Richard III, Lord of the North and Leicester's Tourist Attraction

[Phil H]

I'm afraid I cannot agree with you on this.

My apologies, by the way for getting the 1464 date wrong - I should have checked or said mid 1460s. My error.

I think you take too academic a view of the issues here. Edward was still in his early 20s, relatively inexperienced and to be "shown up" as having made an illegal marriage would have weakened him morally and in terms of the respect of his subjects. The Wydeville marriage eventually contributed to a war in any case - Lady Eleanor would have another indication that Edward was not taking Warwick seriously - he had after all let him proceed with the negotiations over the French marriage without mentioning either woman.

If I was in Eleanor's shoes and the King had married me I would risk it.

Namely because Elizabeth Wydeville was only the daughter of a Squire while Eleanor was the daughter of an belted Earl (Shrewsbury).

But why would the family have wished to show their scion made a fool of; a possibly still marriageable daughter disgraced. Embarrass the king and they might never see promotion at court again.

Also don't dismiss Wydeville influence too quickly - Lord Rivers/Scales was a notable man, and her mother was the dowager Duchess of Bedford and a princess of Luxembourg. They were ambitious and would bear grudges.

Phil we know that Edward married Elizabeth Wydeville in May of 1464 with tow gentleman and her mother and a blind boy to help the officiating priest sing the nuptial mass

I am not certain we can know for sure who was there. Others, including Edward's intimate may have been aware of events, but as far as I am aware Stillington's was the only testimony on this of which we are aware.

Don't forget that in 1483 when this all came out no Wydeville challenged the allegations legally or canonically - despite what was at stake - even from sanctuary Elizabeth could have pleaded her case. She had the ear of both archbishops. She could strongly have denied the pre-contract. But she evidently did not.

Henry VII never claimed that the pre-contract was invalid - if it had been then his future wife was legitimate. But he had the children legitimsed by over-turning Titulus Regius rather suggesting there was enough evidence around to demonstrate that edward IV had been bigamous.

It would seem if there was not a Marriage or was that the King tired of Eleanor very quickly and that they went their separate ways. I never said that Eleanor did not sleep with the King Edward just that they probably did not marry.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. As far as I know, no one is claiming they were MARRIED in a ceremony - there was a pre-contract, which according to then custom and ecclesiastical law, if consummated, clinched a marriage. It meant that in the eyes of the church Edward was legally married to Eleanor. Edward and Elizabeth could have REMARRIED after Eleanor's death, but any children born before then would have been illegitimate.

The fact is that Edward never re-married Elizabeth, which suggests am emarrassment (and more) over the whole matter. Perhaps he was concerned that, given Warwick's rebellion, Clarence's position etc, ANY open acknowledgement of a taint on the Wydeville marriage would undermine the legitimacy of his heir. Clarence died for some reason and his knowledge of the bastardy of Edward POW and Richard of York is the best exoplanation I know.

Add to that, that there were then claims of bastardy against Edward IV himself. Duchess Cecily was said to have had as a lover an archer named Blaybourne. I think Louis XI referred to this and it appears to have raised its head again in 1483. The idea has been recently resurrected, and there are some interesting supporting inferences. That in itself might have made edward very nervous about any hint of bastardy in his own children.

All we really know is that Stillington was in the tower near the same time as Clarence. What the good Bishop were in the tower for might of been unconnected to Clarence but I tend to think Stillington was in on something to do with Clarence? I agree they might of been up to something.

Look als at Stillington's treatment AFTER Bosworth. Richard III treated him with honour. Henry VII put out an IMMEDIATE - first action as king immediate - to arrest Stillington, who was given a "minder" thereafter. Why? probably because he could have illegitimised Henry's future queen with a word - as he had in 1483.

I'll have to discuss Richard III use of his brothers supposed secret marriage when I get home from work.


IMHO Richard did not "use" the marriage. Rather he was confronted with a crisis. The secret marriage was revealed. he had to act. That is what the events of 1483 clearly reveal. Don't fall for Tudor and Wydeville propaganda.

Good to discuss these things,

Phil

[Semper_Eadem]

Hey Phil,

You make a very good argument. Edward did make a secret marriage with Elizabeth Woodville or Wydeville Grey so he very well could of made an earlier one with Eleanor Butler when he was 19 in 1461. No Wydeville or Woodville did challenge publicly Richard Duke Of Gloucester's declaration of the Lady Butler pre-contract. Of course we must remember that Richard III who made the challenge had Anthony Woodville and Richard Grey, Queen Elizabeth Woodville's brother and son under lock and key at Pontefract Castle.

You are right that it wasn't a secret marriage but a pre-contract of Marriage which as I said was just as binding as Marriage in 15th Century English law.

Also I think Eleanor might of found out about the King marrying Elizabeth Woodville right after the said marriage was announced because her Sister Elizabeth Talbot Mowbray, Duchess of Norfolk probably had retainers and friends at court who would of been quick to impart the info to her. The Duchess Of Norfolk might of been at court at the time, if so she probably would of known of any secret marriage or pre-contract between her sister Eleanor Butler and the King. She probably would of announced it herself. If she didn't for various reasons of her own then I believe that she still would of insured that Eleanor, her sister would of received the news as fast as possible and some news did travel very quickly even back then with only horses and terrible and I mean really terrible roads.

I grew up reading Alison Weir and Desmond Seward's books, respectively Princes In The Tower and Richard III England's Dark Legend back in the late eighties and early nineties as a teenager so I do tend to take a dim view of Richard.

So while I will give on the secret pre-contract. I still think that Richard might of, I tend to lean towards did have, his nephews slain in the tower, even if he did not there is still the fact that they were in Richard's custody and he was responsible for them when they went missing.

As for Edward IV being a child of Blayborne, I have hear about the theory that the good Duke Richard of York was away from Rouen on a mission and that Duchess Cecily did something totally out of character or at least what we know of her character to take a lover, an Archer named Blaybourn who supposedly ended up the father of Edward IV. Well, I think the mass in the records that the scholar found that mentions the Duke absence, Duke Richard wasn't absent but with his Wife beseeching Good to smile with favor on his mission before he rode off. I think he rode off leaving Duchess Cecily pregnant and she carried the baby, later Edward IV to term.

However it is possible that he was born early and that might be the reason that his baptism was less grand then his younger brother Edmund's as Edwards parents might of been worried about him not surviving infancy. Not because Edward was a Bastard as that scholar says. Medieval Parents did tend to stint on baptism of sickly babies, usually they were in a hurry to get the baby baptized quickly so if the child died it's soul wouldn't be lost to God which was a strong belief back then. So Edward might of had a hurried baptism.

I don't think Richard Duke of York would of accepted another mans child from his wife. Say D. Cecily did have an affair and York found out about it which the scholar who came up with this theory said that York did know about it. So you have Cecily Duchess of York pregnant with another man's child, York supposedly accepts and rears the child as his heir yet I think if Edward was a bastard then York would of paid for a peasant couple to raise the bastard as their own and told everyone that the baby died which was common back then.

This is nice discussion as I usually don't get to discuss 15th Century England or the Cousins War that much if at all, unless it is one Englistory.com so it is really nice to get a chance to talk shop with someone else who is interested in what was happening in England. I've studied this era since about 1987 when I read a copy of Daughter Of Time by Jacqueline Tey so really this is one area I am really familiar with.

[Phil H]

Good post.

My position on RIII is quite straightforward - I have no "rose-tinted" spectacles. Rihard was a C15th politician and HAD to be capable of having the boys killed. He would not have survived long otherwise. His father, brother and several cousins died violently; another brother was judicially murdered - from the age of 18 he ordered others executed - but I don't think he did it.

Indeed, I don't think there's any clear evidence that the boys died in his reign or at all.

The biggest clue that he did NOT do it is surely that he left Edward of Warwick (the THIRD nephew) alive even though the boyhad as good a claim to the throne as Edward's sons - they were illegitimate, Edward of Warwick was attainted. Yet he did not murder Warwick but treated him with honour.

Family loyalty and his own honour were Richard's lifelong creeds. Even those devoted to the black legend have to admit that and find his actions in 1485 inconsistent with his character otherwise. However, he emerges most consistently if you look at things this way:

a) on the death of Edward IV (and it has been argued that the Wydeville's poisioned him) his wife's family tried to take control of the government;

b) without question they tried to get Edward V tio London quickly for an early coronation - why? The council protested at the large armed escort that they wanted to bring from Ludlow to London.

c) they attempted to ambush Richard near Northampton - not far from the grey seat at Bradgate - but he eluded them and arrested the ringleaders. Note that he later showed wagons of weapons with the Wydeville arms he had taken from them.

d) Elizabeth dashed for sanctuary on hearing the news. Why? What had she to fear from Richard? Unless she had a guilty conscience?

e) In London Richard treated the new King with honour and preparations for the coronation proceeded.

Now, I believe Richard was then faced with a shocking fait accompli - irrefutable evidence that Edward IV's children were illegitimate in the eyes of law and the church. Whether you agree or not, I'd ask you to just think - if thet were the case - what should Richard have done?

The options it seems to me are;

i) to let things go ahead, Edward V be crowned and ANOINTED and ignore Stillington's testimony. Would that not be against all morality, law and put a false king on the throne? What if the facts came out later? How secure would be Edward V's position given that recent kings had been deposed and a civil war was in living memory? The house of york was scarce settled on the throne so might it be toppled off by a Buckinham or a Tudor given that they could allege the King was not legitimate?

ii) try to sort the matter out - but there was no way of legitimising Edward IV's brood;

iii) seek the advice of Council (Parliament could not be called in the absence of a crowned king) and church - there is evidence that that is precisely what Richard did;

iv) the state, after discussion then agreed that the boys were barred from ascending the throne, and turned to Richard.

Hastings, as I have said in an earlier post, may well have attracted the wrath of Richard AND THE COUNCIL when it transpired that he had covered up the facts for decades and sought to have the illegitimate boy crowned so as to protect his own position. Would that not be treason?

NOW is all that not entirely consistent with the facts, with Richard's character and presents a believable picture? Far better, I believe, than the convoluted conventional "legend" of a throne lusting Duke who - with no evidence to support it changes from black hat to white on his brother's death?

Happy to go on if you wish, or discuss anything of what i have written.

Phil

[Phil H]

On a separate point, you wrote:

I grew up reading Alison Weir and Desmond Seward's books, respectively Princes In The Tower and Richard III England's Dark Legend back in the late eighties and early nineties as a teenager so I do tend to take a dim view of Richard.

Many of the standard works are anti-Richard. A corrective, though now dated, is Paul Murrey Kendall's superb biography.

More recent, but pro-Richard are Peter A Hancock's: Richard III and the Murder in the Tower (2009) and Annette Carson's: Richard III - The Maligned King (2008) - both in paperback. I have also enjoyed Josephine Wilkinson's: Richard - The Young King Tto Be (2009) A second volume on his kingship will appear later in the year.

Tey is, of course, a classic, but now dated and always overly fervent in arguing the case FOR Richard (as Gordon Daviot she also wrote a stage play called "Dickon"). Both are based on the work of Sir Clements Markham (1906)who is as anti Henry VII as others were anti Richard.

By all means enjoy Tey but beware of her special pleading (I say that as a "pro"-Ricrdian!!!).

Expect more RIII books now his body has been found - either new or revised editions. The "funeral" will be in 2014 - so authors will have their eyes on that date.

Phil

[Semper_Eadem]

Hey Phil,
I havn't read Tey since 1990. It was just the first book I read on Richard. Weir's book Princes In The Tower is very fair to Richard.

I'll have to give the books you mentioned a look though. Yes Richard will have a new funeral so 2014 is indeed a good date for more books to be coming out.

Really though I haven't read anything on Richard to change my mind evidence wise. I don't think Buckingham did it and tried to blame Richard even if Buckingham did supposedly chose the attendants of the Princes and had a claim to the throne which he did. Really what we need to happen is to positively identify the remains of those bones in the urn at Westminster. As if that is going to happen.

I think Richard was the one who replaced those attendants when he had the boys declared Bastards. I think the Woodvilles and Hastings worked to restore the boys and Hastings had his head cut off for it. The Woodvilles were driven to ground and kept a low profile leaving Elizabeth Woodville in a very difficult situation. Anyways the Woodville-Hastings plans to liberate the boys or what ever they were planning ended up basically signing the boys death warrants.

Anyways thanks for the info on the books.
Geo~

[Semper_Eadem]

Just to add~
You make very good case on your first reply post, Phil. Probably better then mine for Richards guilt. I did not know you had written anything on Richard. I'd like to read any of it if I could. I'll talk Richard III or anything else Cousin Wars or the Hundred Wars.

[Phil H]

I respect your view - but some questions:

a) why would Richard kill the boys?

b) why kill the boys and not Edward of Warwick?

c) where is the evidence the boys ever died in the period in question?

d) if the Wydevilles and Hastings DID try to reinstate Edward V - would that not have been treason since parliament had declared them illegitimate?

e) where is the evidence that Richard ever plotted schemed or desired to take the throne before it was offered to him - rather than acceding to events?

f) who had more to fear from the boys - Richard III or Henry VII?

g) if it was so evident that the boys were dead - why did Henry VII not make more of it after Bosworth? Why did he not rebury them in state?

There are more but those will do. I can answer them all straightforwardly and without special pleading - can you?

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil H,

You are obcviously very knowledgable on this subject..and I saw a reference, I believe a Sky News report a few days ago, wondering if King Richard III would have been subject to "treatment" for his scoliosis on a rack.

I am on unsure ground here, but I believe the rack came to Englnad from mainland europe in the 15th C? I could well be wrong. It may have been the 14th C

Can you confirm, or deny that the rack was in use in England at the time of King Richard III?

Many thanks


Phil

[Phil H]

I'll check my sources. I think there was a rack in The Tower - it was called the Duke of Exeter's daughter.

In the meantime, from Wikipedia:

The Duke of Exeter's daughter was a torture rack in the Tower of London. Its presence is said to have been due to John Holland, 2nd Duke of Exeter, the constable of the Tower in 1447, whence it got its name.

Blackstone wrote in c. 1765 (Commentaries, ii. sec. 326):


The trial by rack is utterly unknown to the law of England, though once when the dukes of Exeter and Suffolk, and other ministers of Henry VI, had laid a design to introduce the civil (i.e. Roman) law into the kingdom as the rule of government, for a beginning thereof they erected a rack for torture, which was called in derision the Duke of Exeter's daughter, and still remains in the Tower of London. Where in Queen Elizabeth's reign it was used as an engine of state, not of law, more than once . But when in the reign of Charles I, upon the assassination of George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, by John Felton, it was proposed in the privy council to put the assassin to the rack, in order to discover his accomplices, the judges being consulted, declared unanimously that no such proceeding was allowable by the laws of England.


Hope that helps,

phil

[Phil Carter]

I'll check my sources. I think there was a rack in The Tower - it was called the Duke of Exeter's daughter.

In the meantime, from Wikipedia:

The Duke of Exeter's daughter was a torture rack in the Tower of London. Its presence is said to have been due to John Holland, 2nd Duke of Exeter, the constable of the Tower in 1447, whence it got its name.

Blackstone wrote in c. 1765 (Commentaries, ii. sec. 326):


The trial by rack is utterly unknown to the law of England, though once when the dukes of Exeter and Suffolk, and other ministers of Henry VI, had laid a design to introduce the civil (i.e. Roman) law into the kingdom as the rule of government, for a beginning thereof they erected a rack for torture, which was called in derision the Duke of Exeter's daughter, and still remains in the Tower of London. Where in Queen Elizabeth's reign it was used as an engine of state, not of law, more than once . But when in the reign of Charles I, upon the assassination of George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, by John Felton, it was proposed in the privy council to put the assassin to the rack, in order to discover his accomplices, the judges being consulted, declared unanimously that no such proceeding was allowable by the laws of England.


Hope that helps,

phil

Hello Phil H

Many thanks..look forward to any additional info if there is any.

Appreciate the time and effort used.


Phil

[Semper_Eadem]

I respect your view - but some questions:

a) why would Richard kill the boys?
Because there were numerous plots by the Wydeville Faction to free them. Also evidence, they disappeared right after the Hastings/Wydeville plot was uncovered by Richard III and Buckingham.

b) why kill the boys and not Edward of Warwick?
Good Question I have wondered that myself. I think because Edward of Warwick was not perceived as a threat by Richard, yet he was by Henry Tudor or so most historians would believe. I think because Edward Of Warwick was more easily manipulated then his cousins the two Princes. I know there had been rumors that Edward of Warwick was an idiot but nothing in the early sources to conform this. Still I think Warwick might of been more malleable then his cousins and also we should take into account that Richard might of been saving Warwick's death for later on.

c) where is the evidence the boys ever died in the period in question?
No, except for those bones found in the tower, I know if could be argued that those aren't the bones of the Princes. We need more tests on those bones. Really all we have only that they disappeared, still they did disappear, where did they go? I know people at the time thought they were dead. Why did not Richard counteract these rumors and show the Princes to the populace. He did not which leads me and other to perceive that they were already dead.

d) if the Wydevilles and Hastings DID try to reinstate Edward V - would that not have been treason since parliament had declared them illegitimate? Not if the said act of Parliament was overturned immediately by Edward V. Seems to me that the princes were very popular with the southern lords and they had a strong following in the southern counties. I believe that some of the Northern lord might of bulked at overturning the act of Parliament given that a lot of them were loyal to Richard III. Richard was highly regarded in the north.

e) where is the evidence that Richard ever plotted schemed or desired to take the throne before it was offered to him - rather than acceding to events? Another good question. I think he saw how events were unfolding and knew enough to spin events to his own advantage. The man was a master of spin.

f) who had more to fear from the boys - Richard III or Henry VII?
Actually think both had a lot to fear from the boys equally. Richard had usurped their throne, or was believed to. The same could be said for Henry Tudor, later Henry VII as he had taken the throne from Richard III and married the boys sister Elizabeth of York, yet Henry and Richard only had anything to fear if it was proven that the boys were legitimate. You right that Henry didn't even know if they were dead or not. During the 1490 he had to deal with all those pretenders.

g) if it was so evident that the boys were dead - why did Henry VII not make more of it after Bosworth? Why did he not rebury them in state?
Because Henry did not know that they were dead. He thought so but his actions show that even he was not certain. Only time proved that they were dead. Those pretenders going around like the woman claiming to be Anastasia a few years ago certainly didn't help matters any. One of them even managed to convince Margaret Of York, the Princes aunt, that he was her long lost nephew.

There are more but those will do. I can answer them all straightforwardly and without special pleading - can you? Yes, I gave it the old College try.

Phil[/QUOTE]

[Phil H]

a) Because there were numerous plots by the Wydeville Faction to free them.

Numerous - I am aware of a possible reference to ONE attempt.

they disappeared right after the Hastings/Wydeville plot was uncovered by Richard III and Buckingham.

Disappearance, with respect, is NOT proof of murder. They could have been taken to the low countries, to the north, to a safe house?

b) why kill the boys and not Edward of Warwick?
Good Question

LOL

I have wondered that myself. I think because Edward of Warwick was not perceived as a threat by Richard, yet he was by Henry Tudor or so most historians would believe.

But after the boys he was a better claimant than Richard - but tainted as the boys were (though in a different way). Richard treated him kindly.

Note that the boys were a BIGGER threat to Henry than Richard. Under Richard they wetre illegitimate by law. Henry repealed Titulus Regius to make their sister legitimate and thus able to be his queen. That AT ONCE made the boys legitimate too!!!

I think because Edward Of Warwick was more easily manipulated then his cousins the two Princes.

in 1483-85? I know he was regarded as "simple" ten years later, but he had been imprisoned all that time. He was free under Richard.

Still I think Warwick might of been more malleable then his cousins and also we should take into account that Richard might of been saving Warwick's death for later on.

Nothing but bad can be thought of Richard in your eyes it seems. There is absolutely no proof of that whatsoever - and if I might say so, it hardly shows an impartial approach.

Henry VII (and Henry VIII) were the ones who murdered people - especially Yorkists. Richard cam to the throne almost bloodlessly (Hastings, Rivers, grey and vaughn apart, and the latter three were all properly tried). Look at the list of Tudor victims.

c) where is the evidence the boys ever died in the period in question?

No, except for those bones found in the tower,

If you study their history they were NOT the only bones found and nothing in their discovery associates them particularly with the boys.

I know if could be argued that those aren't the bones of the Princes. We need more tests on those bones.

But they won't happen.

Really all we have only that they disappeared, still they did disappear, where did they go?

Well, Henry VII did not seem to be sure they were dead - consider his response to Perkin Warbeck - not impossibly the younger boy (Richard). So why should we assume more than HE did - he had access to more sources. There is a tomb supposed to be that of Richard too.

I know people at the time thought they were dead.

Rumour and gossip - if you look at the way the news spread during the 1483 rebellion, there is something strange.

Why did not Richard counteract these rumors and show the Princes to the populace.

That begs an important question - if he knew they were alive and had sent them away for their own safety - producing them could have put them at risk. Richard was not afraid to be up front - his denial of intent to marry Elizabeth shows that. He knew they were alive, so too did many of his supporters, no doubt.

Further, by late 1483, the political landscape had changed. Tudor's commitment to marry Elizabeth meant that the boys were MORE at risk by that time, not less - from the Wydeville/Tudor faction.

Finally, on this point - Richard may have intended to bring them back to court in safer times - and re-instate them in positions of honour. His death
only two years later may have prevented that. He did not know that he would never be able to clear his name. Consider too that the Lieutenant of the Tower (Brackenbury) who was in a position to know, surely - died with Richard at Bosworth - would he have shown such loyalty if Richard was a known killer of boys?

d) Not if the said act of Parliament was overturned immediately by Edward V.

But Edward V could not have been king until/unless the act was repealed!!!

Seems to me that the princes were very popular with the southern lords and they had a strong following in the southern counties.

if you study the politics of the 1483 rising - the real cause of complaint was the replacement of Edward IV's southern household, and those who expected to continue in office under his son, with Richard's northeners. the boys were a rallying cry - the rebellion began BEFORE it was rumoured they were dead.

e) Another good question.

I think he saw how events were unfolding and knew enough to spin events to his own advantage. The man was a master of spin.

On what do you base those comments. Where was Richard EVER "master of spin"? You also avoid an answer - you ignored the question I posed.

Richard had usurped their throne, or was believed to.

NOPE!! The equivalent of parliament offered him the crown, in precisely the same way as Edward IV was offered it in 1461 - but with a greater number of peers etc participating. If Richard was a usurper so was Edward IV and thus Edward V would be too. You ASSUME that Richard made up the illegitimacy - not so.

The same could be said for Henry Tudor, later Henry VII as he had taken the throne from Richard III and married the boys sister Elizabeth of York, yet Henry and Richard only had anything to fear if it was proven that the boys were legitimate.

Parliament had satisfied itself they were not. They had heard the evidence. Why should that change?

g) Because Henry did not know that they were dead.

But he had Catesby to talk to after Bosworth? He got a confession out of Tyrell later - why not sooner/ Many of those in a position to know were available to him - did he not ask?

One of them even managed to convince Margaret Of York, the Princes aunt, that he was her long lost nephew.

Maybe he was!! Have you considered that? Warbeck never made a false step.

By the way - My current favourite for killer - if there was one - is lady Margaret Beaufort: Henry's mother.

Phil

[Semper_Eadem]

"Note that the boys were a BIGGER threat to Henry than Richard. Under Richard they wetre illegitimate by law. Henry repealed Titulus Regius to make their sister legitimate and thus able to be his queen. That AT ONCE made the boys legitimate too"

I am aware of that.


Nothing but bad can be thought of Richard in your eyes it seems. There is absolutely no proof of that whatsoever - and if I might say so, it hardly shows an impartial approach.
You might be right on that. I do tend to think he got caught up in all the craziness at the time. I think that Richard basically sat down and decided that to protect himself from the Woodvilles and his own nephew Edward V, who was brought up by Anthony Woodville, the Queen's brother that he was going to take the throne and that he would do anything to hold on to the throne.

"
If you study their history they were NOT the only bones found and nothing in their discovery associates them particularly with the boys." They were found under some stairs at the tower in 1674 in the reign of Charles II, who certainly thought they were the bones of the Princes. I do think those bones need to be re examined.

I wish Richard had shown the Princes to the Public.

As I have said I tend to think Richard was guilty if for nothing else by association because the Princes disappeared while in his custody. However it is possible that he did move them to somewhere in the north and that he was killed before he could show the Princes off to the Public. I just don't think so however you are right I need to keep an open mind on Richard. I just think he is guilty and I think people living in London back then thought he was guilty and that he did nothing to nix the rumors that he was guilty for various reasons which makes me think he was guilty. Because he could not produce the Princes to the populace to confound the rumors even when Tudor was threatening to invade from Brittany. If I was in his shoes that is when I would of produced the Princes. If for nothing else to frustrate Tudors ambitions. But that is what I would do.

Lady Margaret make a good suspect, she certainly is a master of spin in that she used the rumors of the Princes death to her advantage and her son's. Even if she didn't kill them.

Another good suspect is Buckingham. Although the motive assigned to him for murdering the Princes, that he wanted Richard to be blamed, so he Buckingham could take the throne is kind of iffy in my book. I suppose its possible.

I still stick with Richard, even though you made a very good argument. But I am a bit more open to the other suspects. Shoot for all we know Jane Shore nee Elizabeth Lambert might of snuck them princes out of the tower and Richard was keeping quiet about it until he could hunt them down. Which he never did. Say they were going to their aunt in Burgundy and got captured by pirate and ended up being sold as slaves in the Muslim East! Except for Jane/Elizabeth Shore marrying Lynom the King's Solicitor its an interesting theory I thought about making a novel of in my teen years.

There is an interesting theory that Edward II escaped Berkley Castle and died in Italy that I tend to think happened.

[Semper_Eadem]

I do want to add that while I do tend to think Richard guilty of the Princes deaths, I do give him the benefit of doubt on murdering Henry VI. So I am capable of an open mind.

[Phil H]

The evidence for the survival of Edward II appears over whelming. Paul Doherty has written an accessible book on the subject and it is covered in Ian Mortimer's The Greatest Traitor. Shoukld you be interested.

On Richard III, I'd just wish to see a level playing-field viz a viz the Tudor's - successful but the bloodiest set of villains ever. Henry VII was a cold-blooded monster.

Yet Richard III - as you show in all your posts - is (on no good evidence, simply prejudice) assumed to be guilty of every possible evil.

Hearsay is all you can go on. Oh, and the opinion of Charles II, who for all his many gifts, was as far as I know, no historian!! Sorry about the sarcasm.

Tacitus, the Roman historian, assumed that how a man turned out must always have fitted his true character. So a Tiberius or Nero must always have been evil. Thank heavens we have moved away from such simplicity in historical interpretation.

Except it appears where Richard III is concerned. He ends up taking the throne in 1483, so every action in the previous months must have been aimed at that. Nonsense. It might equally be true - on the evidence is more likely - that Richard was faced with a situation he could not ignore and events took their course. But, while the Wydeville many, evident and demonstrable villanies in that same period will be condoned and excused, Richard is not allowed the benefit of the doubt.... bad logic and bad scholarship.

I cannot support historical interpretation based on emotionalism (he killed kids) and double-standards (one measure for the Tudors another for Richard.

Richard's life and character bore witness to loyalty and a belief in fairness and good government throughout (with the possible exception of some events in 1483 - the arrest and exeuction of the Wydevilles and Hastings). The leniency he showed to Stanley - who betrayed him; and to Bishop Morton is striking but ignored. Similar actions by Henry VII and VIII are justified, but Richard is given no benefit of the doubt.

And the same shoddy thought-processes go on and on unchallenged. Well, not by me!

Phil