Richard III and the Battle of Bosworth: A "What If?"

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

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"

 

[lady of hay]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She is considering both Buckingham and the possibility that they weren't murdered at all but smuggled out of the Tower and even abroad.

 

[Vecchiolarry]

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

 

[Iluvbertie]

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...

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

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?!

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

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?

 

[lady of hay]

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 !!

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[Warren]

Elizabeth of York > Margaret Tudor (married James IV of Scotland) > James V > Mary, Queen of Scots > James I and VI

 

[Iluvbertie]

Elizabeth of York > Margaret Tudor (married James IV of Scotland) > James V > Mary, Queen of Scots > James I and VI

Thank you for filling in the names. I really must learn these ones mustn't I?

 

[Zonk]

Thank you for filling in the names. I really must learn these ones mustn't I?

Well I don't know about you...but the James and the various numerations (the sixth James in Scotland is the first James in England) always mess me up.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

But why wouldn't the Queen allow the DNA testing of the bones? Could it be that she simply thinks it is wrong to disturb the remains of persons long dead or does anyone think the Queen does not want the matter of a royal murder to be brought up again?

 

[lady of hay]

I think the Duke of Edinburgh provided DNA in the case of "Anastasia".
DNA would prove the identity of the bones ,but , unfortunatly not who murdered them.
The present Duke of Gloucester, who is patron of The Richard III Society could provide a sample. I think there was a move in the USA amongst historians , to get the bones tested, but I am not sure if anything came of this. Perhaps members in the USA know more about this?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I do think that religious considerations don't really come into it but more 'what is the point' as it was so long ago although of course it could be the she knows something that isn't generally known e.g. as Queen she has access to some family secrets that no one else is privy to - a stretch I know but just an idea.

 

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

At first, I wondered why The Queen vetoed testing those bones; but now I can see that it would (or may) involve a lot of digging up of long dead people.

To get some real DNA to test, Edward IV, Elizabeth Woodville and/or Elizabeth of York would have to be examined...
I can't see any current members of royalty producing much positive DNA after all these centuries.

But, as Iluvbertie has stated, "What's the point?"... Let sleeping dogs lie...

Larry

 

[SLV]

Depending on the preservation, there might be DNA left in their teeth. That is were the archaeologists got the DNA from for their research about genetical resistance against the Plague.
But it would indeed mean digging up many more people than just the two bodies presumed to be the princes. Because they would need to compare the DNA with that of positively identified people.

it would be very interesting to do from a scientifical point of view, but if the DNA doesn't match, then you would have a problem. What happened to the princes if they didn't die in the Tower?

 

[Iluvbertie]

What problem? All that proving these bodies aren't the princes would do is prove these bodies weren't the princes. It wouldn't prove that the didn't die in the Tower, or that they weren't murdered, or that they were murdered etc. Proving these bodies aren't the princes changes nothing but proving they were the princes proves that they died in the Tower - and nothing more.

 

[lady of hay]

As far as I am aware ,the Queen has never vetoed the testing of the bones.
It could be that after all this time it is felt that there is little point in trying to clear up the mystery of who the bones belong to, and ,as people say , how far would one have to go .

Did other members know that Henry Tudor dated his reign from the 21st of August, when Bosworth was actually fought on the 22nd ? Henry issued a bill of attainder on Richard III and some of his followers , he must have been convinced that the battle was already won.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Where did you read this?

 

[lady of hay]

I no longer have my notes , but can consult a friend who is a member of the Richard III society. I will let you know where the information came from as soon as I have it.

I think it may have been in Jeremy Potter's book "Good King Richard ? ". Potter was the president of the Richard III society, so any sources that he used would have been as reliable as they could be.
Henry's idea was ,as far as I can remember, that by dating his reign from the day before he could claim that anyone fighting against him was a traitor , and therefore their lands and titles would become forfit. A good money making scheme, however, Henry did pardon those who fought against him.

I will look into this in more detail, as I like to be as accurate as it is possible to be after over 500 years. If you are interested, and I am sure you are or you would not be contibuting to this thread, the Richard III society has an excellent website as does their American counterpart.

 

[Cadiva]

Richard indeed was never asked about the fate of the two princes . Elizabeth Woodville, the boys mother , would not, I believe have let things lie if she had suspected that they were dead. Richard was not,I believe ever accused of this crime during his lifetime ,only later by so called Tudor propogandists..

Quite so There were no calls for the princes to be revealed during Richard's reign and I believe this is because those who were in the know had no fear about their whereabouts.
I think the theory that Edward V died of natural causes while in the Tower and that Richard of York was removed elsewhere to live in anonymity is as valid a one as the theory that both boys were murdered without any kind of outcry at the time of their deaths.

Did other members know that Henry Tudor dated his reign from the 21st of August, when Bosworth was actually fought on the 22nd ? Henry issued a bill of attainder on Richard III and some of his followers , he must have been convinced that the battle was already won.

This was after he'd won the Battle of Bosworth though He proclaimed his reign had started from the day before Bosworth so he could declaim Richard as a traitor, pretty standard stuff really during the Wars of the Roses.
As far as I am aware, the Queen has never vetoed the bones being dug up from Westminster Abbey, which is where they were interred by Charles II. Also, if I remember rightly, there was an examination of either the bones (or the original documentation from the time they were discovered and reburied in the time of Charles II). That came to the conclusion that the ages of the bones were incorrect, that some animal bones were also found and that there was a possibility of some of the bones being from a female skeleton. I shall have to go away and try and find the link because it is available as a downloadable pdf I'm sure.

ETA: Ahh that's it:In 1933 King George V called upon scientists Lawrence E Tanner (Keeper of the Monuments in Westminster Abbey) and Prof William Wright to re-examine the bones in the casket. They found that it contained not only human bones but animal bones too. One skeleton was larger than the other, and many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. The bones have not since been re-examined. There has also been a different examination of the evidence surrounding the location where the bones were supposed to have been discovered which drew the conclusion that it was a different one from the "stair" they were allegedly buried under.

I also like David Baldwin's theory (in his book The Lost Prince: The Survival of Richard of York), that Edward V died of natural causes while in the Tower and that Richard, Duke of York, was with his uncle, Richard III, at the Battle of Bosworth. He was then removed into the safe keeping of a Sir Walter Moyle and was trained as a bricklayer and grew up happily reading and speaking Latin in obscurity in Eastwell in Kent.

 

[lady of hay]

Richard ,Duke of York, would have been 12 at the time of Bosworth. I don't think it would have been likely that Richard III would have risked his safety, but I am not familiar with Baldwins book or this theory.
I find it sad that the things Richard is remembered for are alledged crimes rather than the good things he did such as legal reforms ,the providing of funds for some of the building of St Georges chapel Windsor and Kings College chapel Cambridge ( yes it wasn't just the Tudors ). He also founded the College of arms and was a patron of William Caxton . According to Jeremy Potter in his book "Good King Richard ?" the music at the court of Richard was the best in Europe.

 

[kbear87]

the war of the roses has always been one of my favorite time periods and i believe richard was innocent. there is a long mock trial on youtube about richard iii and the princes. it starts out assuming richard is guilty but he is eventually found innocent. richard loved his brother edward and his nephews so this would be totally out of character for him to murder them. the duke of buckingham or henry vii are the most likely to have done it, imo. richard fully intended to be regent for his nephew--per his brother's wishes but elizabeth had to interfere, forcing him into the actions he took. imo, elizabeth was a main player in the war of the roses. margaret wasn't exactly innocent either--i wonder if this war would have even happened if these 2 women were not involved??..

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

I agree. Henry VII had the most to gain by murdering the princes

 

[Lenora]

I agree. Henry VII had the most to gain by murdering the princes

I don't agree,then why Richard sent to Tower his nephews and proclaimed them illegitimate?Well did Shakespeare his description of Richard

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

I don't agree,then why Richard sent to Tower his nephews and proclaimed them illegitimate?Well did Shakespeare his description of Richard

Richard was very loyal to his brother and supported him but also wanted to protect the nephews who were declared illegitimate by act of Parliament in the Titulus Regius. However, Henry VII repudiated that doctrine, again through Parliament, thereby making the young princes legitimate again. but this would threaten Henry's claim to the throne, which was essentially based on his conquest of Richard III. The existence of the young princes was a threat to Henry's claim to the throne. So it makes more sense to me that Henry or someone acting in his interests killed the princes than Richard III. Remember, Shakespeare's patron was Elizabeth I, the granddaughter of Henry VII

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't agree,then why Richard sent to Tower his nephews and proclaimed them illegitimate?Well did Shakespeare his description of Richard

First of all going to the Tower was normal for a person about to be crowned King. That is where they left from to go to the Abbey. Today they leave from Buckingham Palace but in those days the procession left from the Tower, which was a royal residence at that time.

They were proclaimed illegitimate by Parliament for a number of reasons and not the least being that the Parliament and the people had just had years and years of war - 100 against France and then 30 more of civil war and the idea of a minor King terrified many people. They believed that a strong, well-respected and liked adult King could prevent that from happening (they were right in the end as Henry VII certainly was the strong adult King who ended the fighting). To do that they needed an excuse to remove Edward IV's children from the throne and hence Titulus Regulus - the law that declared them illegitimate due to Edward's previous betrothal (remember that in those days a betrothal had the same force as a wedding so until the betrothal was ended Edward wasn't free to marry and he did marry in secret - raising suspicious that he may very well have been legally betrothed and thus the children were illegitimate).

Henry, even after Bosworth, had a lot more to fear from the boys as repealed Titulus Regulus and destroyed almost all copies but one or two survived. This would mean that the boys, and their sister, had better claims to the throne the he did. That he came to love Elizabeth I have no doubts but that wedding was a marriage of convenience to bring together the two warring factions - and again that would all be threatened if the boys were still alive and could come back to haunt him.

Shakespeare is a fiction writer writing in the time of Henry VII's grand-daughter. Had he said that Richard was innocent he would have been putting his own life in danger. He had to put forth Tudor propaganda.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Well said, Iluvbertie. I agree that Henry VII had a better motive to slay the young princes and probably was complicit in their deaths.