The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > British Royal History

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 04-24-2012, 10:11 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421

Before the marriage between Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York was arranged (and the final terms were agreed upon almost right before the battle), Elizabeth Woodville had every right to fear for her life and that of her children. Her children, especially sons, had far better claims to the Throne and would have been of considerable annoyance to Henry Tudor.

I tend to agree with Iluvbertie and Marsel's points of view; Henry Tudor seems to me a much likelier culprit - and one who had most to gain. In addition, such a brutal act would have been in his character, whereas Richard never showed signs of such aggressive character (disregarding post-battle Tudor propaganda which painted him almost as an Antichrist.).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-02-2012, 06:21 PM
p.annaliesse's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Kingston, Canada
Posts: 11
She may have arranged a marriage to Henry for her daughter but it was to make sure her family was safe. It was fear that drove her, I think. If it wasn't fear then what was stopping her from making an alliance with france, burgundy, italy, spain any of those countries through her children. Had any of her daughters been married off to those countries, any child of that union would have a claim to the english throne. That would make an enemy of england and so a threat. She married Bess off to Henry to keep her children safe, who eventually grew up to be countesses and duchesses as they would have with or without their father/brother/uncle on the throne.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-19-2012, 03:35 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 203
David Baldwin's new biography of Richard III addresses the question of the Princes in the Tower. The evidence for anyone's guilt is fragmentary

The Medieval Book Reviews 4: Richard III: A Life by David Baldwin | Carolyn Harris: Royal Historian
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-01-2013, 07:24 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,947
The White Queen by Philippa Gregory (The book, not the movie)

I am almost finished with this book and had a question for those that have read it and/or are familiar with the Princes in the Tower. In the book Elizabeth secretly sends her son Richard off to live with a family and brings in a young boy to take his place. He goes into the tower with Edward. I've never heard of this theory before! Can anyone shed light on it? I'm also under the impression that the author feels King Richard was not behind the murder of her sons. I would love to hear what others think.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-10-2013, 05:51 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 9,775
The White Queen - What happened to the Princes in the Tower?

BBC History - The White Queen - What happened to the Princes in the Tower?
__________________
December 5th,2014 -Death of H.M.Queen Fabiola of Belgium
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-10-2013, 09:54 AM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,773
I think this is one of the most fascinating and enduring historical mysteries today; it just really fires the imagination.

If anyone is interested in the work of Jack Lesau and how he purportedly discovered clues of the older Prince Richard living in disguise in Sir Thomas More's household, take a look at this link of Hans Holbein's portrait of Sir Thomas' family. Holbein supposedly knew Richard's identity and purportedly left clues in the painting. Interesting in terms of symbolism and art.

Lesau also believed that Edward V survived as well as Sir Edward Guilford.

SIR THOMAS MORE AND THE PRINCES IN THE TOWER
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-12-2013, 12:36 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,370
Richard had the means the access the motive, but he was also loyal to his brother so why would he kill his sons.

Henry had the motive but no access or means, according to those on this thread he has the personality to do it but he wasn't in the country.

Buckingham don't know a lot about him but from the little I have read he had means access and motive; did he have the personality?

Elizabeth Woodville's actions; she is said to have remained friendly with Richard, yet formed an alliance with Margaret Beaufort to marry EoY to Henry and unite the 2 houses. Both acts doesn't point to her thinking either of them had something to do with their disappearance. I don't know where I heard this, but someone said her wanting Elizabeth to marry Henry is a sign that she knew her sons were gone.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-12-2013, 12:51 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Richard had the means the access the motive, but he was also loyal to his brother so why would he kill his sons.
I would question some of this loyalty...

While he was loyal to Edward IV in life, Richard had no problem with displacing his brother's two sons, having all of his brother's children declared illegitimate, and proclaiming himself king. To me, he almost seems more like an opportunist than loyal. He knew while his brother was alive that any disloyalty could, and likely would, result in his death - which is what happened to George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence, the brother who did commit treason (or was convicted of doing so) during Edward IV's reign.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-12-2013, 02:29 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
England had just spent over 150 years at war, including nearly 30 due in part to the King having come to the throne as a minor. It is no wonder then that they parliament (yes they had one then) loathed the idea of another minor.

It should also be noted that the reason why the princes were taken to the tower was because it was from there that the new monarch set out for his coronation so it wasn't the sinister set up many ascribe.

That the strong men of the country wanted another strong man to lead them isn't evidence of disloyalty to the princes but good sense at the time.

I would describe him as a pragmatist.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-12-2013, 03:23 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,377
I would agree that he was pragmatic, but I still think he was also opportunistic. He realized that England didn't need a boy king at the time, and he bargained on parliament agreeing. The fact that the Woodvilles weren't particularly popular would have also helped; Richard was able to take advantage of a less than ideal situation and for a time at least spin it his way. Thus, both pragmatic and opportunistic.

Still not exactly loyal; if he had been loyal to his brother I think he would have tried to find a way to gain control of his nephews without usurping the crown. If he had been established as regent he could have been a very powerful man, just not as powerful as the king. Richard wanted more and took advantage of the opportunity.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-12-2013, 03:31 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
He had control of his nephews as their protector and guardian. He was the one who ensure they were in the tower. A regency wasn't a real option as it had failed massively with Henry VI resulting in the Wars of the Roses as Henry was manipulated one way and another.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-12-2013, 03:51 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,377
I agree that he had power and control. I also agree that a regency wouldn't have been all that great. In English history regencies have a tendency of not being all that great.

That said, pre-usurping the throne Richard had power and control. He feasibly could have influenced Edward V into being the type of monarch that Richard thought the boy could have been. He had keeping Edward on the throne type options available to him.

He also had putting himself on the throne type options available. I think in the end he chose what he felt was both good for England and good for himself.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-12-2013, 10:12 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,370
Edward V was 14 right? That means he would come of age in just 4yrs that is not that long for a regency. Plus wasn't it Edward III who was under a 4yr regency as well? I think the problem with Henry VI wasnt his regrncy as a child but his mental problems as an adult.
Sorry but I think Richard just wanted to be king.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-12-2013, 11:15 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
Edward V was 12eee so 6 years and thus a power vacuum. They weren't keen on another regency. How much the situation as a child with Henry VI led to his later mental issues will never be known. Edward V was also known to be more sickly than his younger brother so there was a chance that he wouldn't have lived to 18 anyway meaning a longer regency and the very concept was still newish.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-13-2013, 12:54 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,370
So because of a bunch of could woulda shoulda's a rightful king looses his throne? Whether he was a child or not it was rightfully his and no one had a right to take it from him. This is why I disregard the idea that Richard couldn't have killed the prince's because he was proclaimed King. Anyone at that time who was King of England was in danger of having it taken from them, especially by a boy who was the son of a king who grew up to be a man who was the son of a king.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-20-2014, 04:33 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 1,530
If Richard, Duke of Gloucester, had not been made Protector of the Kingdom, would he still have been able to put Edward V and Richard, Duke of York in the Tower of London?
In The Kings and Queens of Great Britain, Ian Crofton wrote:

The young prince (King Edward V) was left to the tender mercies of his ambitious uncle, Richard, duke of Gloucester.

How would the mercies of Richard have been "tender"?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-21-2014, 12:14 AM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
If Richard, Duke of Gloucester, had not been made Protector of the Kingdom, would he still have been able to put Edward V and Richard, Duke of York in the Tower of London?
At that time (1483) the Tower of London was the second-most important Royal Palace in England after Westminster, and was the working "office" of the monarchy. Council meetings were held there, the armory was there, the Treasury and Mint were there etc. and even the Royal Menagerie was there. Over 300 people lived there full-time and over 1000 worked there. Kings and Queens Consort were expected to reside there in the Royal Apartments in the days before their coronations and in fact this tradition continued through the reign of Charles II. Young Edward was placed in the Royal Apartments as a prelude to his planned coronation and his brother was brought to join him. After their parents' marriage was proven bigamous and Richard III was elected King by Parliament they were moved out of the royal apartments to another house in the Tower. What became of them after that is really not known to us, despite much later speculation. One thing is clear though - none of those 1000 or so people who were in the Tower every day saw or heard anything suspicious or Henry VII would have trumpeted it from his throne to prove they were dead.

Later, in 1503, their older sister Elizabeth, Henry VII's Queen, gave birth to her last child in the Tower but died shortly afterward of childbed fever on her 37th birthday after being moved to Richmond. The Tower ceased to be a royal residence soon afterwards.

It wasn't until the time of the Tudors that the Tower became infamous more as a prison than palace: the "princes'" first cousins Edward Earl of Warwick and Margaret Countess of Salisbury losing their heads due to their Plantagenet royal blood under Henry VII and Henry VIII - Warwick after being held in close solitary confinement from the age of 10 (shortly after Bosworth) until his execution at the age of 24 and Margaret butchered by an inept executioner at the age of 69.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-21-2014, 08:52 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 208
Nobody saw or heard anything because the boys were murdered, probably by Tyrell, on Richard's orders, and this occurred most probably, in the middle of the night.

If Richard was such a loving uncle why were all young Edward's attendants removed after the death of Hastings? Dr John Argentine, the last of those attendants, reported that the young King, 'like a vctim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him.'
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-26-2014, 11:06 PM
Ana Von Cleves's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: henderson, United States
Posts: 45
The phrase "tender mercies" is always meant facetiously,
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Princess Benedikte & Prince Richard zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg: 1968 SpiffyBallerina Royal Weddings 16 11-30-2014 05:04 PM
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Miss Birgitte van Deurs: 8 July 1972 Scott Royal Weddings 15 11-20-2014 11:41 AM
Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones: 19 June 1999 Solange Royal Weddings 117 05-17-2014 10:28 PM
Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, eldest son of Edward VII (1864-1892) tiaraprin British Royal History 186 04-07-2014 05:41 PM
Edward, Prince of Wales and Princess Alexandra of Denmark - 1863 windsorbrides1 Historical Royal Weddings 20 01-19-2014 07:51 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:01 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]