Warren, you never cease to make me laugh with that dry wit!!:p Here is a little glimpse of what Edward IV was trying to get his hands on!! :p :eek:

Elizabeth Woodville [Royal Collection, Queen's College, Ashmolean Museum]:


https://www.r3.org/rnt1991/images/elizabeth.jpg

It's interesting - unlike a lot of portraits of that era, Elizabeth Woodville looks like someone who would be considered very attractive nowadays. Edward had progressive tastes, apparently.

Here is the website for the Richard III society: https://www.r3.org/rnt1991/paintedqueen.html

Read about those who support Richard III and feel he got a bum rap. Read about the War of the Roses and other key players in this saga of sagas. It also talks about the Princes in the Tower and the Bones discovered there in 1674. Those bones are buried in Westminster Abbey and have been assumed to be Edward V, and Richard, Duke of York--last of the Yorkist and Plantagenet lines.

It is a true Royal Murder Mystery!!

Have you read The Sunne In Splendour, by Sharon Kay Penman? It's a historical novel about Richard III written from a pro-Richard point of view.


I think Shakespeare had a lot to do with the negative public perception of Richard III with his hatchet job in the play he wrote. Of course, since he was living in the era of Lancastrian monarchs who got there by defeating the Yorkist Richard, he couldn't very well have done otherwise if he wanted to keep his job. But once Shakespeare had turned Richard into one of the worst monsters in his entire output of plays,poor Richard didn't have much of a chance where public perception was concerned over the years.

Quite true Elspeth. Shakespeare was going to write Pro-Tudor under Elizabeth I.

Shakespeare has exaggerated the deformities of Richard in relation to being a hunchback. He was not as deformed as Master Shakespeare and the Tudors would wish us to believe. Master Shakespeare had to create a "physical monster" to go hand in hand with the "psychological monster" of Pro-Tudor promotion.

All of Shakespeare's exaggeration aside, I do think Richard III is responsible for the murder of the Princes in the Tower. He had the most to gain by it. While I wouldn't put it past Henry VII, I believe those boys were dead soon after the usurpation by Richard III. Henry VII could not have done it then. (Just My Opinion)

In Sharon Kay Penman's book, the Duke of Buckingham did it. I know that's one of the theories held by some of the Richard III apologists.

Really Elspeth?? I didn't know about that theory. Could you expand on what she wrote?

I wonder if they were as ugly as their paintings depict

The Princes in the Tower
 

Go to this website to read about the Princes in the Tower:
https://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...princes/1.html


Portrait of the Princes in the Tower
(National Archives)

https://www.crimelibrary.com/graphics...princes/1a.jpg

Yes, and I loved it! Did you like it? She wrote a trilogy, also, that deals with the Plantagenets and their Welsh adversaries, that is, Llewelyn Fawr/John Lackland, Simon de Montfort/Henry III and Llewelyn ap Gruffyd/Edward I. The books in this trilogy are "Here Be Dragons", "Falls the Shadow" and "The Reckoning". They, along with The Sunne in Splendour, are my favorites of her works. Has anyone here read them?

Yes, but it was a long time ago. I also liked When Christ and His Saints Slept; it must have been a horrifying era to live through, but it made a good story.

Tiaraprin, the Duke of Buckingham also had a claim to the throne and was popular. Penman's thesis was that if the Duke could murder the princes (actually the king and the prince, I suppose) and pin the blame on Richard, he'd get both of his rivals out of the way at once and people would turn to him as the natural successor. He reckoned without the Lancastrians coming back into the picture, of course, although his claim to the throne was as good as Henry Tudor's.

Thank you for filling in the gap. I had forgotten that piece of the intricate puzzle. When I read it I was like, you dummy, how did you forget that part!!!:p

Anyone hear of the rumors that it was Henry VII who killed them. If this were true, I wonder if he married Elizabeth of York to get close to them, or if she known or how she felt about it.

Henry VII is considered one of the key suspects. How Elizabeth of York would of felt, we wouldn't know. They seemed happy together in their own way which makes me think he didn't do it. I don't think she would have a happy marriage with the murderer of her brothers!

Here is a pic of Henry VII:worldroots.com https://images-partners.google.com/im...ifs/henry7.jpg

Edward V of England, one of the sad Princes in the Tower
 

Here is a truly rare signature, Edward V of England (one of the Princes in the Tower). It says in French: Your good cousin, Edward R.

https://www.r3.org/rnt1991/mysovereignking.html


https://www.r3.org/rnt1991/images/e4_sig.jpg

Looking at the picture of Henry VII, it's hard to believe he's Henry VIII's father! It looks as though the genes skipped a couple of generations and went straight from Edward IV to Henry VIII.

My suspicion/guess is that the princes were already dead or missing when Henry VII took the throne. Although Henry clearly married Elizabeth for dynastic purposes, I agree that they seem to have gotten along pretty well for a royal married couple of that period (and, unusually, he doesn't seem to have been a cheater).

It was often said at the time that Henry VIII looked like his grandfather Edward IV. Many comparisons were made during Henry's youth.

When I look at Henry VII, I see a mean, miserable man in that portrait. Does anyone agree with me?