Richard III and the princes in the tower

[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)

[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]

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)

[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]

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]

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]

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

[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

[Robert]

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

[Rubyretro]

I think that the incredibly interesting TV 'Trial' which I watched on Youtube
via Eppi's link summed the whole problem up admirably : when dealing with the past, we can't be certain of anything, and in the end we can only judge on 'balance of probability'.

Therefore, whilst it can't be proved that the two skeletons found in the Tower are those of the two Princes (or ex-Princes as you like), on balance of probability, I think that they are.

As to whether Richard was guilty or not, we'll almost certainly never know because the 'evidence' is strong on both sides.

He was found 'not guilty' by this Court only due to the superior skill of the Defence, but (as the Judge summed up) the debate will go on ..and on..

[Phil H]

Hmm....this thread is too tranquil.

Hmmm, we'll have to see what we can do about that then!

Rubyretro wrote:

when dealing with the past, we can't be certain of anything, and in the end we can only judge on 'balance of probability'.

But there are things, surely, that we cn be certain of? The basic chronology, for instance, unless specifically challenged. For the period 1483-85, we have dates and quite a lot of information.

We also have good source material, from the crowland continuation, Acts of Parliament such as Titulus Regius, the Paston and other letters, as well as numerous chronicles. All this needs interpretation, sure (and I have deliberately excluded the Tudor historians which need particularly careful handling) but we are not as completely in the dark as we are for some periods of history.

Therefore, whilst it can't be proved that the two skeletons found in the Tower are those of the two Princes (or ex-Princes as you like), on balance of probability, I think that they are.

Let me put another point of view, if I may.

I think there is a good deal of evidence that the skeletons found in the 1670s are unlikely to be those of Edward and Richard (Woodville). First, their sex and age (both in terms of the individuals and the age of the bones by carbon dating) has never been established.

When first found the bones were treated with such disrespect that they were thrown on a rubbish tip for a while and there are animal bones intermixed. There were other skeletal remains found - some apparently in a sealed room - so which were those of the boys, if any?

Indeed, why should any skeletons found in the Tower be those of Edward and Richard of whom, other than anecdotally, there is no evidence that they died in the 1480s or in the Tower? Mancini was not there, could not speak English and by internal evidence seems to have had pro-Woodville sources; the City chronicles speak of them being seen less and less (but that could of course be because they were removed elsewhere). The rumours circulating at the time of Buckingham's rebellion seem too early to be based on anything except perhaps deliberate attempts to blacken Richard's name and reputation.

So where is the balance of probability? Not I suggest as to the bones - there is no evidence at ALL on the side of them being the remains of the two boys. As to whether they died - where an assessment can be made - I'll try to examine that next.

As to whether Richard was guilty or not, we'll almost certainly never know because the 'evidence' is strong on both sides.

Is it that strong on both sides.

Let's deal first with More, because it is on his evidence that most attempts to identify the bones rest. Which version of More do we rely on - they differ? And even if you read his account, I defy anyone not to be confused, because he specifically states that, having been initially buried under a set of stairs, they were later MOVED!! So why should the bones found under the stairs be those of the sons of Edward IV.

For his part, Henry VII certainly never knew for certain what had happened to his brothers-in-law. His actions and statements prove that. Richard is never specifically accused of their murder. If he thought them both dead, why was he so concerned by the imposture of Perkin Warbeck? What was going on with the arrest and confession of Tyrell as late as the 1500s? it doesn't add up and cannot be made to.

There is also some evidence that the younger lad, Richard, survived long into Tudor times.

And why should Richard have killed them? (I'm not saying, mark you, that he did not, only questioning any motive.) he was legally King and they were legally illegitimate by Act of Parliament. If he killed them he did not expose their bodies, as was usually done - and was done for Richard III himself after Bosworth; and with Henry IV (almost certainly murdered) and Edward IV (probably died of natural causes though poison has been mooted recently) - to prove they were dead. Without exposure of the corpses, anyone could pretend to be one of the sons, so their death was no benefit.

Further, if Richard needed his nephews through Edward dead (because they had a better claim to the throne than him) notwithstanding their flawed birth - then why did he not kill edward Earl of Warwick (Clarence's son) who also had a superior claim to the throne by birth? Richard is known to have treated him well in a sort of juvenile household at Sheriff Hutton!

And if Richard needed a reason for their death, why not "sheer displeasure" - as was used for Henry VI in 1471.

So I don't think there is much evidence OF their deaths at all.

He was found 'not guilty' by this Court only due to the superior skill of the Defence, but (as the Judge summed up) the debate will go on ..and on..

I don't know Ruby whether you are a traditionalist where Richard III is concerned, or just interested in the boys in the Tower. These days, scholarship has dismissed the old view that he murdered his way to the throne by killing Edward of Lancaster; Henry VI; Clarence; his nephews and his own wife.

True he executed the Woodville conspirators (Rivers et al) and Hastings. But he spared Morton - to his detriment - Rotherham and Stanley, after their attempted coup. Elizabeth Woodville trusted him enough AFTER the SUPPOSED death of her sons to release her daughters into his custody. Her other son, Dorset was returning to England when stopped by the Tudor/Beaufort faction.

Elizabeth Woodville also appears to have supported Lambert Simnel - why if her sons were known to be dead - in his rising in 1487 and was punished for it by Henry VII.

Richard killed few during his admittedly short reign, while the Tudors imprisoned Edward of Warwick (whom Richard had treated well) and later executed him on trumped up charges; murdered old ladies (Clarence's daughter) any heirs of York including of the house of Suffolk - descendents of Richard's sister - their own wives; rivals such as Mary Stuart and a host of clerics (Fisher, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer), and eminent men - More, Cromwell etc.

I don't in conclusion think that Richard's defence relies upon the personality of his Counsel, but upon the record of him as man, warrior, Protector, King, husband and uncle.

How's that to be going on with ?

Phil

[Robert]

I read up on this a while back, but have since forgotten most of it!

One thought is, if I were a King who was ruthless enough to have my nephews murdered, I would certainly not leave the man who did the murdering alive to confess to the crimes and tell the tale years later.

[The Grave Maurice]

I read up on this a while back, but have since forgotten most of it!

That's the same problem I have. Every few years I read up on the case, and then promptly forget it all. Penman's The Sunne in Splendour is helpful, though. The novel is so long that, by the time you finish it, you have an excellent grasp of the chronology and cast of characters.

[Phil H]

One thought is, if I were a King who was ruthless enough to have my nephews murdered, I would certainly not leave the man who did the murdering alive to confess to the crimes and tell the tale years later.

Why, Robert?

The Tudors murdered (I use the word advisedly) pretty indiscriminately but the tools they used were not punished. They did it openly.

Edward IV did not "punish" those who killed Henry VI.

But the key here is your word "if".

If I were a King who was ruthless enough to have my nephews murdered...
Richard as a stateman, was not squeamish about shedding blood when required. As High Constable after the battle at Tewkesbury he had several leading Lancastrians, including the Prior of the Order of St John executed. he may, indeed, in the same capacity have presided over the death of Henry VI.

He dealt effectively and expeditiously with Rivers, Richard Grey and others, and with Hastings - but all openly. And he does not seem to have been overly blood-thirsty - as after Buckingham's rebellion - the executions were comparatively minimal. (Compare to say the Pilgrimage of Grace, or the Rebellion of the Northern Earls under the Tudors.)

If you want to see "ruthless", I suggest you examine the records of Henry VII and Henry VIII, and then judge them by the standards historians have in the past used for Richard III. You find any threat to their power or authority was pulverised, whether Yorkist heirs and pretenders, or opposition. Clerics (whom Richard never executed) went to the scaffold as readily as noblemen under the Tudors.

And if you look at it squarely, Henry Tudor (VII) had much greater need to be ruthless and exterminate the sons of Edward IV than did Richard.

Richard was legitimately in line of succession. Parliament made Edward's sons illegitimate on sound grounds - the bigamy and secrecy of the marriage of their parents. His third nephew, Clarence's son was deemed attainted and (probably also as too young) unfit to inherit. Thus Richard was recognised as King. he treated warwick - the third nephew - well, so why be "ruthless about the other two boys?

Now Henry VII had no personal claim to the throne - the Beauforts (his mother's side) were by law unable to inherit the throne (an act of Henry IV). On his father's side he had NO Lancastrian blood. His grandmother was Henry V's wife, and his grandfather a minor Welsh gentleman.

His sole right to the throne was by FORCE - having won a battle.

He deliberately made no claim to the throne by right of his Woodville bride/Queen - though he reversed Titulus Regius and legitimised her. But in doing so HE ALSO LEGITIMISED HER TWO BROTHERS. By that act they possessed a stronger claim to the throne than Henry .

SO Henry (using your language) had a greater and more powerful motive than Richard to be ruthless and have the boys killed.

But there is no evidence he did - or had any idea what had happened to them. On the contrary, when their mother Elizabeth supported Lambert Simnel (who may have been one of her sons or a strawman for one of them) she was banished from court, her possessions taken away and she died under "house arrest" in Bermondsy Abbey in practical penury.

So, while I see no evidence that ANYONE killed the two sons of Edward IV, if anyone did it was more likely to have been the demonstrably ruthless and more strongly motivated first Tudor. But I doubt he did.

So there was probably no "man who did the murdering" to be put out of the way in any case.

By all means challenge my assumptions... debate is all.

Phil

[Rubyretro]

If you want my personal opinion Phil, I'll give it :

I read the Josephine Tey book in my teens and was completely convinced
by it (to the extent of trying to join the 'White Boar Society' !).

It led me to read around the subject, and come to the same conclusion of
lots of other people -it couldn't have been Henry VII who did it.

Nevertheless, alot of your arguments are preaching to the converted.

Still, there is a huge 'doubt' that persists that this may be a rosy romantic view. If forced to vote I'd say that Richard DIDN'T give the direct order -but that the boys were killed under his 'protection', and they died in the Tower.