murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

EDWARD V–YOUNG APOLLO OR INVALID?

There are some, though increasingly few in number, who still wish to believe the ‘bones in the urn’ at Westminster are, without doubt, the remains of Edward V and his brother, Richard of York. Professor Hicks, among others, chides those who ‘do not wish to believe’ despite ‘the best medical opinion of the day.’ (Extraordinary statement, since Hicks has doubted the veracity of Richard III’s remains, despite overwhelming modern scientific confirmation…yet in the 1930’s, prIor to the advent of Dna testing,not even the sex of pubescent/pre-pubescent children’ remains could be accurately ascertained, let alone their identity.)

The examination of the fragmentary skeletons shows that the elder of the two suffered some kind of dental disease, either the potentially fatal osteomyelitis, or the lesser but still painful and unpleasant oteitis. In the former ailment, modern day patients have described their faces as ‘swelling like a balloon’, have complained of ‘not sleeping properly for a year with pain’ and having ‘stabbing pain in jaw, face and eye area.’ This is with modern medical intervention, including powerful painkillers and antibiotics. In oteitis, bone forms rather than is destroyed; although not generally as painful as osteomyeletis, or potentially life threatening, it is still an inflammatory response to peridontal infection, and would be connected with abscessed and decayed teeth. Uncomfortable at the very least and can also cause swelling and pain.

Now the young Prince Edward was never once in his lifetime described as sickly or unattractive. Indeed, he was described, in glowing terms, as a veritable young Apollo and a budding scholar of high intellect…
Mancini writes:

“He had such dignity in his own person, and in his face such charm that however much they might gaze, he never wearied the eyes of beholders.”

“… I should not pass over in silence the talent of the youth. In word and deed, he gave so many proofs of his liberal education, of polite, nay rather scholarly attainments far beyond his age; all of these should be recounted, but require so such labor, that I shall lawfully excuse myself the effort. There is one thing I shall not omit, and that is, his special knowledge of literature, which enabled him to discourse elegantly, to understand fully and to disclaim most excellently from any work whether in verse or prose which came into his hands, unless it were from among the more abstruse authors.”

Although young Edward’s household was in Ludlow, he was not hidden away from the world in any wise. From 1480 onwards, there are at least eight recorded instances when he was involved in public activities with his father, Edward IV, or at court with his parents.

The above hardly sounds like the activities or description of a sickly boy wracked with constant dental pain and infection. The fact that Edward had a physician, Dr Argentine, with him need not imply sickliness. It was normal for royalty to have their own private physicians to attend to their well-being.

George Buck is the only writer of the past to mention that Edward V may have been unwell. He gives no proof, other than none of his full blood siblings lived to a very great age. I am sure most traditionalists would not be inclined to accept Buck’s idea in this regard, as in other respects his reports on Richard are positive ones and question the Tudor ‘story’ and it would surely mean they had to give some credence to them!

So, it comes down quite simply to this:
If Dominic Mancini is to be believed, and Professor Hicks postulates he may have even met the young Edward V, the youth cannot have been suffering any noticeable afflictions or physical abnormalities. Any such blemishes would also surely have been noted in his public appearances (if such appearances were even possible had he been chronically ailing). They were never mentioned.
So therefore, if Edward V was the bright, handsome and intellectual young ‘Apollo’ of Mancini’s glowing description, it is almost impossible that the child with the abnormal jawbone ,whose remains lie in the urn in Westminster, is in fact him.

Sources:
Annette Carson- The Maligned King
Dominic Mancini –The Usurpation of Richard III
Michael Hicks-Edward V
http://www.oralhealthgroup.

Single Post Navigation

81 thoughts on “EDWARD V–YOUNG APOLLO OR INVALID?

  1. Iris on said:

    Excellent post, only I wish that at least in Ricardian circles we started citing Mancini’s work with its original title “De occupatione regni Angliae per Ricardium Tertium” that has nothing to do with the word “usurpation” and the connected meaning of “taking power unlawfully”. Maybe if we start with this exercise despite force of habit, some others will follow

    Liked by 5 people

  2. Kalina on said:

    As I remarked many sources connecting with Richard initially in Latin were translated into English wrongly. I suspect there are the old translations from XIX c.

    Liked by 2 people

    • In this case it’s a XX century translation. Mancini’s report was discovered in 1934 and translated and published in 1936.

      Like

      • Kalina on said:

        There is the French title on the later cover (XVIII-XIX c.?): L,Usurpation d,Angleterre a Richard III. Or something that. I can be wrong in details, but “usurpation” certainly is.

        Like

      • I don’t know which cover it is, but every source quoting or talking about Mancini says the manuscript was found in 20th century in Bibliotheque Nationale in Lille in 1934 or 1936 (I’m not sure which as I’ve come across both dates, but probably 1934 as it says it was translated and published in 1936 by Charles Armstrong).

        Like

  3. Occam’s razor thought, if the bones in the Urn are DNA tested and compared
    to Richard III’s DNA and found to be close relatives, can we ask how many sons
    Edward IV had? If the health issues rule out their being precisely Edward V and Richard IV, could they be two tragic and hapless sons of Edward IV who perhaps
    did not have Elizabeth Woodville as their biological mother? We then have to ask
    exactly when in a tidy time span between say 1460 and 1483 has the Tower rather
    empty, given how their bodies are left under the stairwell in the manner they were!

    Like

  4. Or if we add roughly 8 years to 1483 we have Henry VII looking very guilty.
    Again, Perkin Warbeck may have been poor Richard IV and we know he was
    beheaded by Henry Tudor because he did have a solid claim to the throne!
    A simple DNA test rules things in or out if it can be carefully and accurately
    done! Sir Thomas More is infamous for chasing after rumors, the account
    he has is below the journalistic standards of William Randolph Hearst given
    that it has us asking more questions than it seems to answer! Odds are they
    are Plantagenets and not Romans or Celts or simply from the Anglo-Saxon
    times prior to 1066. A set of kinship relationships can be found via the DNA.
    Buckingham’s bold revolt in 1483 hinges on perhaps the ancient gossip he seeks
    to blame on Riii. Henry Tudor’s revolt is trying to beat out the moment in time
    when Edward V becomes a technical adult, namely his 15th year. Did Richard
    have an idea precisely of all that the Duke of Buckingham was indeed saying?

    Like

    • Why do you say ‘Odds are they are Plantagenets…’? At the depth they were found, isn’t it more likely they were from a much earlier period? I’m sure Annette Carson makes a good case for this in The Maligned King’.

      Liked by 3 people

      • hoodedman1 on said:

        I often think of the man who was charged with murdering his wife and dumping her body in Lindow Moss. When a skull was found, he threw up his hands and admitted to the crime. However, the skull was from a woman some 2000 years old!

        Liked by 1 person

      • … or Bertie Manton, who killed his wife at the time of several air raids.

        Like

    • Since the bones were never carbon dated, we don’t actually know at all from which period they are. And since they were found so deep in the ground (10 feet – 3 m), it seems more likely they were from an earlier period.

      It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that skeletons of “Plantagenet royalty” turned out to belong to people of much earlier time periods, as was the case with another child skeleton found in the Tower in 1970s that turned out to be from the Iron Age, or the warrior buried with his horse in Leicester (also 10 feet deep) that a couple of builders found in 1990s and believed to be Richard III, who’s likely to have been a Saxon warrior based on the manner of burial.

      The main problem with the bones of the two children that were thought to be ‘the princes in the Tower’ is that the queen is not allowing them to be exhumed, presumably because she doesn’t want to open the door for further exhumations of various historical figures. If they did exhume the two skeletons, I don’t know if they could determine without a doubt if they were or weren’t (if they turn out to be the right sex and age and time period), since they don’t have the mitochondrial DNA available. A comparison to Richard’s DNA could be tricky – a match would confirm the relation, but a mismatch would not rule it out, because cases of false paternity are always possible at least in theory, so instead of determining they aren’t the ‘princes in the Tower’, it could just resurrect the old rumors about Edward IV’s paternity (which I don’t believe in, but you never know for sure).

      Liked by 2 people

      • Kalina on said:

        Is it impossible to find any succesors of Woodville family? The sisters of Princes in Tower had some children I suppose…

        Like

      • Well, there are lots of descendants of their sisters, of course – the Royal family of England is among them – but finding any in the unbroken female line is the tricky thing. An unbroken female line from any of Elizabeth Woodville’s sisters would also do as well.

        John Ashdown-Hill was hoping a few years ago to extract the DNA from the lock of hair of Mary Tudor (daughter of Elizabeth of York and Henry VII), but the locket where the lock of hair has been since the 18th century proved impossible to open. There was another locket with a lock of her hair, but I don’t know what is going on with that.

        Liked by 1 person

    • hoodedman1 on said:

      Working in the archaeology field, albeit as an acolyte, I do have real problems accepting these bones as the Princes. The only thing that gives me even the smallest bit of doubt is possibly the similarities in dentition to Anne Mowbray. They weren’t actually in the stair well as far as I could see but under solid layers near the foot…that’s if of course the place they were found is in fact correct. We have no PROOF of this at all; in reality they could have been from anywhere in the bailey where human remains are often found. (Another child in the 70’s, dating to the Iron Age.) Not surprising, there was a massive Roman basilica on the site, and native British settlement earlier. No police called, no photos, not even drawings in situ, no such thing as archaeology back then…and not even thought of as important for several days…hmmmm.
      I just don’t understand, if the bones should be the princes, why anyone would bury them in such a public place, requiring huge amounts of manpower in ONE NIGHT to make a TEN FOOT excavation (which would have to be braced.) If that’s the case, LOADS of people were in on it! The Tower was a palace too, with a huge household…surely someone would have noticed? Why not just quietly, under the cover of darkness, put them in the crypt of the nearby chapel, in someone else’s tomb chest? Or smuggle out the bodies as sacks of something or other and deposit them in the river or far into the countryside?

      Liked by 2 people

      • I’ve often said the same thing: there were hundreds of people in and out of the Tower every day, and many lived there full-time with their families. There were just too many people present for those bones to have been buried there “in secret” , ten feet under a stone staircase that took many men several days to dismantle in the 17th C., and then rebuilding that staircase ALL IN ONE NIGHT with no one remembering and telling Tudor. No way, no how. Just can’t have been done. Thos4e bones are Roman at the earliest, and maybe older.

        Like

      • (Wish we could edit our posts) My last sentence should read “Those bones are Roman at the LATEST, and maybe older.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • bloodofcherries on said:

        I agree that More’s story is implausible, but his book also wasn’t published until the mid 1500s (although apparently it was passed around earlier). Why this gap? As late as 1499 Henry VII still believed that at least one of the princes might be alive so why, if all this time there were people around who knew what had happened and were willing to tell More, did none of them tell the king? He spent a fortune on Perkin Warbeck so presumably would have been grateful for proof that his nemesis was a fake. Of course, More also wrote that they were dug up again and reburied somewhere else. Add that to all the other funnies and I’d be surprised if the bones were the boys.

        Like

      • More’s book was unfinished and not published in his lifetime. It was only first published in 1557 by his son-in-law.

        Like

  5. Iris on said:

    There would be no need to dna the bones in the urn if radiocarbon dating ruled them out as 15th centuries skeletons and/or male skeletons. If they were 15th centuries boys’ skeletons, their mitocondrial dna could be matched with the skeleton of EW resting in Windsor, which would call for a further exhumation, but it would not be the first case in police investigations, even if not especially for cold cases, at least in Italy.

    Proving the bones in the urn are not the boys’ would not prove what happened to them, so research cannot stop at the momentary impossibility to reanalyse those bones, but it would at least debunk a myth and I am sure tourism at Westminster Abbey won’t drop even if they do turn out not to be them. On the contrary, I’d expect historical tourism and literature (both non fiction and fiction) would boost the more evidence is found, just as it happened after the discovery of Richard’s remains in Leicester.

    On the other hand, proving the bones in the urn are indeed the boys’ would not prove who prompted their death, if it was not due to natural causes. An analysis of the bones might help find the cause or at least rule out a list of causes, but I am not sure how closer to knowing the boys’ fate we would be. Imho it is nonetheless better to investigate more than less.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Yes, but they would need to get a permission to exhume Elizabeth Woodville, just as they need a permission from the Queen to exhume the skeletons of the two children found in the Tower under the stair, and the Queen is not allowing it. This is the major stumbling block.

      Like

    • bloodofcherries on said:

      I think the biggest question is if DNA could be extracted from the probably very contaminated bones in the urn. They have been handled by who knows how many people and were even mixed with animal bones and rubbish. It’s true that Richard’s mtDNA can’t be used as this is passed on through the female line and they are descended from different lines, but his Y chromosome could. It’s not clear where in the Plantagenet family tree the “false paternity event” occurred that led to the modern Beaufort descendants not sharing Richard’s (or each other’s) Y chromosome, but even if it was in the Duke of York’s line of descent it should equally affect Edward IV, Richard III and the princes. There should only be a mismatch if either Richard, Edward or his sons were the products of false paternity and that’s unlikely. So you wouldn’t necessarily need to exhume Elizabeth Woodville, but of course you’d still need permission to open the urn.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Kalina on said:

        Pater semper incertus, but a mother of Princes of Tower is certainly Elizabeth Woodville. I suspect that her exhumation from the tomb in St. George Chapel will be difficult as well as the bones in the urn in Westminster Abbey.

        Like

  6. Iris on said:

    Of course. Let’s see if she or her successor in the future change their mind, the question is if it happens during our lifetime or not. It took over 500 years to have a dignified interment for Richard, at least I could witness that…

    Liked by 1 person

  7. i feel that “timetravelingbunny” is very correct. I’m assuming the courtiers of Charles II had a very good idea of how much ground was disturbed at, under or near the stairwell, and had given an allowance for the prospect that London had been occupied from Roman times onward if not earlier. Elizabeth II most likely is most thoroughly against DNA testing the dead royals, let alone cloning a very genius level and brilliant Sir Isaac Newton, who also rests inside Westminster Abbey! I feel a good DNA test could prove Riii to be very innocent! It might be a jaw dropper! I am torn, either the two lads have Edward IV as a father or they don’t! I am saying he obviously had quite a few children and not by Elizabeth Woodville! (GOTO the Human Shredder) We know documents were modified and what was left tends to buttress a claim not unlike that of William the Conqueror where 1066 and 1485 become linked.

    The finding of Richard III and the subsequent invasive dietary analysis done on his bones confirms he ate like a king towards the last few years of his life. Had any of Edward IV’s children a better claim to the throne through both their father and mother it is most likely a death sentence on them by 1486 or 1487 but this does not say that its actually Henry VII who killed the two Princes in the Tower! The bones untested in the 1600s urn suggest an open question, that is being kept open for fear of what one of the possibilities could be! Someone wants to avoid looking at things deeply… rather than in a very superficial way. I discovered some Youtubes online to the trial in the 1980s that was televised. http://www.r3.org/on-line-library-text-essays/jeremy-potter-richard-iiis-historians-adverse-and-favourable-views/ At one point in the trial, the very dated 1930s take on the bones that had a comparison to poor short-lived Anne Mowbray had me pausing and thinking over recessive traits. Is it three or four lines of descent from Edward III that Richard III has? His father has two lines of descent, his mother has John of Gaunt’s name cropping up somewhat infamously for he had a famous mistress! Once again, by the ironical and sardonic rules of the “Cousin’s War” via a curious logic we see that anything remotely quasi-legal that legitimizes Henry Tudor only strengthens Richard III’s claim! (Let alone that of Warwick the Kingmaker directly, too!)

    “The high tide of revisionism was reached in 1983 when Ricardians, now under the royal patronage of H.R.H. the Duke of Gloucester, celebrated the 500th anniversary of Richard’s accession. In that year the Chairman of the Richard III Society, Jeremy Potter, published Good King Richard ?, a survey of the Great Debate subtitled An Account of Richard III and his Reputation 1483-1983.

    In 1984 members of the Society prepared evidence and appeared as defence witnesses in a television trial of Richard for the murder of the princes.The Trial of Richard III, a London Weekend Television production, was transmitted on Channel 4 for four hours on a Sunday evening. The script, edited by the producers, Richard Drewett and Mark Redhead, was published as a book under the same title. The jury, which had been chosen to represent a wide cross-section of the educated public, returned a unanimous verdict of ‘not guilty.’”

    Like

  8. i feel that “timetravelingbunny” is correct. Even if my hunch at best has only 50/50 odds but could actually clear Riii we have the situation where Elizabeth II dreads the day and hour where a very bright team of scientists totally want to disturb the eternal rest of Sir Isaac Newton and clone him!
    I’m very much assuming Henry VII had Richard IV beheaded easily more than 15 years after Bosworth Field happened! I agree in that I reduced down what was deduced in the reign of Charles II to a mere handful of possibilities, assuming they as a group all understood how much ground and/or soil was disturbed under or near that Norman stairwell…

    Like

  9. “The high tide of revisionism was reached in 1983 when Ricardians, now under the royal patronage of H.R.H. the Duke of Gloucester, celebrated the 500th anniversary of Richard’s accession. In that year the Chairman of the Richard III Society, Jeremy Potter, published Good King Richard ?, a survey of the Great Debate subtitled An Account of Richard III and his Reputation 1483-1983.

    In 1984 members of the Society prepared evidence and appeared as defense witnesses in a television trial of Richard for the murder of the princes.The Trial of Richard III, a London Weekend Television production, was transmitted on Channel 4 for four hours on a Sunday evening. The script, edited by the producers, Richard Drewett and Mark Redhead, was published as a book under the same title. The jury, which had been chosen to represent a wide cross-section of the educated public, returned a unanimous verdict of ‘not guilty.’”

    http://www.r3.org/on-line-library-text-essays/jeremy-potter-richard-iiis-historians-adverse-and-favourable-views/

    IMOHO — At one point in the televised trial, poor short lived Anne Mowbary’s bones are being talked about. Science clearly has gone past what we thought we knew in the 1930s and even if the Uni of Leicester team has a reputation for being somewhat “slapdash” or rushed when doing fieldwork in a TIME TEAM manner… lets now think over how much biology and genetics has changed due to how we sequence DNA! We are on the verge of having the ability to clone a Neanderthal, let alone someone more recent! This may happen in the next 30 to 50 years! Seriously said! — The MBEs that PL & J.AH were given this June were well deserved! Is it two or three lines of descent from Eiii that Riii has? His father has two, his mother has one from John of Gaunt via his mistress! His father has an extremely solid claim that only was augmented by how he marries!

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Christine Willmott on said:

    The Ricardians won’t have it will they, so desperate are they to prove the innocence of Richard 111 of the murder of the two princes that they ignore all the very real facts that stare them right in the face, Hastings was executed and Earl Rivers without any trial whatsoever, Edward was waylaid by his uncle and taken to the Tower, then he requested his younger brother join him why? Does this not prove that Richard wanted them both under lock and key where they be easily disposed of? The trumped up charges against Rivers was ridiculous an act which seriously angered the young Prince, the coronation that should have been in preparation was put aside as conveniently for Richard a Bishop Stillington who was in the pay of this so called Lord Protector declared he had proof of a wedding contract between Edward 1V and an Eleanor Talbot, why was this only disclosed now? No word while Edward was alive so these poor young princes were declared bastards with no claim to the throne which only left hey ho, that admirable person Richard of Gloucester the only true heir to the throne of England, no wonder young Edward was suffering from depression he possibly was suffering from some malady, which only added to his misery he knew what happened to deposed monarchs, after a few months seen playing in the tower gardens both he and his brother disappeared, despite rumours they were dead Richard never produced them which should prove his guilt, surely to quell suspicion about himself he would wish to show the boys were alive and well? Yet he was silent on the matter and contrary to his supporters raving about how popular he was there were muttering sin London and among the elite, if they were not dead then where were they? Richards defeat at Bosworth showed all too clearly the contempt and disgust his countrymen had for him this man whom they called a tyrant, his reign has gone down in history as a failure and the analysis of the bones in the Westminster urn show they were two young children of about the same age the two princes were when they disappeared, also very telling the teeth show a familial resemblance to the teeth of lady Anne Mowbray the child bride of Richard of York the younger prince, both these children were cousins and also their bones were found under a stairwell where Thomas More said they were buried, these facts scream out Richards infamy and although his apologists try to contest the evidence, Richard 111’s guilt was well known in his lifetime as well to later generations, is it any wonder he lost the crown?

    Like

    • hoodedman1 on said:

      Well, that was quite a rant. How do you know Rivers or Hastings did not have a trial? In fact Rivers at least very likely did-under Percy of Northumberland. Rivers’ behaviour was so ‘odd’ in the days before his arrest, he unfortunately made himself seem very suspicious (trying to raise an army, giving away positions he was in no way entitled to do, not turning up in the designated meeting spot.) Stillington received NOTHING for his part and received no offices or known monies; however EDWARD had imprisoned him for reasons unknown in the past and then so did Tudor; he died in the Tower in Henry VII’s reign. There WERE rumours of irregularities in Edward’s marriage in the general population noted BEFORE Eleanor Talbot was mentioned; even Mancini writes this. Eleanor was not some nobody either; it would be pretty disingenuous to bring up her name in such a manner when her sister was Duchess of Norfolk. Curious that in the Tudor era her identity was deliberately obscured by the likes of More who makes her Elizabeth Lucy. Why, I wonder? BTW Richard’s countrymen did not seem to have any problem with him; some of the lords did. Even so, MOST of the lords and barons still supported him; most of Tudor’s men were French mercenaries, a few misled Welshmen (Tudor did nothing for them ultimately), some old Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford eager for revenge on the House of York (not Richard personally) and a handful of disaffected Yorkists such as John Cheney, not exactly an important person.
      I am afraid you are sorely wrong about Thomas More, who was 5 years old at the time of Bosworth. He mentions a stairwell BUT THEN SAYS THE BONES WERE MOVED. So if the bodies were found under the stairs, then the sainted More’s work is wrong (it is on a number of points, even on page 1, where he mysteriously gets Edward’s age at death and length of reign wrong–and makes them those of HENRY TUDOR. Hmmm, interesting, that.) Now, of course, we don’t even know IF these scanty remains were found where they were reputed to be found–there was no archaeology then, no photographs, nothing but hearsay, and apparently no one thought anything of these remains for 2 days till the story started to grow in the telling. The bones were last examined in the 30’s when forensic archaeology was pretty much non-existent; they are NOT sexed as male (not possible back then in juveniles) and not carbon-dated. By photos the elder has some female qualities. There is a Roman cemetery only a few hundred feet away too and there has even been another child’s skeleton found in the vicinity–this one is dated by modern techniques to the Iron Age, so even pre-Roman. As for the teeth, one of the examiners even admitted that the supposed congenitally missing teeth may have been knocked out; there is also good evidence that the missing teeth in Anne Mowbray came from her mother’s side of the family, NOT her father’s. (The Earl of Shrewsbury, her maternal grandfather was killed in battle and identified by his missing tooth.) It is not a hugely rare condition anyway and can appear in non-related people.
      You are also wrong that ‘his guilt was well known’. Rumours were well known, yes. However, William Stanley lost his head for querying whether Perkin Warbeck was the real thing, so obviously he had his doubts about the Princes’ death–and paid for them. Other Tudor writings also say there were rumours at least one was alive.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Indeed. Those bones were found in the one place More told us they couldn’t be – he says they were buried near there and then moved away but he knew not where. There is a lot of evidence for the pre-contract and it now suggests that not only Stillington but Lord Sudeley was present, whilst several people who became aware of it during Edward’s lifetime died quickly.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Christine on said:

        Do you not see a pattern here, King John’s nephew was a danger to his crown and vanished, Richard 11 was deposed and later died whilst in prison in the Tower, Henry V1 was murdered after being deposed and Edward 11, no monarch who was ever deposed was allow to live as their very existence was a threat to the usurper, i acknowledge Richard 111’s bravery as a soldier and the fact he was popular in the north his stronghold, I accept that his brother left him Lord protector of England but his very actions seem to suggest that he had planned to take the crown all along, the Plantaganets were not sentimental family oriented people, the Duke of Clarence was drowned some say in a vat of malmsey and after his death Richard saw there were only his two young nephews between him and power, he had been brought up in an age where to get what you achieve you had to be ruthless, he was very much a product of his age, the people did not like him and there were rumours circulating around Europe of the disappearance of his two nephews, it was said he took the crown with some reluctance how noble of him, it ranks of hypocrisy, Sir Thomas More wrote in his history of Richard 111 how there were grumblings amongst the people of the treatment of the young King Edward V, More was born it is true in the last years of Richards reign, but he did have sources now lost to us, he knew the nuns at the minories and it is possible he was able to gain information from them, you also have to remember as Weir states in her book on the two princes that More was no yes man for the Tudors, he lost his head years later for defying Henry V111 over the act of supremacy, therefore he was not the sort of man to slander a kings character for the sake of appeasing his successor, it is odd that these two children if they were not killed together were found heaped together, some ruptured blood in the skull of the elder was found which a pathologist claimed was consistent with suffocation, that is the likely fate that befall the two children of Edward 1V, let’s say for arguments sake they were not slain but merely died of illness, apart from Edward V having treatment for osteomyelitis which it is supposed he had, the younger prince was healthy enough, their disappearance don’t you think was a little too convenient for Richard? If they are not the princes then who are they? Another telling piece of evidence is the shreds of velvet found with the bones, Royalty alone wore velvet this again is more evidence that they were not paupers sons or anyone else but the sons of Edward V and Elizabeth Woodville, during the battle of Bosworth Richard charged like a madman into the forefront of the battle, was he trying to commit suicide was he a man with a very very heavy conscience,or was he innocent, history I doubt will ever prove his innocence and all the evidence which I have quoted does suggest towards the fact that it was Richard 111 who ordered their deaths and shameful burial to keep the crown for himself but he will always have his apologists.

        Like

      • No, I see people lazily trying to establish a pattern.
        With regard to trials, I strongly advise you to read Carson’s book on the powers of Lord Protector and Constable.

        Liked by 1 person

      • mry4441 on said:

        I think that Christine needs to do some very serious research before she rants on this site. There have been some long discussions on the R3 Forum regarding Hastings having a trial or not and the conclusion reached was that while there isn’t any definite evidence it is likely that he did as Richard was Lord Constable and there were members of the Council present in the Tower that day. Annette has discussed this in Maligned King, which as we know is based purely on research. As for Rivers being as innocent as the day he was born I think Christine might do well to look up the discussion on the Forum regarding what happened in Northampton and Stony Stratford. It was discovered, during long discussions, that Rivers was not in Ludlow when E5 left to travel to London but on his East Anglian estates. Lots of evidence was cited which made it clear that Rivers was up to something. Evidence was provided by competent researchers , one being Marie Barnfield whose research is impeccable. Also, as you said above, it is very likely that Rivers, Grey and Vaughan had a trial overseen by the Earl of Northumberland. Research and contemporary evidence that is what you need before you rant about what happened between 1483 and 1485.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. hoodedman1 on said:

    Sure, but just because there is a pattern does not mean it’s 100% a given. How do you explain all the references to the Duke of Buckingham as the ‘killer’, written at a time when both he and Richard were dead? No one benefited from naming him. But that aside, you are inventing history yourself here, as there is NO evidence from the period that Edward V had ostemyelitis. This is a case of putting the cart in front of the horse. A few people assumed he did because the skeleton from the Tower did but that skeleton may well not be his as explained earlier (and even most ‘traditionalists’ today are becoming increasingly dubious about the ID of those bones, no matter what else they might think about the princes’ fate.) The boy had journeyed around the previous Christmas with his father , he had ridden to Northamptonshire from Ludlow and then into London in full view of everyone. It was written he was attractive and intelligent–if he had osteomyelitis, he would have been in a lot of pain, with a swollen jaw, and feeling very poorly indeed.
    But yep, Richard will have his ‘apologists’ and rightly so, as we’ve heard the apologists for Henry VII (killer of Edward of Warwick, and possibly Richard’s son John) and Henry VIII (the latter as close to England’s Nero as you can get but thought of as ‘great’ for years due to a big wad of religious bigotry and a sprinkling of sexism)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Quite and mtDNA will probably prove that those bones don’t belong to the “Princes” now that Elizabeth Roberts has been traced. After all, nobody can take More at face value AND believe that those bones beong to the “Princes”.

      Liked by 3 people

    • PS Several historians now doubt that Edward II died in 1327 and believe that he travelled in Italy afterwards.

      Liked by 3 people

      • hoodedman1 on said:

        Yes, at one time everyone would have laughed to even imagine such a thing but it’s taken more seriously now as a possibility. In the Middle Ages, it would much easier to ‘disappear’ than today, and that doesn’t mean ‘dead.’

        Liked by 1 person

    • Christine on said:

      I’m not inventing history and yes iv heard that Buckingham could well be responsible for the princes disappearance/ murder, along with Henry V11 and Margaret Beaufort but the only person to benefit really was that of Richard who was now sitting on his poor nephews throne, Richard had the boys in the country’s strongest fortress, he had access to it, he gave the orders as to who could come and go, whilst he was in there Edwards attendants were dismissed which is suspicious and as for him not being unwell, yes he was described as being in good health during his father’s reign but osteomyelitis is caused by a bacteria in the body which can occur after a previous infection, or poor dental hygiene etc, or again genetics, he could have begun to be unwell after the death of his father, it is rumoured Henry V111 could have been a sufferer as he had dreadful pain in his legs, he had ulcers but he could well have been a sufferer of osteomyelitis like his tragic relative, Edward V was unwell whilst in the Tower, there are sources that tell us he was being attended by his doctor, and the skull of the elder boy showed he had something wrong with his jaw he complained he thought his days were numbered, as iv said, you only have to look at King John Richard 11 etc, he was declared illegitimate and his uncle who should have arranged his coronation for him was lording it in his place, depression and fear would have made him very miserable and why was Richard of York his younger brother taken to the Tower as well, Elizabeth Woodville in sanctuary was persuaded to let him go and join his brother in the Tower on the promise he would be looked after, sadly he wasn’t neither was his older brother, two young male children don’t suddenly vanish and I fail to see how they could have escaped and lived out their natural life span, the Tower was strictly guarded, and the two princes were watched night and day, for them to escape they would have had to have outside aid, and who would risk helping them they would have invited death on themselves, Warbeck was just a nut you will always have pretenders they do it for attention look at the poor woman who made out she was the Duchess Anastasia Romanov for many years, yet she managed to fool quite a few in her lifetime, in reality she was just an ordinary Russian peasant, Charles 11 and many others when the skeletons were found in the 17th c were of no doubt that they belonged to Edward V and Richard of York, it really is I think too much of a coincidence that two young boys were imprisoned in the Tower, vanished and Richard 111 kept mysteriously quiet about their fate, I notice none of you have an answer to his silence, to produce them would have quelled the rumours they had been killed, it would have been to his advantage yet he said nor did nothing to prove they were alive, that speaks volumes about their sad fate and Richard 111’s guilt, the murder of children has always been heinous in any age and part of his unpopularity was due to the spilling of young blood, as for the shreds of velvet you dismiss, enclosed tightly without contact to the air it would have been perfectly preserved, velvet was not around in ancient times and the mention of the chicken bones and other debris found with the skeletons only shows what an ignoble death these two Royal children were subjected to, thrown down a pit amongst a load of rubbish, when Richards naked body was slung over a horse and taken from the battlefield someone stuck a knife in one of his buttocks, it was degrading but shows all too clearly the disgust people felt for him and the tears they wept for the innocent young princes.

      Like

      • I am not sure that Charles II did believe those bones to belong to the “Princes” but needed to distract from the Exclusion Crisis. This has been covered in our article “The Propaganda of Charles II”.
        In the end, this is a matter of science. Michael Ibsen’s mtDNA matched Richard III’s, proving that the remains under the car park belonged to him and that there was no “withered arm” or “hunchback”.
        Similarly, the mtDNA of Elizabeth Roberts, found by the same historian, matches that of the “Princes” but will almost certainly not be that of the remains in the urn. We don’t yet know reliably whether they are male, human, adolescent, related or which era they died in. Radio carbon dating, discovered after 1933, can also help as someone sharing the “Princes”‘ mtDNA, gender and approximate age disappeared in the Tower in about 1542.

        Liked by 2 people

  12. hoodedman1 on said:

    Oh, I forgot to address the ‘shreds of velvet’ nonsense. Only one person ever mentioned this and it is most likely apocryphal. After 200 years in a broken wooden coffin, buried in earth AND not in an airless vault or in lead, the chances of organics surviving are pretty darn remote. To identify any possible scraps as velvet or any other kind of fabric would require scientific analysis–which certainly did not exist in the reign of Charles II! And as for this velvet…why was it never mentioned again? Where did it go. It never existed.

    Like

    • mry4441 on said:

      I agree hoodedman and also the bones were initially thrown on a rubbish heap and when they were examined they had chicken and rabbit bones mixed up with them.

      Liked by 1 person

      • hoodedman1 on said:

        It was a Roman midden by the sounds of things. If you go into the church nearest to the Tower but outside the walls, the crypt is full of Roman items found in the vicinity including many, many funerary items. The Tower itself stands on a Basilica. The Minories, just feet away on the other side, covers part of a LARGE ROMAN CEMETERY.

        Like

  13. hoodedman1 on said:

    One more thing I forgot to mention. The ‘red stain’ on part of one of the skulls and the 1930’s assertion that it somehow proves the skull’s owner was suffocated. I have an archaeological background. This is very simply caused by the bone lying at one time against something iron.

    Like

  14. Christine on said:

    They were taken to be adolescent roughly about the same age as the princes were when they disappeared, don’t forget when in Victorian times the floor under the chapel at St. Peter as Vincula was taken up, and Dr Mout studied the bones of whom were said to be those of Anne Boleyn, he concluded they were of a female who was aged from about 25 to 30 about 5ft 3 and that is consistent with the descriptions of that queen, although now research has shown she was a few years older when she was beheaded, they knew that much in that earlier age, they had garnered more knowledge in the years after and the bones in the urn were said to be young males, that is interesting what hooded man says about lying against a heavy piece of iron, I guess if the other child was on top of him and hence the dead weight could have caused the marking, I acknowledge that piece of info since he says he has an archeological background, but there are no other children recorded as being lost in the Tower pre Richards reign or in the years after, and important state prisoners were always recorded the days they were taken to the tower and when if they were lucky, were released, most as we know died on the scaffold, the young princes were seen playing in the grounds then after a few months they were seen less and less till they were seen no more, obviously people began to get suspicious, no bodies were produced and there was silence from the King, all this happened before Bosworth, if they are not the children of Edward 1V then their remains must be very ancient, as stated no other children are recorded as being inprisoned in the Tower apart from those two, and the findings dismissed them as being Roman or from the Stone Age, the Anglo Saxon era etc, Richard 111 ordered Elizabeth Shore the ex mistress of Edward 1V to walk through the London streets as penance for her sinful ways, in the words of one contemporary he sought to make others do good that he would not practice himself!

    Like

    • “They were taken to be adolescent roughly about the same age as the princes were when they disappeared “, except that Carson’s “Maligned King” (ch.10) quotes several modern scientists who interpret the evidence very differently, even before RCD and mtDNA analysis can be used. I would suggest that you read this.
      “No other children were recorded as being lost in the Tower” … except for Glyn Dwr’s grandchildren and Henry Pole, both of whom we have written about. Please read the articles in question and learn to use punctuation.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. sparkypus on said:

    They could have been planted as a 17th century hoax. See Helen Maurer’s excellent article on the bones in the Tower. Charles needed something to detract from the problems he had at the time. He may have wanted to demonstrate what could happen to ‘disposed’ royalty. Interestingly Samuel Pepys in his Diary, who was friends with Charles’ brother James, later James II, mentioned that bones in a charnel house were all the same, be they royalty or commoners. It may well have been Pepys come up with this suggestion to take the heat off Charles and finding bones of the same age as Edward and Richard were would have not been a problem after the great plague.

    Like

  16. sparkypus on said:

    Also it should be noted that Henry Tudor, after Bosworth, had the Tower searched high and low. That a freshly dug area in the White Tower would not have been noted and investigated is beyond belief. Really its not rocket science…

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Christine on said:

    Sparky blue, i am using punctuation, as for Henry Pole yes he mysteriously disappeared to, more than likely his body was thrown in the Thames after he was starved to death, I doubt he could be one of the skeletons in the urn as he was older by a few years, the bones in the urn are consistent with the age and sex of the boy King Edward V and his younger brother, I can see why Ricardians try to refute this as the bones show all to clearly evidence of foul play, that’s why they argue they could be someone else, or even female, they prefer to believe they escaped and maybe joined a travelling fair, had they escaped Richard would have had the country searched till they were captured, the tower guards would have been severely punished, maybe even executed and as stated earlier, they would have had to have outside help, there would have been plenty who wished to rescue these two unfortunate princes, the ordinary Londoners for one who hated the tyrant King, Richard knew this and was anxious, sources state he drunk heavily and in his portrait he fiddles nervously with his fingers, his expression is watchful a man on edge, the artist has captured all too clearly his state of mind, deposed kings and their heirs, ( his younger brother) were a figurehead for riots and any minute Richard knew his throne could topple under him, many saw Edward as the real true born King and did not believe the nonsense about the pre contract with Eleanor Talbot, they wanted him on the throne and Richard deposed, as David Starkey said he would be a fool not to kill them, they vanished and were never seen again, the blackening of Richards name had already started before his death it was not due to Tudor propaganda and Mores account should be taken more seriously by his supporters, he was known as a man of integrity.

    Like

    • Henry Pole “was older by a few years” and was “most likely thrown into the Thames”. You know that how?

      If you actually read any real history, such as John Ashdown-hill’s decade of detailed research into the matter, you will realise that the pre-contract was a fact. Edward IV was only ever legally married to Lady Eleanor Talbot, consequently his children were all illegitimate, as Titulus Regius records. To Richard and the law, none of these children had a claim to the throne. To any who opposed Titulus Regius, they did and were a threat.

      You have not submitted any evidence for your views, just regurgitated fairy tales.

      Liked by 2 people

  18. Christine on said:

    You should read Weirs ‘The Princes In The Tower’, you will discover it’s the Ricardians who are fond of fairy tales.

    Like

    • mry4441 on said:

      Please don’t start me off about Alison Weir’s book about the the Princes in the tower. When she had it published she wrote to all the newspapers to say that she had found a new source which proved that Richard had murdered the Princes. The new source? Sir Thomas More ! Peter Hammond wrote an excellent article in the Ricardian refuting her story and explaining that More’s Richard III had been known about for years. People wrote to the newspapers to tell the truth about More’s Richard III. More was five years old at the time of Bosworth and it is quite likely that he got his so called history from John Morton, also it is written in such a way that it is more of a comedy than a serious history. There isn’t any evidence to suggest that the Princes even died in 1483 let alone were murdered. There is however some evidence to suggest that at least one of them survived. You should read Matthew Lewis’ “The Survival of the Princes” which puts forward evidence that could suggest that one or even both of them survived. Any good Ricardian will tell you that they don’t know what happened to the boys as there isn’t enough evidence to prove exactly what happened to them. As for them being in the Tower it is where Kings resided before their Coronation and I am sure that you will know that Edward’s Coronation was being planned until Stillington told Richard about the pre-contract. Richard was offered the throne by Parliament and in early 1484 Parliament passed the Titulus Regius which set out the details of why he had been offered the throne. I think that it is quite likely that after the attempt, by a relative of Margaret Beaufort in July 1483, to “rescue ” the Princes that Richard thought it was safer to keep them at the Tower. Alison Weir also says that she knows that the were killed on September 3rd 1483 because Sir James Tyrell was in London on that day collecting clothes for the ceremony to make Edward of Middleham Prince of Wales. However, she is not right as there is a contemporary document dated September 8th with information regarding the Princes on that day. I suggest that you read Annette Carson’s” Maligned King” and Audrey Williamson’s ” The Mystery of the Princes”.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Christine on said:

        There was more evidence that Weir put forward as Richards guilt, notably the confession by Sir James Tyrell that Richard had ordered him to kill them, at his trial both Henry V11 and his queen the princes sister Elizabeth of York were present, which was unprecedented, what more proof to you need, the guy was hardly going to confess to something he hadn’t done.

        Like

      • Sorry, are you using the words “Weir” and “evidence” in the same sentence? Hilarious.

        Nobody except More suggested that Tyrrell had confessed to killing the “Princes” and he said so after Henry VII died, in a document he may not have taken seriously.
        Henry and Elizabeth of York were at the Tower during Tyrrell’s trial, which happened at the Guildhall, over a mile away (as Starkey failed to point out). Perhaps they watched it on CCTV?

        Tyrrell was, as you should know, tried for something totally different – allowing Edmund de la Pole to pass through Calais, of which he was Captain.

        Liked by 2 people

  19. Christine on said:

    Furthermore wether they were legitimate or not does not explain the fact that they mysteriously disappeared, if they were illegitimate why did they vanish? Because Richard was uneasy his claim on the throne was shaky and his subjects mistrusted him, had he not usurped his nephews throne the Plantaganet’s would have continued to rule quite possibly for decades after, his grab for the throne led the way for other usurpers eg, Henry Tudor, he showed all too clearly to his successor how easy it was to win a crown.

    Like

    • It strongly suggests that the “Princes” were no threat to Richard, although they were to others.

      Now, forgetting Weir’s fiction, here is some circumstantial evidence:
      Tyrrell and Brampton were both on the continent in Richard’s time.
      Richard’s sister was Dowager Duchess of Burgundy.
      Richard and George had been exiled in Burgundy in 1460-1.
      “Perkin Warbeck”, who may well have been the younger “Prince”, appeared on the continent with Brampton.

      As for Henry VII, we know how he treated the “Third Prince” (as Carson calls him): Edward Earl of Warwick was imprisoned soon after Bosworth and executed at the first excuse.

      Liked by 1 person

  20. Christine on said:

    Weir is a reputable historian and as she states she is not biased for or against any of her subject, she merely studies the evidence and comes to a conclusion, there is a wealth of circumstantial evidence against Richard for murduring his nephews and usurping the throne without any real legitimate reason, there were many who did not believe in the pre contract story and after rumours abounded that the two princes had been murdured he lost his supporters, revulsion and horror in any age has always been against the killing of children, Edward 1V had been loved amongst his subjects and they had wanted his son the golden prince to succeed him, not some spindly ageing uncle with a dark sour visage, Edward of Warwick was involved in a plot to escape with Warbeck he had a trial and was found guilty, hence his execution.

    Like

    • “Weir is a reputable historian and as she states she is not biased for or against any of her subject, she merely studies the evidence and comes to a conclusion”. Is that your entry for next year’s Perrier Comedy Award?
      Weir is unqualified and a novelist whose “facts” are made to fit her pre-arranged conclusions. She claimed that she was the one to discover More, although he had been published and widely cited for 400 years. She also invented a sister, Joan, for Richard.
      By contrast, John Ashdown-Hill gained a doctorate in history and inspected the Leicester records, learned the layout of the typical Greyfriars and spent ten years tracing Richard’s mtDNA to Canada. On the very first day, some bones were found
      and they matched Michael Ibsen’s mtDNA sample, together with Wendy Duhlig’s sample that Leicester University traced for “insurance”. He also spent years investigating the “Princes” mtDNA and finding Elizabeth Roberts for the same purpose.
      Warwick is suspected of being simple-minded by 1497. He, “Perkin” and John of Gloucester were executed in 1499 simply because Ferdinand and Isabella wanted their daughter Catalina’s fiance Arthur to be the unchallenged heir to the English throne. I will ignore your sentimental rubbish about Edward IV being so popular, given that he was ousted in 1469.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. sparkypus on said:

    ‘Christine’ has a novel way of debating. She just doesn’t address any of the points raised by those with opposing views. This is the last comment I’m going to post here on this matter as clearly you might as well debate with a teapot.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Christine on said:

      Oh really well this is the last comment I too am going to post as clearly you amongst others are living in a fairy tale world, you are trying to re write history by showing Richard as a good valiant King when in reality he was just a child murdurer, I hope the queen or her heir does one day give permission for the urn to be opened so the bones can be examined properly, I hope DNA is matched with one of their living or dead relatives, that will prove once and for all that they do belong to Edward V and his brother the Duke of York, where will that leave you eh, that will confound all the daft notions you have of them being spirited abroad or that they belong to the Roman era ? And that will prove they were murdured but no doubt you will then try to make excuses by saying they probably choked on their porridge one morning and good King Richard was so upset he could not speak of their deaths hence his silence blah blah blah….!

      Like

      • What a relief – we won’t have to spam you in future for trolling.

        We are quite prepared to rely on the true verdict of history and science, through mtDNA and radio carbon dating that Tanner and Wright didn’t have access to. It will be the opposite of what you said – these random bones are likely to be totally unrelated to the “Princes” and people will look elsewhere for them – such as the remains of the Austin Friars where “Perkin” was buried.
        The Earl of Desmond and Duke of Clarence were both executed by Edward IV for probable knowledge of the king’s bigamy and Stillington was imprisoned in the 1470s for the same thing, as was Lord Sudeley. The last Mowbray Duke and Lady Eleanor herself died in suspicious circumstances
        Rivers, who tried to ambush the Constable-Protector as part of the Wydeville plot, was tried by the Earl of Northumberland, designated as Vice-Constable. As the (usually hostile) James Gairdner admitted, Richard was chosen by the Three Estates in “almost a constitutional election.”

        The arguments you quote from More and Weir, your fellow fantasists, are not just nonsensical but spherical.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Quite.
      She takes Weir, who is to history what Henry VIII was to rhythmic gymnastics, seriously. That says everything.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Christine on said:

        I’m not a troll just because I’m not a Ricardian doesn’t make me one, I’m not making rude remarks to anyone, I’m just presenting the facts as I see them, many think Ricardians are fantasists / loons for example, for hundreds of years Richard was widely believed to have murdurered the princes. It was something the French King believed, and many of his fellow monarchs, Elizabeth of York believed it which was why she threw her lot in with Henry Tudor and his mother, it was only in the 1930’s a more kinder view of Richard has been put forward by his apologists, the Richard 111 Society which comes up with every piece of excuse to make him out to be this brave valiant soldier who did not want the crown but reluctantly took it because his poor nephews were illegitimate, he died bravely defending his crown on the battlefield, he had his nephews locked up in the Tower but oddly enough expressed no surprise at their disappearance, he was called a tyrant during his reign but no matter he was misunderstood by the people around him, the nobles his subjects etc, Edward 1V rightly had the Earl of Desmond executed for the bigamy charge, it was nothing short of treason he was protecting his heir, as for Clarence he was a troublemaker, Edward possibly did go through a form of marriage with Eleanor just to appease her, it does not make it lawful, many a King had done the same thing to get a woman into bed, Eleanor herself never brought it up never made any trouble for Edward and his queen, Stillingron hd grievance against the King, Clarences’s murder was probably done by Edward or Richard, either way it shows the mind set of that time, lives were cheap in the medieval period, Richard knew after Clarences’s death he was closer to the throne, with just his two nephews in the way, however as we have seen it was easy to dispose of bodies, how many murders had Richard seen he was a hardened soldier, neither he nor Edward seemed bothered about the death of Clarence, sentimentality would not stop him acquiring his brothers throne after his death, if it meant his nephews had to go then go they must.

        Like

      • Rubbish again and you have broken your pledge not to comment further. Now to deal with the gallons of “Tudor” propaganda that you are trying to fit into a pint glass, here are a few facts:

        Edward IV’s sons were never imprisoned but taken to the Royal Apartments in the Garden Tower. Desmond committed no treason but privately criticised the de facto Queen. Ironically, Elizabeth Wydeville (Lady Grey) had good relations with Richard from late 1483 so she didn’t believe he had killed either of them.
        When Edward IV went through a marriage ceremony with Lady Eleanor Talbot in 1461, with Stillington and probably Sudeley present, he was a bachelor and she a widow, whilst they were not too closely related. It was, therefore, a valid marriage, never dissolved and lasted until her death in 1468. Edward could never validly marry Lady Grey after this because he made a bigamous secret marriage to her in 1464 and their relationship was permanently “polluted”. Their children were illegitimate from conception, even if it happened after 1468. This is, quite simply, mediaeval canon law.
        The Richard III Society consists of people who take the facts about Richard III seriously, not those who quote quasi-novels glibly. It includes those who found Richard (JA-H inter a), the editor of the “Complete Peerage” and several other academics as well as other individuals who have made interesting discoveries.
        In fact Carson’s “Maligned King” goes back to the beginning and adduces each piece of evidence from the beginning (Edward IV’s death), assessing its validity at that point. You need to do the same.

        Liked by 1 person

  22. Christine on said:

    Regarding Tyrrell and his accomplice Dighton who More named as the executioners of the Princes, you have to remember More had sources now lost to us, his work regarded amongst Ricardians as fiction, is really a notable piece of information, as he grew up he knew people who had been alive during Richards reign, and the King and queen were present at Tyrrells trial, as I mentioned earlier this was unprecedented, when Richards body was found he was shown to have had a curved spine this is in keeping with contemporary reports, though he was far from being the crook back of legend with a withered arm he was not popular except in the north and the Londoners especially disliked and mistrusted him, Buckingham withdrew his support some say after the princes vanished, he suspected they had been killed on the orders of Richard his one time ally, there are many notable historians who believe Richard did murder his two vulnerable nephews when he should in reality, have been protecting them, this was what Edward 1V had wanted, Elizabeth Woodville feared Richard she knew he would make a grab for the throne, Richard tried to destroy the Woodville faction, first with the murder of Rivers without any trial whatsoever, an act of tyranny in any age, so afraid was she of Richard she fled to sanctuary with her children to Westminster what does that tell you? Alone powerless a widow she sought sanctuary in a house of God where she would be safe, Richard made several attempts to force her to leave, she only submitted her youngest son under great duress, after their deaths she collapsed with grief, after Richards son died it was said it was god avenging the princes mother, now Richard was at a loss, he sat on a shaky throne he had lost his heir and he knew he was not liked by his subjects, Henry Tudor was abroad awaiting his chance, Richards defeat at Bosworth was expected and whatever his supporters say he was the ruin of his own dynasty, Edward V should have had his coronation he could have married and had an heir to succeed him when he died, the Plantaganets could have ruled for another hundred or so years or maybe longer, Richards greed and usurpation of his nephews throne left the way for Henry V11, the two skeletons in the Westminster urn probably are those of Edward V and Richard Duke of York and i agree there is no definite proof of Richards guilt in their alleged murder, but a wealth of evidence does seem to suggest that Richard 111 did order their shameful demise.

    Like

    • Is this the same More who was only five in 1483, who exaggerated Edward IV’s age at death by twelve years and includes the following in his “plot”:
      Sir Robert Brackenbury – who refused but fought and died with Richard?
      Will Slaughter – surely a made up name?
      Sir James Tyrrell – whose confession was a figment of More’s imagination?
      John Dighton – who More says also confessed and then walked free!

      Richard only lost through a handful of treasonous nobles and some foreign mercenaries.

      Liked by 1 person

  23. hoodedman1 on said:

    The chances of those skeletons being the boys are remote even if they WERE murdered. Let’s put that nonsense aside. They bones were found under stonework and TEN feet deep. This miracle of digging was supposed to have been accomplished in ONE NIGHT and in secret. THE TOWER’S GROUNDS ARE COVERED WITH HUMAN REMAINS. IT IS BESIDE A KNOWN ROMAN CEMETERY. Sorry to shout but this does not seem to get through to a lot of people. Other children have been found there also who have been tested to be 2000 years old. I honestly don’t know how anyone in an age of science could still insist it’s the ‘princes’ knowing that, and the fact the remains are undated and unsexed. Recently on TV, archaeologists tested the bone of a supposed saint, kept in a church for hundreds of years. Turned out to be animal bone! All sorts of myths grew up remains found before modern science–that William the Conqueror’s wife was almost a dwarf (no, the Victorians measured her wrong), that a medieval Danish Queen was buried alive in a bog (nope, the body they found was closer to 2000 years old). To say the Tower bones is ‘definitely’ the princes shows just plain ignorance.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. hoodedman1 on said:

    Weir–reputable? She didn’t even finish her degree, apparently. I don’t consider anyone who adds in an extra sister to Richard’s family tree based on someone’s bogus genealogy chart of the 60’s as very reputable, although at least she eventually did admit she was wrong. I don’t know whether she still thinks Richard had 7 bastard children, though–where that came from I have no idea whatsoever as only 2 are documented with a very vague, unlikely possibility of a third; although one she mentioned, ahem, turns out to be a real person who was only ever tied to Richard in a Victorian NOVEL.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Christine on said:

    David Starkey and Dan Jones believe the theory that Richard had the princes murdured, I know the Tower is built on ancient ground, all of the British Isles are, but they were found buried near to where More stated, the fact they were ten feet deep in the ground shows the desperation Richard was in to hide his ghastly shameful deed, I agree it would have taken more than one night to dig it but it could already have been there all they had to do was drop the bodies in it, if it had to be dug, they would have done so in secret at nightime over a course of maybe five nights, all I hear are comments about Roman remains Danish queens and who cares how many bastards Richard sired, all Kings had bastards so what if Weir made an error in her judgement, it was thought at one time that Anne Boleyn was born in 1507 now it is known she was born c 1501, a lot of facts come to light over the years, many historians including those I have quoted say the same as Weir, that in all probability because he had the means the motive and the opportunity Richard 111 ordered the deaths of his two innocent nephews, he had control of the Tower don’t forget, why do you all scoff More who was a man of integrity, he was also known to be a humanist and a scholar, he had no reason to stain Richards reputation, Richard 111 does divides opinion I respect your passion for Richard 111 and his maybe innocence, but I’m one of those who thinks he was guilty, I just think there’s more evidence against him than for.

    Like

    • As we have said, Richard had a significantly lesser motive than many others. If the “Princes” were dead and their sisters legitimated, the latter would become Edward IV’s heirs and any adventurer with an infinitessimal claim could marry one of them.
      Starkey is a very great expert on Henry VIII and Elizabeth I but has never properly investigated the era before 1485, hence his assertion about Henry VII watching Tyrrell’s trial from a mile away. Jones is merely Starkey’s acolyte, although it is possible to find original sources. Carson wrote at length about the different sets of bones found and reburied during the seventeenth century – the depth of the 1674 find points strongly to them being much older as each era builds on top of the previous one.
      More’s conduct was infamous on other occasions, particularly with regard to religious reformers such as Tyndale. He is known to have interrogated suspects under torture.
      As for Weir, you say it doesn’t matter if she makes mistakes and just agrees with people who suit her prejudicial conduct?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Christine on said:

      Historians are only human and no doubt many have made an error in judgement why do you think Weir is prejudiced, she acknowledges Richard died fighting bravely, so do I, look – once I believed Richard innocent of the murder of the princes, I say murder as it’s highly likely they were not allowed to live and died whilst in the Tower, I find it a bit far fetched the theory that they escaped, it was a ruthless age, after reading several books on Richard 111 I came to the conclusion that he must have been their murderer, that he usurped the throne after planning it for months maybe years, the pre contract was a poor excuse and not many believed in it, because of the great deal of circumstantial evidence against him, I came to the conclusion he alone was responsible for their alleged murder, yet I acknowledge there is no definite proof, I no Edward V was in the Tower as that’s where all monarchs went before their coronation but why send young Richard there to as a playmate for his big brother? No Richard wanted them both together, his very actions from the minute his brother died rank of conspiracy to grab the throne, he waylaid the young king as he was travelling south and had Rivers executed without any trial or warning, this upset the young king and the theory there was evidence Rivers was plotting against him was nonsense, many theories put forward by Ricardians are all to try to justify his tyrannical actions, Hastings was executed to, he now had the young king at his mercy, from then on everything went just the way he wanted it, Bishop Stillington that most noble man of God came forward to produce a pre contract which proclaimed the children of Edward 1V bastards, as iv said before why all through the years of his kingship was it just brought to light now he was dead? Through fear of retribution or was it a plan by Richard to seize the throne, Edward 1V put his trust in his younger brother and he betrayed him, he shed his own nephews blood he even said he was not their father’s son but the product of an illicit affair their mother, Cecily Neville had, it is very telling that she was not at Richards coronation and god knows what she thought of the whole murky affair.

      Like

      • More nonsense and I expect rambling to be among your hobbies.

        Edward IV’s bigamy basically made his brothers continue as his heirs unless he made a valid second marriage to a new partner after 30 June 1468, when Lady Eleanor (“The Secret Queen”) died. He also appointed Richard as Constable for life and Protector. Knowing what happened to those who did find out, nobody could be surprised that Stillington preferred to keep his head during Edward’s lifetime.

        More made so many demonstrably false statements about the Yorkist Kings, such as Edward IV’s age at death, that it is only possible to conclude that he wilfully lied. Any half-decent historian, or less qualified writer, must know this and be in denial if they cite him as gospel.

        We have twice corrected you as well on your failure to acknowledge Rivers’ trial under Vice-Constable Northumberland. Now you repeat another myth about Edward IV – never did Richard accuse his brother of illegitimacy. This was created by Domenico Mancini, a non-English speaking Italian, confusing Edwards IV and V. Richard of Shrewsbury was heir to his brother until their bastardy became known, so he freely moved to the Royal Apartments. After that, Elizabeth Wydeville released her daughters from her “drama queen” sanctuary and Richard planned marriages for the two eldest to the Duke of Beja (later Manuel II,King of Portugal) and Baron Scrope.

        Indeed, as Gairdner says, Richard III was elected by the three Estates, a body of men who knew Edward IV well and had sat in his Parliaments. They knew him to have undergone one secret marriage ceremony with an older woman, the widow of a Lancastrian soldier and could only too easily believe that he had done so twice.

        As I said, quoting a source you know or suspect to be untrue casts doubt on your own judgement or veracity.

        Liked by 1 person

  26. Christine on said:

    Yes but by accepting the throne he was more or less saying he believed it, and the three estates as you say knew both brothers well, were maybe too frightened of Richard after the execution of Rivers not to offer him the crown? I am not rambling nor speaking nonsense, Mancini believed Richard to have usurped the throne and killed the princes, you are saying you believe the marriage of Edward and Eleanor to be valid, I don’t and think it was just a cleverly executed plot of Richard 111’s to gain power, why do you call Elizabeth Woodville a drama queen? She was a very frightened woman and she lost her son’s in mysterious and sinister circumstances, anyway we could argue till the cows come home, I can’t change your mind and you can’t change mine, so we will agree to disagree, I am glad Richard if he was innocent and therefore dreadfully maligned, has you and others for his champions, my sympathy is more for the lost souls in the urns who I have no doubt, science will one day prove to be Edward V and his little brother, it’s been very nice discussing this with you and our fellow posters au revoir.

    Like

    • All the evidence I have read suggests that Richard knew nothing of his brother’s bigamy until Stillington brought forward his compelling evidence. He fully expected to be Lord Protector and Defender of the Realm for another four years, then return to the north, but the Three Estates ruled that Edward’s sons were ineligible to rule by bastardy, as was Warwick by his father’s attainder and that only left Richard, a married man with a son.
      The antics of the Wydeville faction, such as a twenty year-old marrying the elderly Dowager Duchess of Norfolk, had caused the Warwick-Clarence rebellion in 1469, when the rebels beheaded Elizabeth’s father and youngest brother. She had nothing to fear in 1483 because noblewomen were not harmed in the mediaeval period, to which I shall return later. Once again, you suggest that her sons by Edward IV had been killed, without a scintilla of evidence. Had this happened at anyone’s hands, before the end of Richard’s reign, he would surely have publicised their deaths and proclaimed that an accident had befallen them, because they would have been no threat to anyone, but he didn’t. Had he sent them to Burgundy, he would have remained silent on the matter because betraying their hiding place would have made them vulnerable again. Actually, he remained silent.
      Mancini’s original Latin work didn’t use the word “usurpatione” but “occupatione”, which means something totally different because all crowned monarchs occupy their throne, by definition. The English version says something different because Charles Armstrong translated it that way in the 1930s.
      Stillington’s evidence was so compelling that Henry VII ordered Titulus not to be read and repealed but to be destroyed such that it became illegal to retain a copy. He hired propagandists such as Vergil and Andre to hagiograph him and blame the disturbances that plagued his rain – at least six rebellions – on Richard’s legacy. More substituted another, less credible lady than the daughter of a war hero, as Edward IV’s wife. However, a copy of Titulus Regius survived, has been cited and published frequently and is accessible from one of our articles.
      So, following Bosworth, England passed from a Yorkist nation in which bail had been extended on a large scale, in which religious differences were largely ignored and in which forced loans were illegal into an era of real tyranny. Over their 118 years, the “Tudors” executed about a hundred thousand people, persecuting Protestants and then Catholics almost equally, as we have written. Henry VIII alone killed several women, two of whom he purported to have married, but annulled for pre-contracts. No wonder the likes of More, who connived at such persecution, preferred to impute a false tyranny to the previous era and what delicious irony that he too fell to Henry the Fat, the English Nero.

      Liked by 3 people

      • By the way, do my eyes deceive me or did “Christine” call a vigorous king who died at 32 “ageing and spindly”?!

        Liked by 2 people

      • sparkypus on said:

        I think that abysmal remark says more about Kyra, sorry Christine, than Richard…

        Liked by 1 person

      • Whoever she is, we could have posted links to a score of our well-informed previous posts to correct her, except that she doesn’t take notice of anyone except “Tudor” propaganda and Weir.

        Liked by 1 person

      • PS Is she relying on the same Mancini who claimed that the Duke of Gloucester “held no administrative position in the Kingdom” when he was Lord High Constable for life (his appointment quoted verbatim in Carson), Lord High Admiral and Lord Protector and Defender of the Realm? Incidentally, Armstrong’s faulty translation is referred to further up the thread 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

  27. sighthound6 on said:

    It is highly unlikely that the bones in the urn will prove to be the Princes. They were buried 10 feet deep under a very substantial stone staircase. Unless Richard had a JCB and a whole team of labourers to bury them, the location alone makes it extremely improbable. Moreover, More – albeit a highly unreliable source (fiction) – states they were removed from their original burial place to somewhere more suitable, while Henry VII’s envoy told Margaret of Burgundy that he could show her the chapel where they were buried. Unless (like certain saints) they had more than one body each these claims cannot be reconciled. They are all, more than probably, bogus nonsense.

    Like

  28. Pingback: THE MEDIEVAL CROWNS OF EDWARD THE CONFESSOR AND QUEEN EDITH | murreyandblue

  29. Pingback: Which flower was designated for Richard’s birthday? And which saint was for that flower….? | murreyandblue

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: