Richard III (1452-1485): Discovery of Remains and Reburial

[An Ard Ri]

Not being familiar with The War of the Roses, could someone explain simply why Henry Tudor had a claim to the throne? I know he was descended from Catherine of Valois and later married the sister of the Princes in the tower, but as far as I can tell he had no descent from the Platagents

I believe it was through the line of his mother,Lady Margaret Beaufort,who was a descendant of Edward III .

 

[Artemisia]

Not being familiar with The War of the Roses, could someone explain simply why Henry Tudor had a claim to the throne? I know he was descended from Catherine of Valois and later married the sister of the Princes in the tower, but as far as I can tell he had no descent from the Platagents

Henry's father, Edmund Tudor was indeed the son of Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor and thus half-brother to Henry VI.

Henry Tudor was, however, of Plantagenet line though his mother, Margaret Beaufort as a great-great-great-grandson of Edward III of England:
Edward III -> John of Gaunt -> John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset -> John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset -> Lady Margaret Beaufort -> Henry Tudor

The War of Roses saw most of those who had solid claims to the Throne murdered on the battlefield or executed so although there were several people with better claims to the Throne by rules of primogeniture, Henry's claims by blood weren't too shabby either. The only problem is, Henry Tudor couldn't have any claims to the Throne from the legal point of view: Margaret Beaufort may have been a great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt but it was through an illegitimate line. John of Gaunt (third surviving son of Edward III) had a bunch of children with his mistress Katherine Swynford. He later married Katherine and an Act of Parliament legitimised those children. However, a subsequent Act specifically barred them or any of their descendants from ever ascending to the Throne of England.

Basically, Henry's claim to the Throne was by right of conquest and supported by a royal lineage, not unlike that of William the Conqueror.

 

[Muhler]

The War of Roses saw most of those who had solid claims to the Throne murdered on the battlefield or executed so although there were several people with better claims to the Throne by rules of primogeniture, Henry's claims by blood weren't too shabby either. The only problem is, Henry Tudor couldn't have any claims to the Throne from the legal point of view: Margaret Beaufort may have been a great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt but it was through an illegitimate line. John of Gaunt (third surviving son of Edward III) had a bunch of children with his mistress Katherine Swynford. He later married Katherine and an Act of Parliament legitimised those children. However, a subsequent Act specifically barred them or any of their descendants from ever ascending to the Throne of England.

Basically, Henry's claim to the Throne was by right of conquest and supported by a royal lineage, not unlike that of William the Conqueror.

Which is probably also why the Tudors, with the aide of Shakespeare, were so busy tarnishing the image of Richard III.
It was seen as justifiable to overthrow a tyrant in medieval time, but an otherwise legal king.... That was from a moral standpoint a bit harder to justify!
Which is why all rebels or usurpers, no matter what, made sure to declare the king a tyrant - or at least that the king had been misguided or put under the spell of someone else.

I don't think Richard III was an innocent little lamb, but perhaps he wasn't so bad as his legacy suggests.

 

[Kataryn]

Maybe there is truth in it that his eldest brother was not his father's son and Richard knew that. Surely he didn't want to blame his mother in public - in medieval times a mother and a lady who had been a "Royal womb" could get away with close to anything. As things were, his brother secured the victory for the Yorkists and thus Richard supported him. Maybe he really believed either that his brother hab been plight trothed to another lady when he married Elizabeth Woodville. Thus after his brother's death he might have felt that it was in fact himself who had the best claim to the throne and enforced titulus regius. When Henry Tudor contested his kingship he might have wanted to enforce a final confrontation in order to secure his claim once and for all, believing that if he really was the rightful king, then the Lord would protect him.

Just an idea, though.

 

[Duchess of Durham]

Last year I read "Stolen Crown: The Secret Marriage that Forever Changed the Fate of England" https://mynook.barnesandnoble.com/read.html?k=Stolen-Crown/Susan-Higginbotham&ean=9781402247019by Susan Higginbotham - it was free on the Nook so figured what the heck. Had no idea how handy it would be to me now as the book is about Elizabeth Woodville's marriage to Edward IV and included the aftermath of Edward's death.

Obviously I am no expert on this period of English history, though am now fascinated. Any thoughts on what would have happened to England had the two princes not been declared illegitimate and disappeared?

Any theories on who was ultimately responsible for their disappearance? IIRC, Richard was instrumental in getting them declared illegitimate, I'm not sure he really would have had his nephews killed.

This is probably the biggest historical find we are likely to see in our lifetime, which makes it so intriguing for me.

 

[NGalitzine]

Well, perhaps as at least one author suggests, Richard the III was a man of honour and as such a poor politician, who actually trusted people to stand by their word.

Hmmmm, if Richard was indeed responsible for the Princes in the Tower and for their death then perhaps "man of honour" is not the most apt description of the man.

 

[Artemisia]

Obviously I am no expert on this period of English history, though am now fascinated. Any thoughts on what would have happened to England had the two princes not been declared illegitimate and disappeared?

It's really hard to predict what would have happened if the Princes in the Tower didn't die and sired children. In all probability, the Tudors would never come anywhere near the Throne. That might mean the Reformation would never take place and England would still be a Catholic country. The English Revolution, the Act of Settlement, the British Empire, the progresses and outcomes of both World Wars - all of that could have been different for better or for worse.

Any theories on who was ultimately responsible for their disappearance? IIRC, Richard was instrumental in getting them declared illegitimate, I'm not sure he really would have had his nephews killed.

You might want to have a look at this thread - Edward V (1470-1483?) and Prince Richard (1473-1483?): the Princes in the Tower. Some of the posts deal with possible culprits; the likeliest candidates are Henry Tudor, the Duke of Buckingham, Margaret Beaufort and of course Richard III.

 

[Muhler]

Hmmmm, if Richard was indeed responsible for the Princes in the Tower and for their death then perhaps "man of honour" is not the most apt description of the man.

Indeed, the same author, Christopher Gravett, suggests Richard III may have had serious problems with the rumours about the princes in regards to his (few) genuine allies.
But honourable in the sense that he was a man who stood by his word, once given. He was IMO no doubt perfectly able and willing to be as ruthless and brutal as anyone else.

It would be fantastic if they ever found the remains of the Princes.

 

[Artemisia]

It would be fantastic if they ever found the remains of the Princes.

They probably have. In 1789 coffins of two small children were found in the Tower.
Unfortunately, the Church and the Queen won't allow any testing on the remains to determine whether they belong to the Princes or not.

 

[Emmily]

They probably have. In 1789 coffins of two small children were found in the Tower.
Unfortunately, the Church and the Queen won't allow any testing on the remains to determine whether they belong to the Princes or not.

Have they said why they won't allow the testing?

 

[Artemisia]

Have they said why they won't allow the testing?

The Westminster Abbey (where the boys' bones are now) won't allow the tests on the basis that it could create a precedent for testing unlimited number of historical theories on all the famous people buried in the Church. Another reason is the fear the results will prove the boys are not in fact the Princes; obviously, they are, the bones will be put back but what will they do if the remains are of unknown people?

Why the Queen never gave her permission is not known but the Monarch's consent is required for any testing of any interred Royal (or suspected royal, as it were).

 

[Artemisia]

To bury Richard III in Westminster Abbey would finally give a proper national resting place to our most unfairly maligned monarch of all
I have a suggestion to make: the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the disinterment of the remains of King Richard III from under a car park in Leicester offer a superb opportunity to reconnect this country with its past. The Government — which is so keen to re-establish history at the forefront of the curriculum — should grasp this moment to light the imagination of the nation, by holding a state funeral for Richard III at Westminster Abbey. Instead of being treated like the remains of some Egyptian pharaoh and subjected to endless scientific tests, the bones of the last English monarch to die in battle now must be treated with dignity and venerated properly, as is only right for a former head of state.

500 years on, the grisly secrets of Richard III's lost grave are revealed: King discovered under car park was stripped, tied up and suffered 'humiliation wounds' after his death
To great fanfare and cheers, scientists yesterday announced to the world that the skeleton found under a council car park in Leicester is that of Richard III. It was, they said, a historic moment, finally ending the centuries-old mystery of what happened to the body of the last Plantagenet king. But the best was to come. Academics were also able to reveal details of how one of the nation’s most controversial monarchs met his end – and how appallingly he was treated in death after defeat at the hands of Henry VII at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. Stripped naked with his hands tied, and scarred by multiple ‘humiliation wounds’ inflicted as his body was paraded through Leicester, Richard III was dumped in a shallow grave with no coffin or shroud.

I really hope he suffered one of the fatal blows and didn't have to go through all those humiliations.

 

[Muhler]

The Westminster Abbey (where the boys' bones are now) won't allow the tests on the basis that it could create a precedent for testing unlimited number of historical theories on all the famous people buried in the Church. Another reason is the fear the results will prove the boys are not in fact the Princes; obviously, they are, the bones will be put back but what will they do if the remains are of unknown people?

Why the Queen never gave her permission is not known but the Monarch's consent is required for any testing of any interred Royal (or suspected royal, as it were).

That's a pity.

I don't understand the attitude however. Surely it's important to know, if possible, who is actually buried where. That IMO should go before disturbing the peace of the grave.
And I cannot imagine in our time that it would deminish the importance of the cathedral, should the remains turn out to not being that of the two Princes.
They would simply be reburied as unknowns then, with all due respect, I would imagine.

QMII gave her consent to exhume and examine the remains of a skeleton found under the floor of a church (in Jellinge to exact), some years ago. The remains were presumed to be that of King Gorm the Old, and the investigations confirmed that the person fitted the physical and age description of the king and also that he was in all likelihood buried in 958. Again fitting the contemporary information.
So he was reburied and the body is now officially considered to be that of the first in the line of Danish kings. (Which is not entirely correct, as there were kings of all of Denmark, or parts of it, depending on the political situation at the time, before King Gorm the Old).
QMII did not submit DNA for testing, and the technique wasn't that developed then anyway, I presume.
That would have been interesting as QMII is claimed to belong to the same (extended) family as Gorm the Old.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Richard III to be re-interred in major ceremony at Leicester Cathedral


Richard III to be re-interred in major ceremony at Leicester Cathedral - Telegraph

 

[rominet09]

I really hope we will see plenty of pix of the event.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That's a pity.

I don't understand the attitude however. Surely it's important to know, if possible, who is actually buried where. That IMO should go before disturbing the peace of the grave.
And I cannot imagine in our time that it would deminish the importance of the cathedral, should the remains turn out to not being that of the two Princes.
They would simply be reburied as unknowns then, with all due respect, I would imagine.

The Abbey is not a cathedral. Westminster Cathedral is a separate building only about 120 years old while the Abbey dates back to 1066. The Abbey is CoE while the Cathedral is RC.

Disturbing the bones therefore wouldn't concern the cathedral at all as they aren't in the cathedral.

Disturbing bodies for no good reason is anathema to many Christians and The Queen is a devout Christian and sees no good reason to disturb these bodies - her church, her decision.

Westminster Abbey, like St George's Chapel, is a royal peculiar and so The Queen's permission is required to do anything.

 

[Baroness of Books]

Not being familiar with The War of the Roses, could someone explain simply why Henry Tudor had a claim to the throne? I know he was descended from Catherine of Valois and later married the sister of the Princes in the tower, but as far as I can tell he had no descent from the Platagents

It also helped Henry to solidify his hold on the throne by marrying the York princess, Elizabeth of York, who would have inherited the throne upon her brothers' death. Since he reversed the Titulus Regius, she was now the legitimate heiress and marrying her would have established his hold.

I really hope he suffered one of the fatal blows and didn't have to go through all those humiliations.

It's a shame that Henry VII wasn't gracious in his victory and allowed Richard dignity in his death as a defeated monarch, but given that he dated the start of his reign the day before the Bosworth battle he certainly wasn't giving any quarter. He was out for blood, literally!

 

[padams2359]

I am not at all surprised by the world wide interest. The works of William Shakespeare have been translated into almost every language in the world.

 

[Emmily]

For those of you who find the character of Richard III compelling, author Josephine Tey wrote a mystery years ago called THE DAUGHTER OF TIME about Richard's culpability in the disappearance of the Princes. If you are a fan of mysteries, the plot and writing are among my favorites,
Tey situates her detective in hospital, unable to move after injury and he takes a look at the mystery of the Princes in the Tower to keep his mind active. The characters in the supporting cast are well written and the plot compelling - despite the fact that no one is in danger and no one get hurt because the mystery is centuries old. Critics loved the plotting but niggled at the facts as Tey presented them. Even knowing that, to this day this is a favorite rainy day read.

I placed an order for this book after reading your post earlier. I've never heard of this author, but I'm looking forward to reading the book.

 

[fearghas]

It also helped Henry to establish his hold on the throne by marrying the York princess, Elizabeth of York, who would have inherited the throne upon her brothers' death. Since he reversed the Titulus Regius, she was now the legitimate heiress and marrying her would have bolstered his hold.

QUOTE]

And so really it is through her that the tudors, and through them the Stuarts, Hanoverians etc have a legitimate descent.

 

[Baroness of Books]

Yes, and it wouldn't have been wise to leave Elizabeth of York unmarried for another contender to the throne to marry her and fight for her claim to the throne (and consequently his own). And that's why Henry VII had as much motive to murder the Princes as Richard; if they were still alive in the Tower, they would have been legitimate after he reversed Titulus Regius and Edward V would have been the rightful king. Henry would have to dispose of them to clear his path. Would he have reversed the act knowing they were still alive? That begs the question of the ages.

 

[Osipi]

I placed an order for this book after reading your post earlier. I've never heard of this author, but I'm looking forward to reading the book.

So did I. I imagine a lot of people will be looking more into the history of Richard III after this amazing discovery.

I've also ordered a copy of Dante's The Inferno to reread again as that is going to be the subject matter of Dan Brown's new novel due out in May. Ahhh... if only I had this kind of serious interest in history when I was in school.

 

[Baroness of Books]

^^^It's never too late for learning and many times we appreciate later in life those things we scoffed at when we were younger. I've revisited many a book that I blew off in my salad days.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Although it has been said on a separate thread, I think Henry VII killed the Princes in the Tower

 

[Spheno]

I placed an order for this book after reading your post earlier. I've never heard of this author, but I'm looking forward to reading the book.

I like this book too. Really good story.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This was one of the books I had to read at school in 1973/4. Our teacher gave it to us to read and then tried to convince us that Tey was writing hogwash and we turned the tables. Probably the only book I was forced to read in school that I enjoyed - strangely I was a great reader before starting high school but after 6 years of compulsory English and the books we had to read I rarely read any fiction now at all.

 

[wyevale]

'Christian-led but ecumenical [weasel word for multi-faith?] service.
Setting aside the question of the Princes, Richard was a King, a man and therefore a sinner. His burial, according to the evidence, was purfunctory.
Only a proper Requiem Mass, either of the Sarum or York Use, together with full royal honours, as appropriate for his time, will surely do.
The Richard III Soc. should be ashamed of themselves in, having found the body of their Prince, to allow without even a protest, this tawdry mockery of a real service.
"Of your charity, pray for the soul of the Most High and Mighty Prince Richard, the third of that name, our late Sovereign Lord of Most Noble and Famous Memory, sometime King of England and France, Lord of Ireland. Upon whom the Lord have mercy upon his soul".

 

[An Ard Ri]

The only surviving child of Richard III and Anne Neville was Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales.He died aged 10 in 1484 and is believed to be buried at the parish church at Sheriff Hutton.

 

[moby]

King Richard III Bones Found, Scientists Say
From the nat geo site:
By poring over historical records and documents, Schürer conclusively identified two of Richard III's living descendants: Michael Ibsen, a furniture maker in London, England, and a second individual who now wishes to remain anonymous.

Seems like there was another descendant whose dna helped resolve the issue. It's so wrong as of course the person wants his/her privacy but darn it I don't like secrets and now I'm more interested in who that could be.

 

[Baroness of Books]

Although it has been said on a separate thread, I think Henry VII killed the Princes in the Tower

I wouldn't disagree with you there.