Richard III and the princes in the Tower

[Phryne Fisher]

Did the wicked uncle do it?

I first became interested in this case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower

40 (give/take) years ago, when I read Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time". Richard's innocent, for my money, and those stinken Tudors are as guilty as hell

What say you all?

[Marko]

Interesting thread. I became interested in it years ago as well. Can't say I know too much about it but I've always thought the Tudors may have done it to blacken Richard III's memory...

[Steve S]

Buckingham did it!.....Maybe........
Steve

[Celesta]

Hi Phryne,

I thoroughly enjoyed The Daughter of Time, though it's been several years since I read it. I believe the quote was something like "History is the daughter of time." I think that's a wonderful way to express it.

I lean toward thinking it was not Richard that had those kids killed. The book made a good case for murder being out of character for Richard. Also, I believe that there has been some debate about whether Richard had humped shoulders.

Best,

Cel

[Mayerling]

Fascinating historical mystery - and too many possible suspects: Richard III,
Henry VII, Henry, Duke of Buckingham, Cardinal Morton.

I can recommend two recent books on it:

Audrey Williamson THE MYSTERY OF THE PRINCES (Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers, 1978). This won the Crime Writers' Gold Dagger Award.

Bertram Fields ROYAL BLOOD: RICHARD III AND THE MYSTERY OF THE PRINCES (New York: HarperCollins Publisher, Inc. -Regan Books, 1998).
It is a strangely written book. The first eighty percent of the book is first rate review of the facts. Then Fields writes a closing section of alternate history if the Princes had not been killed but lived to rule England. It is very
rosy view of history that just won't bear critical thought.

Best wishes,

Jeff

[Mike Covell]

I only recently read about this case after picking upa book on historical crimes which were ruthless or blood thirsty. It got me quite into it, so I will be persuing it further.

[Steve S]

Personal thoughts.....
Richard,(once King) had no real reason to murder the boys....and does seem to have been on better terms with their mother than he was during his brother's reign.
Henry acted as though the boys were dead....And locked their mother up after marrying their sister...By acknowledging their legitimacy,He had to know they weren't going to turn up.
Steve(Who as a Stanley,has genetic guilt over the period...)

[Graham]

Out of the pair of them, I'd say Henry VII had more reason to kill the Princes than did Richard...

Shakspeare is at his most gooingly sentimental when he describes how the Princes were killed, which rather suggests that he possibly had a Tudor quid or two slipped into his pocket when he wrote 'Richard the Third'.

Two skeletons of young boys were found under a staircase when renovations were taking place at the Bloody Tower during the reign of Charles II, and I believe that these skeletons were re-examined some time in the 19th century, and that one of them showed evidence of manual strangulation.

Nasty though it was, in those far-off days of Machiavellian, murderous politics, the killing of a rival to a throne wasn't seen as particularly wrong - merely practical.

Cheers,

Graham

[String]

Did the wicked uncle do it?


40 (give/take) years ago, when I read Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time". Richard's innocent, for my money, and those stinken Tudors are as guilty as hell

Just started listening to the audiobook version narrated by Derek Jacobi, seems pretty good.

[Byzantine]

Shakspeare is at his most gooingly sentimental when he describes how the Princes were killed, which rather suggests that he possibly had a Tudor quid or two slipped into his pocket when he wrote 'Richard the Third'.

The bribe you are suggesting would be hardly necessary. The Tudor propaganda machine had already long portrayed Richard III as a human monster, a depiction evident in the works of Thomas More and Polydore Vergil.

Shakespeare was also flattering the monarchs of his age in other works of his. Notice his depiction of Banquo in "Macbeth". Banquo is portrayed as an innocent man destined to be the forefather of a line of kings which would last forever. However in the "Chronicles" (1587) by Raphael Holinshed, Shakespeare's favorite historical source, Banquo is merely an accomplish of Macbeth in the assassination of Duncan I of Scotland and the subsequent coup d'etat which earns him the throne.

The recasting of Banquo in a very different role was based on only one thing:this semi-legendary historical figure was though to be an ancestor to James VI of Scotland/James I of England. His eternal lineage of Royal descendants is simply Shakespeare sucking up to James.

[Phryne Fisher]

I agree about Shakespeare blackening people's names, but have a couple of thoughts about it:

Shakespeare wasn't a historian; he was a playwright - although he had some real people as characters in his plays, the plays were principally dramatic fiction.

The other thing is Shakespeare 'sucking up' to those in power, or possibly taking bribes: probably the thought of getting his head chopped off if he portrayed anyone connected with the PTB in a bad light was enough to persuade him to treat them more kindly than they may have deserved

[Mayerling]

I agree about Shakespeare blackening people's names, but have a couple of thoughts about it:

Shakespeare wasn't a historian; he was a playwright - although he had some real people as characters in his plays, the plays were principally dramatic fiction.

The other thing is Shakespeare 'sucking up' to those in power, or possibly taking bribes: probably the thought of getting his head chopped off if he portrayed anyone connected with the PTB in a bad light was enough to persuade him to treat them more kindly than they may have deserved

Hi Phryne,

Actually you are quite right regarding Shakespeare's self interest and self-protection in "sucking up". I believe that another dramatist (possibly Ben Jonson) spent a few months in prison in 1605 or so when he wrote a play with a nasty character who was Scottish in it. "Gud King Jamie" did not like anything questioning his Scots heritage. Interestingly enough, King James VI had just issued a single protest to Elizabeth when his mother (Mary Queen of Scots) was executed in 1587. He did not do anything rasher, as he did not want to jeapardize his claim to the throne. But when he became King James I of England in 1603 he did do one act of considerable interest - he had Fotheringay Castle (where Mary was executed) taken apart stone by stone.

James by the way was at the center of many curious little mysteries:

1) was his father Henry, Lord Darnley (as is usually thought) or David Rizzio, the ill-fated Italian Secretary of Mary.

2) did he arrange the murders of the Master of Gowrie House and his brother Lord Ruthven in 1603, just as he was headed for London to assume his new throne, or did they attempt to either kidnap or slay James?

3) was the so-called "Gunpowder Plot" against James and his Parliament in 1605 really the idea of the Catholics involved (including Guy Fawks) or did James and his chief minister, Robert Cecil, scheme to entrap the Catholics in the plot?

4) did James know more about the slow-poisoning murder of Sir Thomas Overbury in the Tower of London from 1612-1613, that implicated his favorite
Robert Kerr, Earl of Somerset and his wive Francis, Countess of Somerset
(it was the biggest royal scandal of the day).

Best wishes,

Jeff

[Mayerling]

A Notice in the New York Times.

If anyone missed it, every August 22nd there is a notice among the death notices in the New York Times in honor of King Richard III and the other loyal soldiers of his who fell at Bosworth Field. I thought I should make note of it here.

Jeff

[Suzi]

Hi all... just picked this up-

'The Daughter of Time'-Josephine Tey- is one of my favourites and as far as I'm prepared to say here is a reasonable theory- for a mildly entertaining case

How bizarre is that Jeff- Wonder who posts it??

Suzi

[Suzi]

Just a pic of Josephine Tey (Interesting)- and a rather disturbing pic of the new cover- Hmmmmmmmmmmm prefer my old much used one..........




Still an excellent read- if you haven't read it- read it!!!

Suz xx