thinks wrote them, then?
I have "Blood Royal" on my shelves, but it isn't a book I ever refer to.
Phil |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 648
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 7:25 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
I find BLOOD ROYAL has it's uses (most books do) but that concluding chapter is so stupid it hurts the book. Literally, Fields ends by saying that the world missed it's golden age when Richard decided not to let his nephews alone.
The article did not say whom Fields felt wrote Shakespeare (Bacon, Marlowe, the Earl of Oxford). Probably you have to buy the book (of course!) to find out.
Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 149
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Phil
Have just noticed I said channel 4 and beleive I ment ITV. I was of corse refering to RAy Winstons interpretation. And I may of course have been suduced by the cinama photography, fab.
I'm not a great fan of David Starsky's channel 4 stuff but didnt see his Henry eighth.
I'm afaid I'm not an expert on this particular period..Civil War and Prince Rupert is my area.
But I thought at least Winston got away from the cuddly fat old boy image and tackled some interesting points, far better than BBC's Restoration Charles 11...utter farce.
Thought Ray Winstone played it well, the Tudors always struck me as Gangsters and chav's, look at poor old Elizebeth always trying to be as posh as Mary Queen of Scots.
Jeff
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 554
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
I'm afraid my sympathy is all with Elizabeth!!
Mary was a silly tart, whereas Elizabeth was my sort of girl, pragmatic, ruthless, intelligent and sensible. Mary deserved what she got.
I think there was much more to the Tudors than being "gangsters and chavs". Henry was charismatic, fairly intelligent, and certainly cultured. He was a Renaissance monarch trying to hold together a realm that had been riven with civil strife for 50 years (and was still on the verge of it); while at the same time trying to find a national identity as the first nation states emerged.
It was the Winston version I was thinking of, not the Starkey. I am not that keen on the style of David Starkey's TV shows, but he is a SUPERB writer. His Henry VIII and his Elizabeth, are two of the best SHORT history books I know.
Cheers,
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1006
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Jeff
I'm not a great fan of David Starsky's channel 4 stuff but didnt see his Henry eighth.
Now David Starsky as Henry VIII I should like to see!
Chris Phillips
|
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 200
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
I just wanted to correct my previous post that William Stanley was the man who changed sides at Bosworth and not his brother Thomas Stanley who was married to Margaret Beaufort. William was also late for Henry in 1487 for the battle against the Earl of Lincoln and Lambert Simnel. He was executed by Henry in 1495.
Having read the book "Perkin" by Ann Wroe made me realise that the Channel 4 programme about Warbeck was rubbish. Although, Ann Wroe does seem to believe that Perkin was the Duke of York (I don't), I found her book was a very good read. In many ways it reinforced my belief that Richard III and his associates had the princes killed, or that somesort of natural death happened to them.
No matter how much Henry VII comes across as someone difficult to like, nothing that I have read to date about the subject of the princes deaths makes me think he had anything to do with it. In fact, by allowing Edward the Earl of Warwick and Warbeck to live until 1499, convinces me otherwise.
Even Elizabeth Wydeville coming to terms with Richard in 1484, was I think, more to do with Elizabeth protecting her remaining family of which her daughter Elizabeth would benefit.
It would be good if in future books written about the War of the Roses didn't side with either the white or the red rose, for a more accurate account of events.
Neal
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 590
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Neal, excellent post. I agree whole-heartedly.
I think where future books about the Wars of the Roses are concerned, it would be quite a good idea if writers started to understand what they were about.
Medieval kingdoms depended upon the personality of a King for their success, viability and in large measure their prosperity. So weak or self-centred Kings like Edward II and Richard II "failed" and were removed; strong rulers and leaders like Edward I and Henry V unified their realm.
In Henry VI, the nobles found a king without charisma or a single ounce of leadership potential, decision-making ability or energy. For whatever reason congenital insanity/porphorya (from the valois strain) or the way he was brought up from the cradle, Henry of Windsor was a child in temperament and a puppet in Government. It then became a mechanical question of who governed in the king's name - Gloucester/Beaufort; Suffolk; York; Somerset; York; Margaret of Anjou all tried. But none could ever gain concensus. Edward IV almost did, but the habit of a noble having the power had set in and warwicj challenged him. Then in 1483, the whole thing starts again - a child monarch under the thumb of a venal faction...
It's all about pragmatism and that sums up Henry VII as much as Richard III. Morality and murder are nowhere.
Glad you enjoyed wroe, I found her heavy going. I'll try again.
Regards,
Phil |
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 201
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Thanks Phil,
Would you be one of the guys of the Medieval Siege Society? I went to one of their events in Sussex two years ago, and last year at Essex. They do a lot great work in bringing the War of the roses period alive with their reenactments. I thought that with your excellent knowledge on the subject you might be one of the reenactors that I've seen?
Today, I went down to Eltham Palace, it was great to think that Edward IV built the great hall there and and it's been renovated in such a brilliant way.
One point that I believe I read in Wroe's book was the way in which Henry VII prevented his wife Elizabeth of York to become Queen as an equall to him. She would have become Elizabeth I, her granddaughter Elizabeth II, and our current one Elizabeth III. I think she should have been Queen in her own right, but I think the suggestion is that Margaret Beaufort probably influenced Henry's decision to deny her that right. According to Wroe, Elizabeth was kept by Henry and Margaret in very poor circumstances for a queen.
On the subject of Edward IV illegitimacy that might have been the cause of Richard claiming the crown and disposing of his nephews. I have read somewhere that the law of land at that time would only decide that Edward was illegitimate if Richard of York had declared him to be so. But, if as it seems, Richard accepted him as his son whether legitimate or otherwise, he was therefore the rightful heir. Is that right?
I've often wondered as to why people draw the conclusion that one of the reasons for why Edward was not Richard's son was because they were a different look and height to one another. I've often seen sons that look different from their fathers by having the look of their mother or one of their grandfathers. And height again could be taken from a grandfather in the same way that my cousin who like Edward IV is 6ft 3ins, whereas his father probably like Richard of York was only about 5ft 8-10ins. Therefore, I would suggest that Edward IV could have looked like his mother Cecily, or grandfather the Earl of Cambridge, or the other grandfather the Earl of Westmoreland. His height could have been inherited from a grandfather too? It's just a theory of course.
I read in the front of a book about Elizabeth Wydeville on the shelves at present, that there is a book currently being written about Anne Neville, Richard III queen. I would imagine the author will touch on the subject of the princes again.
All the best
Neal
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 598
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 2:24 am: |
|
Neal, interesting post.
I have done no "living history" stuff, though I was once involved in some acting that had assistance from the English Civil War Society. I think if I ever got involved it would become an obsession and one I cannot afford.
I have always assumed that Edward IV took after his Beaufort and Plantagenent forebears. Edward I and III were both tall, as i believe was John of Gaunt. Edward II was strongly built. The Plantagenets were blond/coppery fair in hair colouring - something which was passed down to Henry VIII and Elizabeth.
The illegitimacy of Edward seems to be based on Duke Richard's treatment of his heir. I don't know the medieval legal position. Legitimacy was important though, and even if there was no legal bar to inheritance, it would surely have undermined Edward.
Clarence was also tall and blond by all accounts. Inherited from Cecily with her Beaufort and Plantagenet blood, I assume.
I assume that Duke Richard's appearance as that of Richard III came from the Mortimer strain.
On Henry VII and Elizabeth of York: I think Henry was politically careful to ensure that his claim to the throne was "de facto" rather than "de jure". It was based on the fact that he was king by conquest and as male heir of Lancaster in his own right. Indeed he dated his reign from BEFORE Bosworth for just that reason. He did this rather than running the risk of basing his title on "rights" or law, i.e. marriage - he was crowned before marrying Elizabeth as I recall.
But remember, although popular history books still adhere to the Red v White sceanario, it can be strongly argued that Henry VII was a Yorkist king, operating in a Yorkist way, and put into power by a split within the Yorkist establishment which could not stomach Richard III.
Nice to hear from you,
Phil
PS - I would have thought the evidence on which to base a biography of Anne Neville very slim. More a life and times, I suspect. We know nothing of her emotionally or of her relationship to either husband.
Edited to get rid of duplicate text.
(Message edited by Phil on June 07, 2005) |
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 202
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 3:06 pm: |
|
Phil,
On the latter point, similar I think was said about a recent book on Margaret of Anjou that I believe someone commenting on Amazon said was more like a book on Queenship. It's a pity because I feel that the queens of that time were very interesting figures especially Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Wydeville. I know there have been two books published about Elizabeth Wydeville in the last year, and I may buy one of them in time.
On the subject of the blond hair, I believe Edward's children were all supposed to have had blond hair?
I know that many of the bones of the kings had been studied at one time and Edward I and III were about 6ft, whereas Henry VI had been about 5ft 9ins. I know that some of the medieval queens were supposed to have been very tall.
You're right about Edward's position regardless of whether Richard excepted him or not, and I can understand that if there was truth about the illegitimacy Clarence must have felt that he was the rightful king.
I'm thinking of buying Michael Hicks recent book on Richard III, as he claims not to favour the pro or against camps. They're the sort of books I like to read.
Enjoy reading your posts.
Neal |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 609
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
See if you can get the elizabeth Wydeville ones cheap, Neal. I have the earlier one, which frankly was disappointing. I think i could have done better!!
The Margaret of Anjou is not bad - I got a remaindered copy in London.
Henry VI seems to have taken after his Valois forebears (the delicate mind too). And perhaps there is some of his grandmother - Henry VI's first wife's ancestry in Henry V and VI.
Hick's is a VERY good historian, I recommend anything by him. You might not like his views if you are a romantic Ricardian, but he is scholarly and balanced.
Thanks Neal, I enjoy our discussions too,
Phil |
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 203
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
I've just finished Michael Hicks "Richard III" book and I thoroughly recommend it. To me, it is to Richard III history what Philip Sugden is to Jack the Ripper. He tries to provide an accurate account and expose the spin on both sides of the argument.
Despite the fact that Hicks never says that Richard was responsible for the death of the Princes in the Tower, I think Richard's actions suggest he was clearly responsible. Hicks even questions whether Richard was the great military commander that his myth makes us believe him to be.
Hicks also suggests that there probably wasn't a long term hostility between the Wydeville's and Richard, so we can presume he held a secret grudge that was obviously held more openly by others such as Hastings, because of the Wydeville influence at court?
Hicks, seems to come to favour the early belief that Richard intended to seize the throne soon after King Edward IV's death. His ultimate downfall was because he alienated other Yorkists by that act. And most people at the time believed the Princes had been killed.
Richard's ambition caused him to have a brief reign and the Ricardians, in my view, are giving false praise to a man who more than likely ordered the murder of his nephews
Neal
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 673
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
Neal - it is interesting that "academic" historians and by and large less sympathetic to Richard than are novelists!! The late Charles Ross, who wrote a major biography of Richard in the 80s took a similar line.
I think this is because the "facts" on which an academic has to base his conclusions are somewhat harsh in this case.
It is only when one begins to read between the lines that possible alternative motivations become apparent.
For myself, I have quite a hard-nosed vision of Richard - somewhat cold and detached; a supreme pragmatist, but also something of a moralist. I think the justifications for his deeds are political. had he not done certain things at certain times, he might have shared the fate of Clarence, Rivers or Hastings. Not nice but understandble, I think.
Phil
|
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 204
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Phil, I agree that Richard's deeds were mostly political and about self preservation, but I just wonder whether he over-estimated the Wydeville threat. As soon as he took control of Prince Edward at Stony Stratford, the threat seem to be almost extinguished if there was one in the first place. But it did seem as if Richard's intervention was welcomed for Edward's protection?
But what no one expected at the time was that Richard intended to usurp his nephews crown. And therefore, left himself open to obvious accusations afterwards that the princes had died at his behest, even if Buckingham, Tyrell, or others were really responsible.
On a completely different point Phil, do you know whether by the law of the day Richard of York had a rightful claim to Henry VI's throne because of his said right through a female line.
After all, it wasn't just through one female line from his mother Anne Mortimer, but goes back to her grandmother Philippa daughter of Lionel, Duke of Clarence.
I thought that in that age the female line counted for nothing, and therefore, the claim for Richard of York via his mother was invalid. Or were there other cases in medieval history before then where a female line came to the throne above a male line?
I was beginning to think by looking at the genealogy that the Lancastrians had a point, although of course the crown was seized by them from Richard II in the first place? |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 680
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 6:10 pm: |
|
To begin with the second point, it's all about heirs general and heirs male. A woman could be an heir general to property and inherit, though titles tended to go to the heir male or become extinct (I generalise - no pun intended!!). Thus Richard Neville (the "Kingmaker") was made Earl of Warwick in right of his wife, who was a sister of the late Duke Of Warwick (Henry VI's best friend).
Another question was whether the crown was property or a title.
I don't think either of these points was ever resolved in respect of the crown.
But I think one of the key questions then was whether a woman could accede to the throne. remember that up to 1553 no woman had ever been Queen in her own right (Queen Regnant as against Queen Consort).
Matilda had come nearest, but she had never been crowned. Until Mary Tudor, no woman had ever ruled - so could they pass on a title to the throne?
Richard of York was certainly heir presumptive to Henry VI after the death of Gloucester in 1447, by right through the York line. The question was, could he claim through the Clarence line (which involved descent of title through a woman) which would give him better title than Henry VI.
Henry Holland, later Duke of Exeter also had a claim of sorts, as did the Dukes of Buckingham.
It's all very complex,
Interestingly, no one (among the nobles) ever seems to have given much credence at the time to York's claim to be rightful king, though they did to his being heir to Henry VI even over Edward of Lancaster (whom some I think believed was a bastard by Somerset).
Matilda passed her claim to the throne 9as daughter of Henry I) to her son Henry of Anjou (Henry II) - who was accepted as his heir by Stephen after the death of his own son.
Henry VII's claim (leaving aside the de facto claim as victor in battle) was through his Beaufort mother.
Don't know whether any of that helps really.
On Richard and his motives, much depends on why Buckingham deserted him after the coronation; and thus why Buckingham joined Richard en route to London, and what role he had in the whole affair.
We also don't know enough about what Hastings was doing.
And if the boys were bastards - and their mother knew it - what game the Wydevilles were playing.
Personally I think there was a planned Wydeville coup which Richard forestalled and that much flowed from that.
I don't think Richard a hypocrite and thus i don't think he intended to usurp the crown when he set out from York - the swearing of allegience would have been a total fabrication if he did.
I think Buckingham may have brought warning of the size of River's entourage and the weaponry he carried, and that Richard masterfully ambushed an ambush at Stoney Stratford/
Northampton.
But that's just the way I see it.
Phil |
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 205
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Thanks for the info Phil,
It is a very complex issue, I'm just surprised that Medieval historians haven't attempted to resolve the problem from legal records of the time. If they exist of course?
It seems very important to me that if the Mortimer line was not entitled to the throne because of it's female line, then just maybe John of Gaunt's line (apart from the Beaufort ones) were entitled to the throne. Despite the fact, of course, that they usurped it from Richard II in the first place.
It's strange to think that there seemed to be such a hatred in the Yorkists for the Beaufort's and yet they were related to them via Cecily's mother Joan Beaufort.
History turned out as it did, and probably for the better of England. After all, if the White Ship hadn't sunk, Stephen and Matilda wouldn't have fought over the crown. If the Black Prince had survived he might have stayed on the throne for many years, and there might never have been a usurpation of the throne from his son? And the War of the Roses might not have happened? But if the Tudor dynasty hadn't happened, England might have become a minor country compared to France and Spain?
I've bought a very cheap 2nd hand version of Alison Weir's "Lancaster and York" book. Although, I've read that Weir might be a little one sided, but I will be interested to see what her opinion is on the events.
Thanks once again Phil
Neal |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 687
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Weir is not a bad narrative hiostorian, I personally like her Wars of the Roses book. Enjoy it.
On medieval legalities, I'm not sure the point was ever resolved. There was no Salic Law (banning women from ascending the throne) in England, so once Mary Tudor and Elizabeth had both became Queen the problem was pragmatically resolved.
I have argued on Casebook viz a viz JtR that we must not look at the past as we do the present - they had different values, perspectives and norms then.
Cecily Neville was related to practically everyone. Her father (Ralph, Earl of Westmoreland) had two huge families by two wives, the second by Joan Beaufort. the two Neville broods hated each other.
Then Cecily lost a husband (York), brother (Salisbury), three adult sons (Edward, George and Richard); a son in law (Exeter); several nephews (Warwick, Montagu etc) as well as grandchildren and daughters in law, between 1459 and 1485 - most of them violently. How did she cope? A sister was for a time her gaoler.
At St Albans several Beaufort and Stafford relatives were killed.
Yet I assume affection and family ties continued to at least some extent.
As for lasting hatred, be careful of historians over simplifying things, and assuming causes and effects where none may exist.
It is often alleged that the York/Beaufort feud went back to the 1440s (partly over military responsibilities in France) but if you look at connections between York and various Dukes/Earls of Somerset; and with William de la Pole Duke of Suffolk before 1450, the picture is much less clear.
I take the view of sophisticated, subtle relationships which ebbed and flowed pragmatically over time. It is less dramatic but probably more realistic.
Does any of this make sense to you? I am happy to elaborate further if you wish.
Phil |
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 206
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Thanks for that Phil,
I've read in the very early pages of Weir's book that 'there was no statutory bar to a woman succeeding to the throne or transmitting a claim to her descendants'. So I suppose the law did not prevent the Mortimer claim, it just came down to who was the most powerful at a particular time to the enforce their claim.
Thanks again
Neal |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 695
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
And what the nobility (effectively) would accept.
No one was going to overthrow an anointed and crowned King (ie Henry VI) willingly. An interesting question would be, if edward of lancaster has not been born (and I think there is a strong possibility that he was Somerset's bastard) how would the nobility have taken the Beaufort's as heirs?
Don't forget that in England the law has always has two aspects - statute law (Weir is right there was no Salic Law in England) and the common law - broadly, custom and practice. It is the latter that gave rise to the queswtion of whether the crown was a title or property.
Phil
(Message edited by Phil on June 18, 2005) |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
