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 07-11-2010, 04:55 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by lady of hay View Post
Many years ago, almost 30 , a friend of mine , a medievalist who had studied the "war of the roses" and who sadly is no longer with us, told me that we should not seek to judge the actions of the men of that time by the standards of our own. He said that as we do not live in their times we should not seek to judge at all.
Very wise words from your friend.. many people lose sight of the fact that the standards, morals and values of today are very different from those of the medieval period.. or any other historical period for that matter.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-11-2010, 06:23 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
This is an attitude that I emphasise all the time when I am teaching my students from their first days in High School at age 11 until the leave me aged 17/18. It always gets them when I tell them that Ancient Athenians would say that the girls in the class aren't loved by their fathers because they are in a classroom with boys - different standards and ideas but were they wrong? or are we wrong? Who knows if in the future the Ancient Athenian viewpoint might re-emerge? These are points I try to get across to them and it applies to all historical periods and places - their times, their standards and we should judge people by the actions they took within their own standards.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-15-2010, 02:46 PM
lady of hay's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: around the uk, United Kingdom
Posts: 215
HM Queen Catherine and Iluvbertie,

thanks for your posts. My friend was wise and full of knowledge about this period of history . Iluvbertie, please feel free to use his quote with your students. He inspired those who knew him.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-16-2010, 09:38 AM
NoorMeansLight's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,969
Your friend was right, Lady of Hay! And good point, Iluvbertie!
Now this is going to be off topic (cause I don't know where I should post it): Does anyone here think Richard III killed his nephews to solidify his position as King? For the record, I know there's no proof that he did. I want to see your opinions - what do you believe?
__________________
With passion and poetry...
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-16-2010, 10:10 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,199
There is no particular thread for the Princes in the Tower but its been discussed English/British Historical Royal Scandals .

Personally I think Richard or Henry IV did in the Princes. Let's face it...they both had a lot to lose with them still alive.

And I agree that is an excellent quote Lady of Hay. You certainly can't compare the moral compass of 2010 with 1485, 1066 or 1960.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-16-2010, 10:33 AM
NoorMeansLight's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,969
^Thank you for your quick reply and for the new link! I'll visit this thread soon! We share the same thoughts on the issue.
__________________
With passion and poetry...
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-16-2010, 08:31 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
I don't think Richard did but do think that Henry VII had them killed as he had way more to gain by their deaths (he had to relegitmise them in order to justify his marriage to their sister but Richard could have married her without bothering with that as his claim came through them being illegitimate and so it didn't matter whether Elizabeth was legitimate or not to him but it did matter massively to Henry.)

Interestingly one of my senior students is currently writing a major work on this very topic. She started out convinced that Richard killed them but now, after 8 months reseach she is convinced that Henry had them killed. It has been interesting to see the reasoning and research she has done and see how a young girl of 17 has started with one premise and is now totally the other way.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-17-2010, 08:27 AM
NoorMeansLight's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,969
^ You must be so very proud of your students, Iluvbertie! Thanks for sharing this!
__________________
With passion and poetry...
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-17-2010, 07:40 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
I'm with those who acquit Richard of the boys' murders. It was a PR campaign of the day to promote the ambitions of the Tudors which was unrelenting even in Shakespeare's day, viz., his play Richard III. The good citizens of the day were force-fed gruesome tales about Richard who is one of history's most smeared and maligned characters, though today, it's true, that scholarship has done much to rehabilitate him. I believe that a perusal of contemporary documents of Richard's day will indeed show that he was a very fair and able administrator and a popular one, hence the necessary mud-slinging and slanders.

The Society of Friends of King Richard III works to encourage and promote research to exonerate the life and memory of Richard III.

It may be worth noting that the patron of the Society is no other than Prince Richard, the present Duke of Gloucester.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-17-2010, 07:53 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,199
iluvbertie...not to give too much away...by what information did your student find out that makes her think Henry did it?
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-17-2010, 08:24 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
She read as much information as is available in books etc but she also sought out, with the help of two local universities, some primary records from the reigns of Richard and Henry and basically went from there. Nothing ground breaking of course but more of interest to me is how she started with one idea and then, after copious reading about the issue from many points of view - the really pro-Richards, the pro-Henrys and more neutral writers, analysing the writers e.g. Sir Thomas More writing in the reign of then Henries and thus the fear of saying the wrong thing influencing what he said as well as the influences on him meaning that he isn't all that reliable a witness. Remember she is only 17 and this is her first major piece of research but her methods have been great - even if she had stuck with her original premise but still done the same work I would have been impressed. Her final essay is due in just over a week and I am really looking forward to reading it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-18-2010, 07:01 AM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
I agree with the student who believes it is more likely that Henry VII had the princes killed as opposed to assigning blame to Richard. This has been discussed on the other thread but for me, looking at it logically and perhaps (for me) legally, considering all the ramifications of legitimizing or bastardizing the princes, I suspect it was Henry VII who committed "murder most foul"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-18-2010, 09:20 AM
lady of hay's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: around the uk, United Kingdom
Posts: 215
Iluvbertie, I wish I could read your students paper. Like her I started out believing that the only person who could have murdered the princes was Richard.
Has she looked into the possibliity of the Duke of Buckingham being the prime suspect?
Buckinghams claim to the throne was as strong as Henrys. After helping Richard to secure the throne , Buckingham ,for some reason turned against him , and joined John Morton , Bishop of Bath and Wells, in a plan to attempt to put Henry on the throne. The carrot, of course being the hand in marriage of Elizabeth of York. Buckingham was of course executed in 1483 but this may not have been just for the rebellion.
A document found in the College of Arms in the 1980's suggested that the princes were murdered on "the vize " of the Duke of Buckingham. Just what "vize " means , if it is devise of advise , is not clear. However it could be suggested that Buckingham was in some way responsible.
Another theory put to me was that the princes were somehow smuggled out of the tower and sent to live as private gentlemen in the household of a trusted noble family.
Some work done on a portrait of the family of Sir Thomas More, in Nostell Priory in Yorkshire in the 1980's , gave some ground to this theory.
Your student is fortunate indeed to be studying in the days of mass internet information. When I became interested in the subject, I had to order books from my local library, doing this as a private individual with no connection at the time to any academic institution I had to fend for myself. The experiance did me no harm.
Reading these posts ,and the very positive response that my original question has provoked ,has rekindled my interest in the subject.

Thanks for the other thread Zonk, I will certainly look at this one.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-18-2010, 05:53 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
She is considering both Buckingham and the possibility that they weren't murdered at all but smuggled out of the Tower and even abroad.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-18-2010, 07:01 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi,

Is this possibility plausable:
They both died of natural causes... They were both young boys, and if malnutrition & dehydration and damp and vermin in the Tower were figured into the equation, then possibly they both expired naturally??

Also, weren't their bodies found underneath a stairwell in Charles II's time? Has anybody ever done a post-mortem or autopsy on them?
What conclusion, if any, was determined?

Just speculating & asking!!

Larry
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-18-2010, 10:31 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
It is perfectly possible that one or both died of natural causes but the real point if that no annoucement of their deaths were made so people make assumptions.

The bodies discovered have never positively been identified and there has never been any DNA testing done on these remains. The Queen has refused to allow them to be exhumed for testing and no reason has been given for her refusal. It could simply be that she doesn't think it matters or...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-19-2010, 04:20 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
She is considering both Buckingham and the possibility that they weren't murdered at all but smuggled out of the Tower and even abroad.
If one or both were smuggled out of the Tower, then I for one would like to see DNA testing on Perkin Warbeck (assuming his remains could be found)..

That whole business is just wrong somehow. Historians say he was an imposter.. at best perhaps an illegitimate son of Edward IV. But what if he really was Richard?

I mean, Edward's own sister, Margaret of Burgundy, officially recognized him as Richard.. she's the one who financed his invasion of England. (Although she also sent troops to support Lambert Simnel, who was an obvious imposter.. but the Earl of Warwick was also her nephew, and the Earl of Lincoln told her he helped Warwick escape the Tower. He lied.) Regardless of this, however, Margaret of Burgundy was certainly no fool.

He attended the funeral of Emperor Frederick III at the invitation of Maximilian I, who also recognized him as Richard IV, and was permitted to marry Lady Catherine Gordon, cousin of the King of Scotland.

It has always been fishy to me that all these royals seemed to know exactly who he was, and appeared to support his claim.. and there are a few historians out there who believe he really was Richard of Shrewsbury.. now wouldn't that have been a turn of events?!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-19-2010, 10:31 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The bodies discovered have never positively been identified and there has never been any DNA testing done on these remains. The Queen has refused to allow them to be exhumed for testing and no reason has been given for her refusal. It could simply be that she doesn't think it matters or...

C'mon, Iluvbertie, what might you mean by "or . . . " Do you think the Queen may be opening the proverbial can of worms if she allows the DNA testing?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-20-2010, 04:24 PM
lady of hay's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: around the uk, United Kingdom
Posts: 215
I'm not sure what happened to the bones that were found in the Tower, and if any were available , then where would researchers get a reliable DNA sample from?
I remember years ago being told about a book called "On some bones in the tower" or something like that, which commented on the discovery of the bones believed to be those of Edward V and Richard Duke of York.

I think we should remember that at this time the Tower of London was in fact a royal palace as well as a "prison" , it only aquired it's more sinister reputation in Tudor times. I don't remember coming across any evidence to suggest that the boys were ill treated. As Richard III was expecting some kind of rebellion ,or realised that support for the Lancastrian cause was strong,it is not unreasonable that he could have arranged for the boys to be removed from the tower to a place of safety.

Two things define Richard III's character for me. Firstly he was very loyal to his brother Edward IV whilst he was alive ,following him into exile when George Duke of Clarence switched sides to support the Lancastrian cause,
Richard's motto being "Loyalty binds me".
Secondly, he was the last English king of England to lead his troops in to battle, Henry Tudor was Welsh, and watched the battle of Bosworth bravely from the side-lines. ( This is no indictement on the rest of the Welsh!)


Further to this post, the book is called "On some bones in Westminster Abbey". The bones of the "princes" were placed there by Charles II, ( I think) and were exumed in the 1930's .The Richard III foundation in the USA has an interesting website that includes information relating to the examination of the bones in the 1930's , and I understand that they have tried to get further research done on the bones. I do not think that it was proved if both skeletons were male !!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-20-2010, 05:05 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
One place they could go for some DNA would be the present royal family who are direct descendents of the princes' sister Elizabeth of York (Henry VII's reign). I realise that it wouldn't be the perfect DNA but they would be able to match a high percentage.

Elizabeth of York - xxxx (my brain not working this morning) - xxxx (again brain in neutral) - Mary Queen of Scots (there may only have been one generation between Elizabeth and Mary but I can't remember at the moment) - James I and VI - Elizabeth of Bohemia - Electress Sophia of Hannover - George I - George II - Frederick Prince of Wales - George III - Edward Duke of Kent - Victoria - Edward VII - George V - George VI - Elizabeth II etc.

As I said it wouldn't be perfect but they would be able to ascertain if Elizabeth was related to the bones but that still wouldn't prove that they were the princes as the Tower was a royal residence. The main reason the boys were taken there was the it was from the Tower that the monarch's processed to the Abbey for their coronations.
__________________

__________________
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





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:55 PM.

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]