Henry VII (1457-1509) and Elizabeth of York (1466-1503)

[LauraS3514]

In fact, Henry seems to have been remarkably chaste for a monarch of those times. He may have been rather on the cold side emotionally, very different to his son, who IMO resembles his maternal grandfather in many ways.

Henry VIII inherited his father's paranoia and his grandfather Edward IV's looks and libido - a bad combination for the country in a nearly absolute monarch but wonderful for dramatists...

 

[Denville]

I would not say that Henry's libido was all that great.. he had only 2 known mistresses and if he had a few other casual flings they were clearly very "low key" and few in number.

 

[Curryong]

We are off topic discussing Henry VIII on this thread, but after all he had his famed six wives, as well as a couple of mistresses, and what happened to his spouses has been the subject of many books and TV series.

If a series was made about Henry VII's love life it would be sparse indeed. He and Elizabeth became very fond of each other throughout their marriage IMO and they produced eight children together. Maybe there wasn't great passion in their union as there was with Henry and a couple of his brides but at least they stayed together until Elizabeth's death and were faithful to each other. After Elizabeth's death Henry withdrew into his private apartments for some time to grieve alone, and he never remarried.

 

[Denville]

he did consider it as I recall, remarriage. To Cath of aragon and "Juana the Mad" of Spain

 

[An Ard Ri]

Wasn't there talk of a possible marriage with Louise de Savoie ,mother of Francois I prior to her sons accession to the throne.As much as Louise craved to be a queen she refused to leave her beloved son and France and Louis XII/Anne of Brittany's marriage plans were scrapped.

 

[Curryong]

Henry did consider Joan of Naples as a bride and sent people to the court of the young widow to send back a detailed physical description. He seemed to want someone who looked like Elizabeth. None of the marriage negotiations with various widows came to anything. I believe he was shattered by Elizabeth's death and was half hearted when searching for a replacement. Most kings of the period did remarry when left widowed in their thirties, but Henry didn't.

I do have a bit of a soft spot for Henry VII, in spite of his love of money and cool nature he wasn't 1/10 the tyrant his son turned out to be, nor was he by the standards of many of his contemporaries in Europe.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Imagine Louise of Savoy as Henry VIII's step mother and also mother of the French king,that would have been interesting!

Plus Louise would have made mince meat of Anne Boleyn.

 

[Curryong]

I don't think it was ever seriously considered, was it, especially by the French side? The real prize to the English Court appears to have been Louise's daughter Marguerite, whom they had some hopes of marrying off to young Henry, the King's oldest son or perhaps the King. She refused to marry either Henry, and so the English came back with a proposal that Marguerite marry young Henry (the future King) and her mother marry the ageing Henry VII. Neither lady wanted to.

Louise was indeed a cultured and strong minded woman. I believe she didn't really want Mary Queen of Scots to marry the future King Francois II either, so maybe she just didn't want alliances with the British Isles.
I thought Louise had met Anne Boleyn very early on, when she was sent for training as a nobleman's young daughter at the French Court.

 

[Countessmeout]

I was under the impression that joan of Navarre was the only real one considered. She was put forward by Isabella who was trying to divert attention from Catherine.

 

[bekalc]

It has long been known that Henry VII effectively re-wrote the history to suit his propaganda wars. In fact, one of the first things he did after the Battle of the Bosworth Field was to task historians with creating the "true" (that is to say, his) version of the events; they demonised Richard III and portrayed Henry Tudor as the glorious liberator who freed the country from the clutches of a tyrant.

Henry VII was very good at PR and he understood clearly one thing; no matter what the truth was, what is written and portrayed as one will be remembered by future generations.

The Tudors followed the suit; the poor Richard III, for instance - when we think of him, most of us remember the horrible, hunchback monster from Shakespeare's play. The truth was, of course, far from that; the contemporary sources portrayed Richard as a caring, wise and brave man who was loved by people and considered a fair and just ruler. As or the Princes in the Tower, let's just say Henry VII had at least as much reasons to see them dead as Richard III. Much more, actually, because had they been alive, they would have far better claims to the Throne - and Henry VII was notorious for very effectively and permanently getting rid of all potential rivals.

Actually Richard did have a hunchback the DNA records prove it. Score one for Shakespeare.

Do you really think the way he treated his nieces and nephews was fair or just?

He had them declared illegitimate based on flimsy evidence. The people involved were dead and could not affirm or deny it.

At least his brother the Duke of Clarence had the guts to oppose Edward IV to his face.

Whether or not he ordered the Death of his nephews the fact is he had FAR more means to do so then Henry Tudor. Those boys we're under his care and possession.

His brother entrusted him the well being of his children. And he had them declared bastards, took their inheritance, and left the two boys at the very least unprotected.

These are not the actions of a fair and honorable man.

 

[LauraS3514]

Actually Richard did have a hunchback the DNA records prove it. Score one for Shakespeare.

Richard III did NOT have a "hunchback!" He had scoliosis, a side-to-side curvature of the spine that would have been nearly invisible under his clothes. Other people with scoliosis: Alexander the Great, Usain Bolt, Elizabeth Taylor, Michael Phelps and Princess Eugenie of York. I also have scoliosis and unless you see me bend over from the back, you'd never know it. A "hunchback" (a pejorative, ugly term used to demonize someone with a physical challenge beyond their control) - kyphosis is the proper term - is a front-to-back curvature. Many older people, especially women, develop kyphosis as they age - hence the term "dowager's hump."

I'm not going to argue about the rest of your statement as there is another topic for that and it's been argued for centuries. I could not, however, let this statement stand as it is not factual.

 

[Curryong]

New research on Richard III's back condition. There was apparently some imbalance between his shoulders height which was apparent to observers.

How Twisted Was King Richard III's Spine? New Models Reveal His Condition

 

[bekalc]

They point is Richard had an imbalance that was noticeable. So Shakespeare did not make that up. Did he exaggerate sure, but it was not made up.

Do we know fully what happened with those boys no. But the people who argue that Richard was this wonderful loyal man IGNORE what we have proven that he actually did.

His treatment of his brother's children was a betrayal. All Richard has to do was produce the kids. They were in his care not Henry Tudors. He was the one who took an oath to protect them.

And the facts are too that his actions divided York supporters. As soon as Henry Tudor announced he would marry Elizabeth of York many went over to his side. Many did not want so much Him on the throne as HER on the throne. Even the Pope apparently commented on her as the rightful heir. So no Richard's actions of denying his nephews and nieces their inheritance did not exactly have universal support.

When judging his "loyalty" you cannot ignore how he took an oath to protect his nephews right to the throne and then took it away from the young boy. It cannot be ignored. Or done away with, Henry Tudor did not arrange that.

 

[bekalc]

My understanding while females ruling was questionable, men claiming the right through their mother was. This was the basis of the English claim to the throne of France. Also the Yorks claim that they deserved it over the Lancasters.

Parliament was very clear to Henry VII that he better marry Elizabeth. People keep on saying how hard it must have been to marry the enemy. But think about it her Uncle imprisoned her brothers Killed at least one half brother, and had her declared a bastard. Henry VII made her queen of England. And as much as she had a right to throne, she wouldn't have been queen of England without him.

I cannot help thinking too, think how much Elizabeth personally lost in this War. For marrying Henry putting a stop to the madness might have a plus. I think the two really needed each other.

My understanding the man nearly died in grief after Elizabeth's death which suggests real love between two of them.

Some contemporary accounts say she really did love him and God 'inclined' his Heart towards her.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Parliament knew that if Henry VII didn't marry Elizabeth that the civil war would continue either on her behalf or that of any subsequent son she may have.

She had no say.

Her uncle didn't imprison her brothers. He sent them to the Tower so that Edward could be prepared for his Coronation. At that time all the kings spent the weeks prior to their coronations at the Tower as that was the tradition. The boys were seen playing around - hardly signs of being imprisoned.

She had more right to the throne than Henry and parliament knew that. They wanted an end to the wars - after about 150 years of war the country was bankrupt and falling apart.

Henry had to marry her to keep his throne. She was also being considered as a wife for her uncle and if he had won at Bosworth she would probably have married Richard.

Parliament declared the children of Edward IV illegitimate as a means of having a strong adult male on the throne rather than another decade or so of a minor - having suffered civil war and unsettled times since the succession of the infant Henry VI and the ongoing fight for control, first of the king as a boy, and then, when he lost his mind of the adult King.

Remember that Edward IV was very close to his brother Richard III. Richard was also a forward thinking monarch who introduced a number of laws that are still very important today ... the idea of bail and legal aid for those who couldn't afford it for instance. He even promoted English as the language of the law over French, lifted bans on the printing of books along with a lot of other laws to help the ordinary English people - as opposed to the English nobility.

Yes Henry VII and Elizabeth did become a love-match over time but it did take some time.

Just because they did fall in love though doesn't mean that Richard III was the evil one and not Henry.

 

[Curryong]

To begin with the two young Princes were seen playing and taking exercise. That is true. However, from the 16th of June 1483 the boys were seen less and less. After Hastings death the attendants were removed. The boys were sometimes seen at the windows of their apartment and then even that stopped.

The last of Edward V's attendants, Dr John Augustine of Salzburg, reported that the young King, 'like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him.' The French chronicler Molinet corroborates this. It's believed that the Princes were eventually confined in the White Tower.

The fact that Richard passed just and far-reaching laws in his reign doesn't obviate the fact that he wished to ascend the throne in the first place and was prepared to kill his nephews to do it. Napoleon was also much admired for laws passed during his time as Emperor but he was also a ruthless individual who wanted to build an Empire and keep it by any means possible, and his endeavours ended up killing hundreds of thousands in several countries.

There is evidence that Henry and Elizabeth met often before they were married. This was after their first formal meeting. They are believed to have met several times at Bayards Castle in private and in January Lord Stanley stated that Elizabeth had come to feel 'great and intimate love and cordial affection' for the King.

However exaggerated were these sentiments, it is a fact that at Michaelmas in 1485 the King arranged for ten yards of Crimson velvet and six yards of damask, priced at £20. 4s and sixty four timbers (individual furs) of ermine at £54.2s (huge sums at the time) to be sent to the Princess, so they must have come to some understanding, and it doesn't appear from this that he was not eager to marry Elizabeth and keep his promise. He simply had to allow for the country to settle down and to be accepted as lawful King first.

 

[bekalc]

I love how people keep on talking about how Richard III was a loyal brother while Edward was alive.

Did it ever occur to people that he just figured it was not in his best interests to rebel against his brother while his brother was alive? I mean how does he benefit from joinng Warwick or the Lancasterians? He was smart sticking with his brother.

And then when his brother died he takes advantage of the trust his brother gave him by killing his nephews greatest supporters and then taking their throne.

And oh the tower is not a prison does not work. They were prisoners. And as soon as he made himself King they were never ever going to be free. Because men would always use them to rebel.

He past some just laws. There was nothing just about what he died to his nephews or Hastings.

His actions divided York supporters and lead to rebellion. If he has kept his promise to his brother, Henry Tudor would not have gotten the support he did.

As for Henry being the evil one. Henry won his kingdom in battle. He then did his best to achieve peace by marrying his enemies daughter. He was in another country and did not exactly have access to the towers. And even if He somehow managed to have them die. It would be because Richard their sworn Protector left then unprotected. They were also not his nephews. Tudor owed THEM nothing. Tudor never made promises or oaths to protest them.

Winning a kingdom by conquest is one thing. Getting a kingdom by betraying your brother by taking his trust and having his children become bastards is another. There is no honor in that no matter what Parliament allowed.

I am sorry but the defense of Richard makes me sick. Even if you ignore the boys death. And yes he signed their death warrant when he made them bastards. They would be at best prisoners for the rest of their lives. Such kindness.

Maybe Richard did think it was all for the greater good. BUT you cannot call him a loyal brother. I would point out the Duke of Clarence in my opinion had more nobility. He announced his intentions to Edwards face. He did not wait till Edward died to take advantage of Edwards vulnerable widow and children. And I am no fan of Elizabeth Woodville.

Richard's selfish actions lead to the death of his own dynasty. Taking the crown that way from his brothers aons was going to do nothing but encourage more long time bloodshed.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Tower was where ALL medieval kings went to prepare for their coronations which is why that is where Edward V went and why his brother was taken there.

Why would Richard ever think he would be King. His brother wasn't expected to die when he did so he was loyal - all his life - to his older brother (happens in many families you know).

The whole problem with claiming he killed the boys is why didn't he kill the girls as well?

The girls had a better claim than he did and allowing them to live means he didn't want to harm his brother's family at all.

Taking the throne the way he did was the only way to preserve the dynasty. After 150 years of war - with the previous 50 years caused by an underage King he and parliament knew that the Lancastrians would seize the opportunity to try for the throne again (they already knew that Henry Tudor was planning exactly that). Having an adult King was the best protection to stop Henry - it didn't work of course - but it was the best option.

No one will ever convince me that Richard III killed his nephews and some of the sources I have seen here are laughable given the bias of those sources - many very pro-Tudor or having never set foot in England and simply repeating hearsay information raised late in Henry VII own reign. Henry VII himself never accused Richard - and what a propaganda claim that would have been. Why didn't he - the logical answer is he knew who killed them and that was someone acting on his orders not Richard's.

Richard had nothing to gain by killing them once they were declared illegitimate. Henry had everything to gain as he needed to re-legitmise them, which he did almost immediately - and ordered the destruction of all the copies of the document that had declared them illegitimate in the first place (one copy turned up late in the Stuart period in a house where it had been hidden) - in order to marry Elizabeth. The parliament and people wouldn't accept their King married to someone who was illegitimate. Once he re-legitimises them then the boys have much better claims than he does and so they would have to go.

We will never know but reading a lot and learning the skills of an historian makes me convinced that Richard didn't kill them. Someone who has done an equal amount of reading and has equal or better skills will argue the opposite.

That is what makes history a fun study - the fact that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answers - only opinions based on assessing the sources and even the chose of sources used.

 

[bekalc]

The Tower was where ALL medieval kings went to prepare for their coronations which is why that is where Edward V went and why his brother was taken there.

Why would Richard ever think he would be King. His brother wasn't expected to die when he did so he was loyal - all his life - to his older brother (happens in many families you know).

The whole problem with claiming he killed the boys is why didn't he kill the girls as well?

The girls had a better claim than he did and allowing them to live means he didn't want to harm his brother's family at all.

Taking the throne the way he did was the only way to preserve the dynasty. After 150 years of war - with the previous 50 years caused by an underage King he and parliament knew that the Lancastrians would seize the opportunity to try for the throne again (they already knew that Henry Tudor was planning exactly that). Having an adult King was the best protection to stop Henry - it didn't work of course - but it was the best option.

No one will ever convince me that Richard III killed his nephews and some of the sources I have seen here are laughable given the bias of those sources - many very pro-Tudor or having never set foot in England and simply repeating hearsay information raised late in Henry VII own reign. Henry VII himself never accused Richard - and what a propaganda claim that would have been. Why didn't he - the logical answer is he knew who killed them and that was someone acting on his orders not Richard's.

Richard had nothing to gain by killing them once they were declared illegitimate. Henry had everything to gain as he needed to re-legitmise them, which he did almost immediately - and ordered the destruction of all the copies of the document that had declared them illegitimate in the first place (one copy turned up late in the Stuart period in a house where it had been hidden) - in order to marry Elizabeth. The parliament and people wouldn't accept their King married to someone who was illegitimate. Once he re-legitimises them then the boys have much better claims than he does and so they would have to go.

We will never know but reading a lot and learning the skills of an historian makes me convinced that Richard didn't kill them. Someone who has done an equal amount of reading and has equal or better skills will argue the opposite.

That is what makes history a fun study - the fact that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answers - only opinions based on assessing the sources and even the chose of sources used.

Henry Tudor imprisoned the Earl of Warwick, but let his sister live and even marry. Girls could be married of to supporters. Girls couldn't lead armies. He was arranging a double marriage for him and Elizabeth with the House of Portugal. Portguese records show. Killing the girls would have blackened his name more.

A realistic look at history should be unbiased, and reviewing all the sources. Most historians think Richard did it.

I am actually not saying he did do it, but to say he had no motives to kill the boys, frankly suggest to me not looking at the situation realistically or in an unbiased way.

Parliament declaring the young boys bastards could easily be undone- and it was undone by Henry VII.

There is absolutely NO way those boys could room freely. They would become adults. They would become adults bent on revenge. Since he killed their family members and took their birthright.

The people rallied and loved Elizabeth of York. She was adored as Edward 1V's heir. Many people supported Henry Tudor just so she could become England's queen and at the very least her children would get the throne. Do you think they would have done this if they really believed the story's about Edward's Precontract?

If they were quick to support Edward 1V's daughter. Do you really think they wouldn't have supported Edward 1V's son?

Those two boys absolutely could not live or room freely and have Richard be secure on the throne. As soon as they got older, some discontented nobles would easily incite a rebellion to their cause.

If Richard III didn't plan those boys death he was an incompetent fool that didn't learn anything about what went down with Henry VI.

Not to mention, Richard never denied the accusations. He denied plans to marry Elizabeth, he cried over his wives death. But he never once saught to deny the rumors that he killed them or ordered their deaths. He also never sought to say someone else killed them.

And the final thing, after their disappearance he rewarded their jailor..

If Richard didn't kill the boys, why didn't he deny the charges?

I don't know if Richard killed them, I was not there. But to say he wasn't capable of killing them and no motive to kill them in my opinion means one's not discerning the time period correctly. The second he said yes to becoming King, he decided he was fine with killing his nephews.

As for a minority ruler means instability. Henry VI was a child king, the big rebellions happened after he came an adult.


Once again here's what I am not saying. I am not saying Richard III had no qualities. I am not saying he couldn't have inacted some decent laws. And Heck, I am not saying he might have convinced himself he was putting his country first by becoming King.... He may have felt peace worth more than two little boys lives.

 

[bekalc]

The fact that you are saying Richard had no motive at all to kill the boys shows you are not approaching this as a historian. No one looking at this in unbiased way or who understands the age would say Richard had no motive to see them dead. I was not there don't know what happens but Richard had motive.

 

[LauraS3514]

Richard III did not "take" the throne. Parliament GAVE it to him. It has been said that he was the only medieval king who had his right to the throne confirmed legally. Evidence was presented to the Three Estates (Lords, Commons, and Clergy) who were present in London in June 1483 for the scheduled coronation of Edward V that proved beyond a doubt that Edward IV was MARRIED to Lady Eleanor Talbot Butler, and Parliament later confirmed that marriage in Titulus Regis 1484. The "princes" (and their sisters) were removed from the line of succession to the throne and the crown was offered to Richard. Oddly enough, all records of that proof and the discussions surrounding it are missing from the official archives. The fact that Henry VII tried so hard to hide this fact (ordering all copies destroyed, all other evidence destroyed, changing the name of the bride to a known courtesan, the priest who performed the marriage imprisoned, etc.) IMHO only confirms its truth. You can also see this blog: https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/even-by-tudor-and-stuart-standards-edward-ivs-marriage-to-elizabeth-woodville-was-invalid/ for more information and resources.

I am also of the opinion that Richard had nothing to do with the boys' disappearance. Had he been involved, an announcement would have been made that the boys had perished from some sudden illness or tragic accident, poor things, and then they would have been given a lovely, public funeral and requiem mass. No chance of pretenders, no former monarch to rally around. This is what happened with Edward II, Richard II, and Henry VI, and people would almost have expected some such thing eventually - especially after the boys reached adulthood - even if they didn't believe the stated cause of death. That is what Henry VII did with the other "Prince in the Tower" George of Clarence's son Edward Earl of Warwick, whom he imprisoned in the Tower after Bosworth, aged ten, and executed in 1499 (Richard, in contrast, took him into his own household and even knighted him) Having them disappear without a trace certainly didn't benefit Richard, quite the contrary. What would be the point of them being dead if no one knew they were dead? I also think that it would have been a stupid thing for Richard to kill them - just look at what happened to his reputation after Bosworth. And no one, not even Henry Tudor, ever called Richard stupid. Politically naive, yes, or at the other extreme evilly calculating, but not stupid.

Having them disappear without a trace benefited no one but Harry Buckingham and later Henry Tudor - both who used rumors of the alleged deaths to rally support. Buckingham was appointed Constable of England by Richard, and remained behind in London when Richard went on progress in the fall of 1483. It was after that that the rumors of the boys' deaths began to spread, following one John Morton, later Cardinal and Chancellor to Henry VII, in his escape to the continent - he had been in Buckingham's “custody” before the latter's rebellion. If the boys were killed, I think it's highly likely that it was Buckingham that "disappeared" them, either in the hope that Richard would reward him or to pave the way for his own grab for the throne: he had a better legal claim than Tudor, whose hereditary claim was non-existent.

Something happened to those boys - Buckingham or someone else got to them, Richard got them out of the country, something, but I don't think Richard harmed them. We will most likely never know.

 

[LauraS3514]

Henry had to marry her to keep his throne. She was also being considered as a wife for her uncle and if he had won at Bosworth she would probably have married Richard.

No, Elizabeth would have been Queen of Portugal. Richard was negotiating a marriage for himself with Joana, sister of the King of Portugal - who was by the way the true lineal heir of the House of Lancaster. Elizabeth's marriage to the King's cousin Manuel I, the future King of Portugal, was part of the package. Papers detailing the negotiations were found in Portuguese royal archives - they are mysteriously "missing" from the English archives, like most official records from Richard's reign.

Besides, Richard would have never married his illegitimate niece - because she was illegitimate, and because she was his niece. Uncle-niece marriages were not possible under English law, and the Church would not sanction them until at least a century later, for the Hapsburgs. After being given the throne by parliament due to his brother's children being illegitimate, there was no way Richard would have then turned around and married one! This was just another rumor concocted to blacken Richard's name - taking talk of "marriages of the King and the Lady Elizabeth" and morphing it to "marriage of the King TO the Lady Elizabeth."

 

[Countessmeout]

No, Elizabeth would have been Queen of Portugal. Richard was negotiating a marriage for himself with Joana, sister of the King of Portugal - who was by the way the true lineal heir of the House of Lancaster. Elizabeth's marriage to the King's cousin Manuel I, the future King of Portugal, was part of the package. Papers detailing the negotiations were found in Portuguese royal archives - they are mysteriously "missing" from the English archives, like most official records from Richard's reign.

Besides, Richard would have never married his illegitimate niece - because she was illegitimate, and because she was his niece. Uncle-niece marriages were not possible under English law, and the Church would not sanction them until at least a century later, for the Hapsburgs. After being given the throne by parliament due to his brother's children being illegitimate, there was no way Richard would have then turned around and married one! This was just another rumor concocted to blacken Richard's name - taking talk of "marriages of the King and the Lady Elizabeth" and morphing it to "marriage of the King TO the Lady Elizabeth."

Yes, the intention was for him to marry Joanna. But Joanna did not have the best Lancaster claim. Henry and his mother did.

While Joanna is descended from the eldest child of John of Gaunt, it was a daughter Philippa. Henry's mother on the other hand was a male line granddaughter of John. Just as Philippa was passed over for Heny IV, her line would have been passed over for that of her other younger brothers. It would only have passed to Philippas line if her brothers had no legitimite heirs.

 

[bekalc]

No Henry and his mother did not have the best claims their line was illegitimate.

As for the children disappearing that was in Richard's best interest. Henry VI's body was developing a cult. Imagine what would have gone with the Princes young and innocent children. Foreign accounts say men were openly crying over the fate of the princes. Their dead bodies would have led to relics etc.

Richard's evidence was considered flimsy most did not believe it. If it was truly true why did not Edward marry Elizabeth again after Eleanor died before Edwards birth.

If Buckingham had killed them why did not Richard accuse them. He never denied killing them.

 

[Countessmeout]

The Beaufort line was not illegitimate. As was often done in those times, John of gaunt sought to legitimize his children by Katherine. It was made easier by his marriage to their mother. Both Richard II and the pope gave their blessing, and parliament passed it. The only sticking point was Henry VI feared their line, and truer to exclude them from inheriting. But that was deemed unlawful, to over ride the previous government ruling.

Edward couldn't simply remarry Elizabeth. He would basically be admitting he illegally married her in the first place. For a Catholic king to admit he was a bigamist, when his claim to the throne at the time was weak at best, would be practically committing kingly suicide. He also had no way of knowing if Elizabeth would give him any sons. It would have made his eldest two daughters bastards, and the pope was not likely to legitimize them. It's one thing to have bastards with your mistress, and even try and legitimize them in absence of heirs. But to try and claim children from a bigamous Union, would be a harder sell.

He was smarter to deny any contract at all, and continue insisting his marriage legal.

The boys disappearing was never in Richards best interest. He didn't usurp his throne, he was handed it. His dead nephews went from being bastards to rallying points. There was always going to be people claiming to be them too. If he really wanted them dead, he would have had them die from an 'illness' and have doctors testify. And bodies seen. The missing princes did him no favours.

The only one who benefited from their death was the Tudor claim.

If Richard had lived, and married Joanna of Portugal, he would have done the same as Henry and Elizabeth. He'd have united Lancaster and York. Only slightly worse, as Henry's claim was better than Joanna.

 

[Curryong]

Perhaps those who claim Richard is whiter that the driven snow would explain why the boys where never seen again after July 1783, ever, how HenryTudor or his associates could have got to them in the Tower to kill them when the Tower was completely in the grip of men appointed by Richard.

They never received any visitors after that time and their attendants were removed. Not a mouse could have got into the inner ramparts of the Tower without the Constable (appointed by Richard) knowing about it. When the rumours started among the people of London that the Princes were dead why did Richard not bring them out to be shown, at least privately to the Mayor and other officials, to show he was treating them properly? Because he knew they were dead, and he had ordered their killing.

 

[bekalc]

The Beaufort line was not illegitimate. As was often done in those times, John of gaunt sought to legitimize his children by Katherine. It was made easier by his marriage to their mother. Both Richard II and the pope gave their blessing, and parliament passed it. The only sticking point was Henry VI feared their line, and truer to exclude them from inheriting. But that was deemed unlawful, to over ride the previous government ruling.

Edward couldn't simply remarry Elizabeth. He would basically be admitting he illegally married her in the first place. For a Catholic king to admit he was a bigamist, when his claim to the throne at the time was weak at best, would be practically committing kingly suicide. He also had no way of knowing if Elizabeth would give him any sons. It would have made his eldest two daughters bastards, and the pope was not likely to legitimize them. It's one thing to have bastards with your mistress, and even try and legitimize them in absence of heirs. But to try and claim children from a bigamous Union, would be a harder sell.

He was smarter to deny any contract at all, and continue insisting his marriage legal.

The boys disappearing was never in Richards best interest. He didn't usurp his throne, he was handed it. His dead nephews went from being bastards to rallying points. There was always going to be people claiming to be them too. If he really wanted them dead, he would have had them die from an 'illness' and have doctors testify. And bodies seen. The missing princes did him no favours.

The only one who benefited from their death was the Tudor claim.

If Richard had lived, and married Joanna of Portugal, he would have done the same as Henry and Elizabeth. He'd have united Lancaster and York. Only slightly worse, as Henry's claim was better than Joanna.

Edward could have done it quietly just like he married Elizabeth quietly. What I don't believe is that Edward wouldn't have had a previous marriage annulled. He could have there was no issue. Edward's not stupid. As for well he married secretly once he'd marry secretly again. Edward announced his one secret marriage.
As for Parliament declared the boys bastards.

The boys are not bastards. Parliament overturned the ruling. Edward V is considered Edward V. As mentioned earlier, you ram one thing from Parliament you can ram through another. The fact is a lot of people didn't believe they were bastards. There's even a letter in the Spanish archives to Ferdinand and Isabella. Where the person writes about how Richard stole the throne from the boys. So that was the feeling on the street. If he couldn't convince the public that the boys were illegitimate, than that doesn't suggest strong evidence.

Not to mention, it was not for Parliament to declare a marriage invalid, it is for The Church to do so. The Church would have investigated and might very well have said there's not enough evidence in fact most historians think not enough evidence. So proper due course was absolutely not followed.

The presumption would be the marriage is valid, the children are legitimate on the Church's part not the other way around. As mentioned the two people in the precontracted marriage were dead. The victim the other woman never came forward to say hey I am married to the King.


AS for no banns read Elizabeth and Edward not a proper marriage. Back then it was, however the Church saw the abuses with secret weddings and added more conditions-this though was at Council of Trent.

 

[Mirabel]

I once thought Richard entirely innocent of his nephews' deaths.
But then, why didn't he simply produce them to quiet the rumors?

Also- why did he take the young Richard out of sanctuary to join his brother in the Tower? That has always troubled me, as well as the way in which he seized the throne for himself (He could have simply ruled as his nephew's protector).

Yes, Parliament handed it to him, but they would not have done so if he hadn't signaled a willingness to accept.

It is difficult to see how Richard could have been entirely unaware of the fate of his nephews.
Otoh, the Tudors were a ruthless lot, and would not have hesitated to remove potential rivals.

We will probably never know for certain.

 

[bekalc]

Of course the Tutors were a ruthless lot but The Earl of Warwick was executed as an adult. Not as a 10 year old child.

The treatment of those boys was beyond the pale. Richard's supporters was telling folks they we're dead too. If he Knew this and knew it was by natural means why did not he say something.

He had a motive and I expressed already why he did not want to show the bodies at the time Henry VI burial was becoming a pilgrimage site. Two innocent children-would even more so.

 

[Rudolph]

Today in 1485 Henry VII became King of England - here are ten facts about the ruler

https://www.express.co.uk/life-styl...-King-of-England-Richard-III-trivia-facts/amp