Richard III and the princes in the tower

[Robert]

Hi Phil

Well, I think I was making a pro-Ricardian point :


IF Richard ordererd the murders, he would have ordered the elimination of the murderers too. Tyrell would have met with an accident.

What I'm saying is, I don't see how Tyrell's confession can be used against Richard.

[Phil H]

Thanks for the clarification, Robert. I see your point now.

(Apologies for the delay in responding - I couldn't access the message boards for a couple of days and then had to be away.)

However, I think an issue here is that of "are you still beating your wife"! You may never have been.

We need, I think to acknowledge that there is absolutely NO evidence that the sons of edward IV died in the 1480s or in the Tower. If the question is phrased in terms of the disappearance of the boys, then I think that is a reasonable question - the point being that they were not knowlingly seen again, NOT that they were found murdered.

Tyrell was probably NOT a killer anyway, just a trusted henchman of Richard III.

Grave Maurice - I agree Sunne in Splendoure is a long novel (not the best on RIII though) but it is just that - fiction. Rosemary Hawley Jarman is much better (We Speak no Treason, and another about the Woodville woman, The King's Grey Mare.)

Rubyretro: When you wrote, 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.

I assume you meant to refer to Richard III?

Phil

[Robert]

No worries, Phil.

Slightly off topic : do we have any info as to what kind of training young Prince Edward had been given? E.g. was he taken on campaigns?

[Phil H]

Robert

I don't think that young Edward, as Prince of Wales, went on any campaigns.

He was based at Ludlow Castle under the tutelage of Earl Rivers (his maternal uncle) and as noinal head of the Council of the Marches/Wales. This became a sort of traditional post for the heir apparent (Henry VII's son Arthur held the same position a little later and I seem to recall Henry VIII's daughter, Mary, held a similar position).

Rivers had been known as a great jouster in his day and thus I would suspect that young Edward received a good training in arms, including the tilt. But Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers was also a complete "Renaissance man" (in a literal sense) with a deep interest in literature, poetry and the arts. So no doubt Edward would have benefited from that too, almong with all the gentlemanly pursuits of hunting and the chase.

It is my own personal view that Edward would have been brought up very much as a Woodville (i.e. with a loyalty to his mother's ambitious and close-knit family) rather than to his father's Plantagent relations (such as Duchess Cecily - his grandmother - or Richard Gloucester).

I also strongly suspect that Edward was not raised with much independence of spirit. I think that the Woodvilles intended to use him as a puppet monarch and rule in his name, even when he was an adult.

The last two points are not based on particular evidence, just my reading of what happened and the personalities involved.

Phil

Edited to add, that I have heard it said that at the time of his death, Edward IV was planning a war of revenge against France, given that Louis XI had reneged on the treaty agreed in 1475. Now King Edward (although only in his early 40s was over-weight and unfit) might not have been in a position to lead such a campaign himself, but he might have planned that his heir would take part with men of experience like Gloucester and Rivers around him. So young Edward might have had the prospect of a campaign ahead of him even if he had not been on one to date when he aceeded to the throne.

[Robert]

Thanks for that info, Phil. Very interesting, as always.

[bkohatl]

The real mystery of Richard III

Edward IV considered his brother his best friend and most loyal subject. Never once did Richard let Edward down. On the battlefield at Bosworth Richard exhibited the most incredible bravery and character in the face of betrayal and treason.
Then consider Henry Tudor's desecration of Richard's body. It only reflects badly on Henry. Why didn't Henry accuse Richard with the murders of his nephews? Then declaring all who did not support Henry the day before the battle guilty of Treason, is something only dishonorable man would do.

Who killed the Princes, my bet is the Henry Buckingham either with or without Henry Tudor's support. Considering Henry's silence about the Princes before and after Richard's death when he accused Richard of everything, but not that is the true mystery of the Princes in the Tower.


The people closest to the truth are the people who ask questions, those who know all the answers will never find it.

[The Grave Maurice]

For people interested in this era, I'm currently reading The Wars of the Roses by Michael Hicks (Yale University Press, 2010). I wasn't familiar with any of Hicks' work but, unlike some historians of the 15th century, he writes well and interestingly. You might want to check it out.

[Graham]

Oddly enough, I was in Tewkesbury earlier today, and thought of that battle and the involvement of Richard Duke of Gloucester, later King Richard III.

Graham

[jason_c]

Edward IV considered his brother his best friend and most loyal subject. Never once did Richard let Edward down. On the battlefield at Bosworth Richard exhibited the most incredible bravery and character in the face of betrayal and treason.
Then consider Henry Tudor's desecration of Richard's body. It only reflects badly on Henry. Why didn't Henry accuse Richard with the murders of his nephews? Then declaring all who did not support Henry the day before the battle guilty of Treason, is something only dishonorable man would do.

Who killed the Princes, my bet is the Henry Buckingham either with or without Henry Tudor's support. Considering Henry's silence about the Princes before and after Richard's death when he accused Richard of everything, but not that is the true mystery of the Princes in the Tower.


The people closest to the truth are the people who ask questions, those who know all the answers will never find it.

Honour has nothing to do with it. He was promoting allies and punishing enemies.

Also, personal bravery may be an admirable trait but it in no way indicates Richard's guilt or innocence in the mystery.