Richard the Third

[french frank]

They point the finger at Henry Tudor (if the princes were still alive after Richard's death, of course.)

Which brings us back to the point that if they were alive, how come Richard was crowned king? And if Richard had dismissed young Edward's claim, being illegitimate, why would Henry VII need to kill them, since his own claim was based on a link further back anyway, and therefore wasn't affected by whether Edward was alive or dead?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... if Richard had dismissed young Edward's claim, being illegitimate, why would Henry VII need to kill them, since his own claim was based on a link further back anyway, and therefore wasn't affected by whether Edward was alive or dead?

Perkin Warbeck answers this, I think. Richard III didn't need to go further than de-legitimizing Edward IV's sons, because his was an immediate claim to the throne. Henry VII's claim was so much "further back" that anyone claiming to be a son of Edward IV could - and did - raise an army against him. The Plantagenet line is "kinked" by Richard III, but it's effectively severed by Henry Tudor.

[Barbirollians]

Perkin Warbeck answers this, I think. Richard III didn't need to go further than de-legitimizing Edward IV's sons, because his was an immediate claim to the throne. Henry VII's claim was so much "further back" that anyone claiming to be a son of Edward IV could - and did - raise an army against him. The Plantagenet line is "kinked" by Richard III, but it's effectively severed by Henry Tudor.

Then why if they were simply children and delegitimised - send them to the Tower rather than keep them close to him at court ?

Also where were they in 1485 surely steps would have been taken by the Yorkists to spirit them away to a place of safety somewhere if they were still alive on the basis that better an illegitimate member of the house of York than a distant claim of Lancaster ?

[french frank]

Henry VII's claim was so much "further back" that anyone claiming to be a son of Edward IV could - and did - raise an army against him.

Which equally applies to Richard. And in Richard's case we know of his ordered executions of supporters of Edward V - his uncles on his mother's side. Not sure what Hastings' genuine position was on that - but he too was executed on Richard's orders.

And then there was the fact that Henry VI was deposed and his only son killed or executed by order of the later Plantagenets, possibly Clarence (and why exactly was he executed?).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Then why if they were simply children and delegitimised - send them to the Tower rather than keep them close to him at court ?

Because "The Tower" was part of "The Court": used as a Royal residence much more than a prison before the 16th Century.

Also where were they in 1485?

I don't know; I wasn't there. That's the point; propaganda has so obfuscated historical facts that we don't know what happened to the Princes. Richard could quite well have had them murdered; but it is at least as likely that Henry VII was responsible for their deaths - he had at least as much reason for having them murdered as had Richard.

There are no goodies and/or baddies here: Richard Plantagenet and Henry Twydor were both ruthless usurpers quite prepared to [re]write history to suit their ambitions. Question and counter-question merely confirm this. But frenchie's question about why would Henry need to have them killed is, I think, readily ... "answered". (Well, as "readily" as Richard's own need.)

surely steps would have been taken by the Yorkists to spirit them away to a place of safety somewhere if they were still alive on the basis that better an illegitimate member of the house of York than a distant claim of Lancaster ?

Good question. I don't know.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Which equally applies to Richard.

Quite. But I was suggesting an answer to your question "Why would Henry need to kill them?", not seeking to suggest that Perkin Warbeck (& Lambert Simnel et al) "proves" Richard's "innocence".

[gradus]

Ref msg396, after the execution on 30 January 1649, the body of Charles was embalmed, the head sewn on and the body placed in a lead coffin which was taken to St James's Palace the following day. Interment in Henry VII's chapel was refused and his body was taken on the night of Feb 7 in a black coach drawn by 6 black horses decked in black to his own bedchamber at Windsor. The following day he was brought to the Dean's Hall and on 9 February his coffin was carried to St George's Chapel by soldiers. The burial vault (towards the middle of the choir) was found to contain the coffins of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour. The coffin bore only the words 'King Charles' and the date.
Summarised from King Charles 1, by Pauline Gregg.

[jean]

Thank you!

So when Charles began to be revered as a Saint,, there wasn't a suitable shrine for his devotees top go on pilgrimage to?

[gradus]

No I don't think there was, however I have seen wreaths on the anniversary of his death at the place of execution outside the Banqueting House and his equestrian statue at the Trafalgar Square end of Whitehall, so the flame still burns bright with some.

[Sir Velo]

Richard could quite well have had them murdered; but it is at least as likely that Henry VII was responsible for their deaths - he had at least as much reason for having them murdered as had Richard.

I don't think there are many historians who would agree that Henry VII was as likely to have been the princes' (sic) murderer as Richard. Realistically, Henry's only opportunity to murder the princes would have been after his accession in 1485. This theory leaves open the question of why the princes were not seen after 1483 and why Richard did not produce them when he was suspected of their murder. Moreover, the chronicler Holinshed states quite unequivocally that Richard commented on the "murder of his nephews" during his (Richard's) reign.

Rumours of the princes' deaths were in circulation by late 1483, but Richard never attempted to prove that they were alive by having them seen in public, which strongly suggests that they were dead by then.

[jean]

...the flame still burns bright with some.

I know!

I've several times been involved in singing Evensong on his feast day. It's all quite bizarre.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Moreover, the chronicler Holinshed states quite unequivocally that Richard commented on the "murder of his nephews" during his (Richard's) reign.

Holinshed ??? You may as well cite Wiki!

[Sir Velo]

Holinshed ??? You may as well cite Wiki!

Aside from Holinshed there are several chroniclers who cite contemporary sources that rumour of the princes' murder was rife during Richard's reign. The theory that Henry was responsible for their deaths still leaves unaccounted the fact that the princes were not seen from 1483 to 1485 if still alive. Why would Richard not produce the princes if they were alive, in order to quell the rumour? More, in 1513, identified Sir James Tyrrell as the murderer, acting on Richard's orders, and told the story of Tyrrell's confession, which took place after he had been arrested for treason against Henry VII. The circumstantial evidence against Richard, I'm afraid, is overwhelming.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

More, in 1513, identified Sir James Tyrrell as the murderer, acting on Richard's orders, and told the story of Tyrrell's confession, which took place after he had been arrested for treason against Henry VII.

More ???

You may as well cite Holinshed!

The circumstantial evidence against Richard, I'm afraid, is overwhelming.

No need to be afraid: he's not going to bite you. But can you cite an unbiased source to provide evidence of Richard's guilt? You're right - the absence of the Princes between 1483-85 is highly suspicious. Richard could have murdered them and had motive and opportunity; but so did Henry - and it's the Tudor chroniclers who provide the rest of the "overwhelming circumstantial evidence".

[french frank]

The English royal 'Houses' are littered with royal executions, deposings &c. the most recent, at Richard's time, being his brother's usurping of Henry VI's sovereignty. And the slaying of his only son who would have then been the rightful heir.

Henry VII's claim was through a female, not recognised by the Plantagenets, but it was the Tudors who thereafter brought in the right of women to inherit the sovereignty. So crown's off to them for that. And it is admitted, I think, that Richard's route to the crown involved far more murders, executions &c. than ever Henry Tudor's did.