Richard III and the princes in the tower

[Eppi]

For everyone interested in this case check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-kQoKt2Kf4

[The Grave Maurice]

Eppi,

What did you think of Annette Carson's book, Richard III: The Maligned King, that came out a couple of years ago?

[Graham]

I think the disappearance of the Princes was purely an example of late-mediaeval power politics, with no hard feelings intended on anyone's part.
The Princes were the uncrowned Edward V and his brother Richard, and to ensure that Edward was never crowned, Richard, Buckingham et al declared that the marriage of Edward's father Edward IV was illegal and that Edward was therefore illegitimate and unable to accede the throne. Just to ensure that neither Edward nor his brother popped up at some future date to make things awkward for him, Richard had them 'disappeared' and it is highly likely that most hard-headed courtiers at the time fully understood this move. Legend has it that Perkin Warbeck of 1499 revolt fame was in fact Edward V's brother Richard, but it's been pretty well proven that he was an imposter.

By mediaeval standards Richard was a 'good king', even possessing something of a social conscience. Pity he wasn't much good at politics. I think he's the only British monarch with no known resting-place.

I live quite close to Bosworth Battlefield site, and visit it frequently to soak up the atmos. Lots going on there at the moment, regarding new knowledge of just where the various aspects of the battle took place. Loads of new discoveries, especially firearm projectiles.

Cheers,

Graham

[Eppi]

Eppi,

What did you think of Annette Carson's book, Richard III: The Maligned King, that came out a couple of years ago?

Haventnt read it, Maurice-Last book i read was Michael K. Jones "Bosworth 1485-The psychology of a battle".Why,is it worth a read?

EPPI

[Eppi]

I think the disappearance of the Princes was purely an example of late-mediaeval power politics, with no hard feelings intended on anyone's part.
The Princes were the uncrowned Edward V and his brother Richard, and to ensure that Edward was never crowned, Richard, Buckingham et al declared that the marriage of Edward's father Edward IV was illegal and that Edward was therefore illegitimate and unable to accede the throne. Just to ensure that neither Edward nor his brother popped up at some future date to make things awkward for him, Richard had them 'disappeared' and it is highly likely that most hard-headed courtiers at the time fully understood this move. Legend has it that Perkin Warbeck of 1499 revolt fame was in fact Edward V's brother Richard, but it's been pretty well proven that he was an imposter.

By mediaeval standards Richard was a 'good king', even possessing something of a social conscience. Pity he wasn't much good at politics. I think he's the only British monarch with no known resting-place.

I live quite close to Bosworth Battlefield site, and visit it frequently to soak up the atmos. Lots going on there at the moment, regarding new knowledge of just where the various aspects of the battle took place. Loads of new discoveries, especially firearm projectiles.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi,Graham.
Sounds like theres a lot of new things going on at Bosworth,i sure hope to visit the site once-are the reenactments any good??
Im not sure i agree that he wasnt good on politics though.What makes you think that?

Eppi

[The Grave Maurice]

I have a friend who is quite an avid Ricardian and he is always sending me books on the topic. I'm really not very knowledgeable on the topic, but Carson's book seemed to me to be reasonably balanced, and she certainly writes quite well. You might enjoy it if you happen to run across a copy.

[Graham]

Hi,Graham.
Sounds like theres a lot of new things going on at Bosworth,i sure hope to visit the site once-are the reenactments any good??
Im not sure i agree that he wasnt good on politics though.What makes you think that?

Eppi

As far as I'm aware they don't do re-enactments at Bosworth. At least I hope they don't, because such things tend to be embarrassingly bad. What makes you think that there actually are re-enactments at Bosworth?

Richard, as did most mediaeval monarchs, assumed that his kingship was a right, courtesy of God. The need to indulge in what we refer to as 'politics' never arose in the mediaeval mind, because a king was king due to God's will. Those who disagreed were fit only to be eliminated. Politics as we might understand the term is a relatively modern concept, probably no earlier than the reign of Elizabeth I.

Graham

[The Grave Maurice]

For everyone interested in this case check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-kQoKt2Kf4

Thanks for pointing this out to us, Eppi. It takes a while to get through all 22 clips but well worth it---especially the opportunity to see a young, but already feisty, David Starkey. I thought that the closing argument by the QC for the defence was masterful.

[Mayerling]

Richard books

The Daughter of Time - a wonderful place to start, but Tey is hamstrung that she is using the researches of historians from the late 19th Century like Gardiner and Markham (whom she strongly relies on - Sir Clement Markham is better recalled for his support of polar explorers like Robert Falcon Scott). By the way, try her take on the Elizabeth Canning Mystery of 1753-54 transplanted into modern Britain in THE FRANCISE AFFAIR.

The books of historian Paul Murray Kendall are now half a century old, but he wrote well about "The Yorkist Age" and about figures like Richard (a full biography), King Louis XI (a biography of "the Spider King"), Warwick "the King Maker" (another biography). Kendall was really the first first rate scholar of the period to come out on Richard's side. He also edited a handy volume from W.W.Norton and Compnay RICHARD III: THE GREAT DEBATE. Besides the opening essay by Kendall he included the relevant sections from Thomas More's HISTORY OF KING HENRY VII and Horace Walpole's HISTORIC DOUBTS.
Those two works are hard to come by, so Kendall was right in making a small version of the sections about the disappearances and murders.

Aubrey Williamson - THE MYSTERY OF THE PRINCES (1978). This volume won the Crime Writer's Gold Dagger Award for best book on a famous mystery. It is balanced but comes out for Richard.

Bertram Field - ROYAL BLOOD: RICHARD III AND THE MYSTERY OF THE PRINCES (1998). The first 95% of the book is worthwhile - and it too is pro Richard. But beware a romantically inclined historian. Field suddenly gets soppy at the end, suggesting that a continued Yorkist dynasty would have brought untold happiness to England the isles, and Europe until the present day. He apparently does not realize how many competing go into the events that history is made from.

Those are the books I have read on Richard.

Jeff

[Eppi]

As far as I'm aware they don't do re-enactments at Bosworth. At least I hope they don't, because such things tend to be embarrassingly bad. What makes you think that there actually are re-enactments at Bosworth?

Richard, as did most mediaeval monarchs, assumed that his kingship was a right, courtesy of God. The need to indulge in what we refer to as 'politics' never arose in the mediaeval mind, because a king was king due to God's will. Those who disagreed were fit only to be eliminated. Politics as we might understand the term is a relatively modern concept, probably no earlier than the reign of Elizabeth I.

Graham

I was under the impression that there was reenactments every year-just google it.

[Robert]

I'm sure that however many re-enactments they do, and whoever wins, the Stanleys are on the winning side.

[Graham]

Hi Eppi,

somewhat to my surprise (as I live only a few miles from Bosworth) they do have re-enactments, but only once a year. I hope they clear up after them.

The new locale of the centre of the battle is very well-known to me, and makes much more sense than placing it on Ambion Hill, a mile or so further away. Cavalry charges were normally made on flat ground, and a charge down the slope of a hill always bothered me.

All said and done, a very beautiful part of the country, and to sit on a roadside verge of a sunny, warm, calm evening as I did last week, and to listen to the bells of Dadlington Church pealing out, is for me England as it should be (and is), Heaven on Earth.

Graham

[Rubyretro]

Thanks for pointing this out to us, Eppi. It takes a while to get through all 22 clips but well worth it---especially the opportunity to see a young, but already feisty, David Starkey. I thought that the closing argument by the QC for the defence was masterful.

Thanks so much for this Eppi !! -I was glued all afternoon..

I still couldn't REALLY decide whether Richard was guilty or not -but I agree with The Grave Maurice, the superb summing up of Du Cann (for the defence)
mean't that there couldn't be any other verdict.

Du Cann's handling of Starkey was a joy to watch..

[Dupplin Muir]

The main reason I don't believe that Richard murdered his nephews is that he was an intelligent man, and would have seen that killing them and not displaying the bodies was a counter-productive strategy. He could easily have had them smothered and then shown the bodies, while crying crocodile tears and blaming a sudden fever. People might have been sceptical, but the death of children was a common thing at the time (and still was in the 19th century - see Queen Victoria's offspring).

Also, if Richard was that paranoid, why did he leave the princes' sisters free? This was an open invitation for any usurper to marry one or other and use this to claim the throne. Henry Tudor attracted the support he did precisely because he undertook to marry Elizabeth (though he reneged once in power and claimed the throne by right of conquest). On the other hand, Henry had an urgent reason to bump the princes off because by legitimising Elizabeth he made Edward V the rightful king. Admittedly he acted as if the fate of the boys was a mystery, but this could easily have been a kind of double-bluff, given Henry's devious character.

DM

[Suzi]

Hi all
Jumping in on a book thread IMHO I adore The Daughter of Time by Tey - and to be honest her others are great too- May I recommend Brat Farrar a really interesting read.

If you really want to give yourselves the willies(!)..( and have a good read)..... Read this all in one go.........'The Great God Pan' Arthur Machen...I guarantee some sleepless nights/days even.
Even JTR gets a mention!
Just excellent

Suz xx