Richard the Third

[BBMmk2]

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.

Very true. Thye Plantagenets were in some ways a lot worse than the Tudors, which I am rather partisan to as well. In that case Icould be neutral then in all of this!?!?

[jean]

...But can you cite an unbiased source to provide evidence of Richard's guilt?

Can you cite any source at all to provide evidence of Henry Tudor's?

(Josephine Tey doesn't count.)

[Sir Velo]

Can you cite any source at all to provide evidence of Henry Tudor's?

(Josephine Tey doesn't count.)

Exactly. All sources from this period can be tainted with accusations of bias. The point which Richard apologists seem unwilling to address is the fact that every extant source states that the princes were never seen after 1483. This, I'm afraid, administers the coup de grace to the Henry "theory", notwithstanding the complete lack of a shred of evidence to incriminate Henry. The claims of Perkin Warbeck can, I think, reasonably be discounted.

[Pabmusic]

Exactly. All sources from this period can be tainted with accusations of bias. The point which Richard apologists seem unwilling to address is the fact that every extant source states that the princes were never seen after 1483. This, I'm afraid, administers the coup de grace to the Henry "theory", notwithstanding the complete lack of a shred of evidence to incriminate Henry. The claims of Perkin Warbeck can, I think, reasonably be discounted.

I'm neither for Richard nor for Henry and I'd agree with your opening statements, but the fact that possibly biased existing sources state one thing, even if they do so consistently, cannot be reliable evidence that administers a coup de grâce to anything. We are not talking of eyewitness testimonies here, or if we are they are testimonies that the princes weren't seen, which is very weak evidence. In fact, the only possible eyewitness of a positive fact is the one that you 'reasonably' discount - Perkin Warbeck.

It may well be that the boys died in 1483, but I really don't see how you can be so sure.

[Sir Velo]

I'm neither for Richard nor for Henry and I'd agree with your opening statements, but the fact that possibly biased existing sources state one thing, even if they do so consistently, cannot be reliable evidence that administers a coup de grâce to anything. We are not talking of eyewitness testimonies here, or if we are they are testimonies that the princes weren't seen, which is very weak evidence. In fact, the only possible eyewitness of a positive fact is the one that you 'reasonably' discount - Perkin Warbeck.

It may well be that the boys died in 1483, but I really don't see how you can be so sure.

My initial post was to counter the view propounded by fhg that Henry was as likely to have been the murderer of the princes as Richard; not to prove Richard's guilt beyond doubt (which can't reasonably be done), but to demonstrate that any murder was far more likely to have been done by Richard, or under his orders, than by Henry, for which there is not a shred of evidence.

OK: no one can be "sure" that the princes died in 1483, but they were never seen in public again after summer 1483. The account of Dominic Mancini, reliably dated to 1483 (i.e. contemporary) reports the "suspicion" repeated in court that they had been done away with. In 1484, the Lord Chancellor of France iterated the rumour in the Estates-General in Tours. While not compelling evidence of Richard's guilt, it begs the question why, with rumours rife and damaging his reputation, Richard did not produce the princes. The other unassailable fact is that there is no evidence of anyone accusing Henry of the murder of the princes at the time, not even from sworn enemies such as Margaret of Burgundy (nee York). Margaret was known to be a staunch supporter of anyone willing to challenge Tudor, and backed both Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. Had the princes been known to be still alive in 1485, would she not have put abroad the rumour that Henry had had the two princes murdered?

[Pabmusic]

My initial post was to counter the view propounded by fhg that Henry was as likely to have been the murderer of the princes as Richard; not to prove Richard's guilt beyond doubt (which can't reasonably be done), but to demonstrate that any murder was far more likely to have been done by Richard, or under his orders, than by Henry, for which there is not a shred of evidence.

OK: no one can be "sure" that the princes died in 1483, but they were never seen in public again after summer 1483. The account of Dominic Mancini, reliably dated to 1483 (i.e. contemporary) reports the "suspicion" repeated in court that they had been done away with. In 1484, the Lord Chancellor of France iterated the rumour in the Estates-General in Tours. While not compelling evidence of Richard's guilt, it begs the question why, with rumours rife and damaging his reputation, Richard did not produce the princes. The other unassailable fact is that there is no evidence of anyone accusing Henry of the murder of the princes at the time, not even from sworn enemies such as Margaret of Burgundy (nee York). Margaret was known to be a staunch supporter of anyone willing to challenge Tudor, and backed both Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. Had the princes been known to be still alive in 1485, would she not have put abroad the rumour that Henry had had the two princes murdered?

Yes, this makes more sense.

[french frank]

I'm looking forward to reading Charles Ross's biography. This should give the pro-Richard arguments as informatively as possible. Murray Kendall is agin him - my inclination too.

[BBMmk2]

FF, who publishes this?

[Historian]

FF, who publishes this?

Charles Ross, 'Richard III' in the Yale English Monarchs Series, most recent edition published by Yale University Press, 1999. ISBN: 978-0300079791

[french frank]

Charles Ross, 'Richard III' in the Yale English Monarchs Series, most recent edition published by Yale University Press, 1999. ISBN: 978-0300079791

Indeed. And on its way from The Book Depository, I hear this am.

And fascinating it will be - as being pro-Richard, anti-Henry, if I understood correctly.

I'm still not clear exactly what is being proposed, though: that nasty Henry murdered the two princes and, prior or subsequently, repealed Richard's 'Titulus Regius', thus confirming Edward V's right to the crown (making himself therefore a regicide), while good King Richard merely locked them up in the Tower, away from public view, for two years and seized the crown.

[Nick Armstrong]

.....and Matt Baker with that equally nausciating Elly?

Shamelessly off-topic but BBM we are in such accord about M Baker that I imagine you will join with me in sympathising with Bruce Willis in relation to this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/...-interview-bbc I think I'd come across as brain-dead if Baker quizzed me...

And so back to Richard III

[BBMmk2]

Shamelessly off-topic but BBM we are in such accord about M Baker that I imagine you will join with me in sympathising with Bruce Willis in relation to this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/...-interview-bbc I think I'd come across as brain-dead if Baker quizzed me...

And so back to Richard III

Yes indeed!

I am rather glad that FF is a Ricardian!! thank you!!

[french frank]

I am rather glad that FF is a Ricardian!! thank you!!

Actually, I'm not BBM - I'm of the view that he's more likely to be guilty than Henry VII - whose claim went back to John of Gaunt. So I suspect you might be the rightful heir ...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Can you cite any source at all to provide evidence of Henry Tudor's?

No. As I said earlier.

(Josephine Tey doesn't count.)

- nor does Holinshed!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Exactly. All sources from this period can be tainted with accusations of bias.

Yes. As I said earlier.

The point which Richard apologists seem unwilling to address is the fact that every extant source states that the princes were never seen after 1483.

Quite so; as I said earlier. But then, I'm not a "Richard apologist" - as I said earlier, there are no "goodies and baddies" here: both Richard and Henry were ruthless opportunists who would stop at nothing to fulfil their ambitions. Either was quite capable of having the Princes murdered, both had motive and opportunity - something that Tudor apologists (Holinshed, More) didn't dare address.

This, I'm afraid, administers the coup de grace to the Henry "theory", notwithstanding the complete lack of a shred of evidence to incriminate Henry.

Then I hope you're never on a Jury if I'm ever accused of murder!