Richard III and the princes in the tower

[Robert]

Hmm....this thread is too tranquil. Maybe we should invite Dr David Starkey to join.

[Dupplin Muir]

Haven't they found at least 2 sets of children's bones in the Tower? Perhaps the other set is from the princes when they were younger

DM

[Phil H]

My irritating tone? My apologies, but I think that's more in your perception of things. My apologies if I have been at fault, I certainly don't want to offend or adopt the sort of tone I see elsewhere here - and which seems to be driving people such as saracarter away (see another current thread).

Whether you enter into debate with me is entirely up to you. I am happy to argue the issues as strongly and openly as you wish.

As for your personal question (not sure what it has to do with anything) - primarily work, and my focus was on other historical periods and issues - including Richard III and the period 1447 - 1500 (although that interest dates back to the 60s); the later Tudors; and Roman history c100BC to the end of the reign of Commodus. Is that sufficient explanation.

I came back because I bought the book with the Whitby collection of photos and the new one of Dutfield's Yard and was intrigued to see what opinion on here was.

Does that provide enough explanation?

Now back to the topic in hand, you were going to tell me about the historians of the C15th (by whichever definition) on which you relied.

Phil

[Graham]

If you'd care to modify your irritatingly superior tone in your posts, I may be inclined to enter into debate with you.

I believe you said you'd been away from these boards for 5 years - precisely why?

Graham

[Phil H]

And which have you read?
By the way by "historians of the period" do you mean those writing at the time (i.e. in the C15th) or those writing about the period today?

If writers of the C15th you base your views on what - Crowland, More, Rous, Vergil etc (the Tudor historians)?

If modern historians, what are your views on more modern scholarship - perhaps you'll share?

And as for my "lecture" - all I did was set out my views and explain (with examples) why I believe and say what I do. Your post contained a set of unsupported assertions, which in fact even period historians didn't hold.

I'm afraid I don't find it easy to debate by throw-away remarks that don't show any sensitivity or feel for the period, or for that matter demonstrate any knowledge. But there - perhaps I'm old-fashioned.

I'd genuinely be interested to know how you believe "politics" changed in the Elizabethan period - another that I've immersed myself in in recent years.

Hope to hear from you, and I hope there's nothing in the tone of this response to offend. I am sincerely interested in discussing these issues which are important to me.

Phil

[Graham]

Graham wrote:

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.

While language changes and C15th man used different words, "politics" most definitely existed in the period of Richard III. The analysis I have quoted is an unsustainable simplification of what happened and how people thought.

I would simply point to a few basic examples of how Richard III went to great lengths in 1483 to ensure that his claim to the throne was understood and constitutionally/legally based:

* he followed very closely the inauguration procedures of his brother Edward IV, in being invited by Lords, Commons and the citizens of London (essentially a Parliament) to take the throne, and then took his seat on the marble chair in Westminster Hall;

* this almost certainly followed a detailed consideration by the estates of the realm of Richard's claims in the light of the revelations of Stillington about Edward IV's bigamous marriage and thus the illegitimacy of the latter's children;

* the fact that Richard had his claim enshrined in an Act of Parliment as soon as practical (Titulus Regulus).

Now, as for elimination of opposition, who died as a result of Richard's accession? Essentially Hastings alone. Rivers, Grey etc died because they had sought to over thrown the legal Protector at Stoney Stratford - i.e. for evident treason.

Henry VII usurped the crown, Richard took it as legal adult heir once his nephews were deemed illegitimate.

Now as for "politics", the whole history of the so-called "Wars of the Roses" was surely politics - the question initially, of how to fill the vacuum created when an adult king (Henry VI) was not able to rule effectively. Leave aside all the old Shakespeare feuding lords and dynatic shinnanegins - men like the duke of Suffolk in the 1450s were honestly seeking ways to govern sensibly. as today they had an problem about how to bring an unwinnable war to an end (in France) much as today the US and UK governments are seeking to get out of Afghanistan with "honour".

True, York may have been worried by the ambitions of the Beauforts, but the two political factions of the day were equally firmly based in their approach to the war. If politics be defined as "to decide who shall have power and make the decisions" then surely what I have described above is politics.

So don't lets have all this anachronistic nonsense about monarchy - true england was no democracy in the modern sense, but it was a polity - it had been clear since the 1300s (at least) that English kings had to rule by consent, to consult, to address grievances in return for supply etc etc. Government in the late 1400s worked quite effectively.

As for who murdered the boys in the Tower (they were no longer "princes") - were they murdered? There was no need to for Richard III and all the evidence is that Henry VII could never find out what happened to them. I suspect they went to Burgundy to their aunt Margaret, but that is speculation. But that Richard III was capable of having killed them in need, I have no doubt - he was a political realist and lived in the age of Machiavelli. But on balance, and after four decades of study of the period, I frankly doubt he did.

Phil
(edited to get the bullets to look right)

Thank you for that lecture, Phil. I don't agree with you. We have probably read different historians of the period.

Graham

[Phil H]

Any two skeletons of children of any sex who died and were buried within the area now covered by the Tower of London at almost any time in the last 2,000 plus years.

There is absolutely no medical forensic evidence to confirm the dating, sex or ages of the bones found in the 1670s.

It was only blind acceptance of the sainted St Thomas' confused and impossible account that gave anyone the idea that the bones might be of the sons of Edward IV. I admire Laurence Tanner (late archivist of Westminster Abbey) for other works he wrote, but the examination of the bones was not his finest hour - he found what he wanted to find.

I doubt that the bones will ever again be allowed to be examined (though as with the Turin Shroud odder things have happened) but if they are, I anticipate that the identification will be over-turned.

The site of the Tower of london has been occupied since pre-Roman times. The bones could be of young "ancient Britons", victims of Boudicca, pagan foundational sacrifices or of inhabitants of the Tower itself. What they almost cannot be, because they were found under the foundations of a staircase, is the secretly buried bones of Edward and Richard (Grey or Woodville, I suppose, if they have to have a surname).

If you want more, by all means come back to me.

Phil
(edited to give London the "capital" letter it deserves)

[Rubyretro]

Out of interest Phil -if the boys went to Burgundy, whose do you think are the two skeletons buried in Westminster Abbey ?

[Phil H]

Graham wrote:

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.

While language changes and C15th man used different words, "politics" most definitely existed in the period of Richard III. The analysis I have quoted is an unsustainable simplification of what happened and how people thought.

I would simply point to a few basic examples of how Richard III went to great lengths in 1483 to ensure that his claim to the throne was understood and constitutionally/legally based:

* he followed very closely the inauguration procedures of his brother Edward IV, in being invited by Lords, Commons and the citizens of London (essentially a Parliament) to take the throne, and then took his seat on the marble chair in Westminster Hall;

* this almost certainly followed a detailed consideration by the estates of the realm of Richard's claims in the light of the revelations of Stillington about Edward IV's bigamous marriage and thus the illegitimacy of the latter's children;

* the fact that Richard had his claim enshrined in an Act of Parliment as soon as practical (Titulus Regulus).

Now, as for elimination of opposition, who died as a result of Richard's accession? Essentially Hastings alone. Rivers, Grey etc died because they had sought to over thrown the legal Protector at Stoney Stratford - i.e. for evident treason.

Henry VII usurped the crown, Richard took it as legal adult heir once his nephews were deemed illegitimate.

Now as for "politics", the whole history of the so-called "Wars of the Roses" was surely politics - the question initially, of how to fill the vacuum created when an adult king (Henry VI) was not able to rule effectively. Leave aside all the old Shakespeare feuding lords and dynatic shinnanegins - men like the duke of Suffolk in the 1450s were honestly seeking ways to govern sensibly. as today they had an problem about how to bring an unwinnable war to an end (in France) much as today the US and UK governments are seeking to get out of Afghanistan with "honour".

True, York may have been worried by the ambitions of the Beauforts, but the two political factions of the day were equally firmly based in their approach to the war. If politics be defined as "to decide who shall have power and make the decisions" then surely what I have described above is politics.

So don't lets have all this anachronistic nonsense about monarchy - true england was no democracy in the modern sense, but it was a polity - it had been clear since the 1300s (at least) that English kings had to rule by consent, to consult, to address grievances in return for supply etc etc. Government in the late 1400s worked quite effectively.

As for who murdered the boys in the Tower (they were no longer "princes") - were they murdered? There was no need to for Richard III and all the evidence is that Henry VII could never find out what happened to them. I suspect they went to Burgundy to their aunt Margaret, but that is speculation. But that Richard III was capable of having killed them in need, I have no doubt - he was a political realist and lived in the age of Machiavelli. But on balance, and after four decades of study of the period, I frankly doubt he did.

Phil
(edited to get the bullets to look right)

[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

[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

[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..

[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

[Robert]

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

[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.