Summer of 1483; Please defend Richard III - Page 25 - Historum

Loyaulte me lie · June 17th, 2012, 07:09 AM

....I daresay he knew a little too much about Edward IV's private life, and that supposed pre-contract that rendered the Wydeville marriage invalid. IE He knew Richard was lying![/QUOTE]

Here an interesting issue, has anyone researched the possibility of whether the pre-contract between Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot could in fact be true? The pre-contract allegation has been paid little heed by writers and historians, yet it is the reason why Richard took the Crown, as sited in Titulus Regius. Surely the claim needs a little bit more attention.

Loyaulte me lie · June 17th, 2012, 07:21 AM

I agree with Sperro on the murder/disappearance of the Princes, there is precious little evidence to convict anyone for the murder, nor can we prove what happened to them if they were not murdered. I'm undecided on the Princes, I continue to read more around the subject.

Just Hannah · June 17th, 2012, 09:10 AM

As far as I am aware, Richard dug Stillington up from somewhere, and had him state that the Wydeville marriage was invalid because of a pre-contract existing between Eward and Ealeanor Butler (both parties conveniently dead by this stage). It's all just far too convenient for my liking. Why didn't Stillington say something much sooner? Especially to the likes of Warwick (who desperately wanted that marriage to be anulled - on whatever grounds).

There is no proof, true. But there is plenty of evidence, and even more theories that feed off that evidence. I am satisfied that Richard was either culpable, or he knew who did it (and it was not necessarily on his orders).

Just Hannah · June 17th, 2012, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidson14

I believe that Henry killed the Princes as well as Warwick, but kept their death secret as it was more convenient for him and his position to blame it on Richard. Its only a theory, but no sillier than other that have been proposed.

It is sillier when you really think about it. What did Henry have to gain by killing two children (while he was a penniless exile living in France, BTW), and putting Richard of Gloucester on the throne instead? Really, ask yourself that question. Because after Richard, came his son Edward (and none of them were psychic; they didn't know he would die young). Then there were other safe Yorkist claimants like De La Pole etc. Henry, to gain anything at all, would have had to have killed them all to get throne through murder.

The fact that Henry "demonised" Richard is proof that he didn't like Richard; it's certainly not proof that he killed two young children who were not Richard. It's not even valid evidence that he killed King Edward V and his brother. They vanished, also, in 1483 and it was then that Mancini reported the rumours that Richard had done away with them. No one - not a single soul - mentioned Henry or Margaret Beaufort (before anyone goes there!).

Loyaulte me lie · June 17th, 2012, 01:24 PM

I don't think Henry had the Princes killed, certainly the way he acted during his reign and around the Perkin Warbeck affair suggests he didn't know what had happened to them. Even when Richard III was Attainder by Henry, there was no mention of the murdered of the Princes directly. It was certainly useful for Henry that the Princes had disappeared by the time he invaded in August 1485, but this does not mean to say he had the boys killed.

**SPERRO** · June 17th, 2012, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Hannah

It's been a while since I last posted on this thread, but I chanced across something while researching a blog post. I instantly thought of this discussion (so I'm pleased to see it's still going). I spoke with a few members who believed that Richard III was totally innocent of the murder of the Princes and that Henry VII had murdered Elizabeth Wydeville's son, (meaning Perkin Warbeck).

Well, I came across this letter written by Perkin Warbeck (under his "royal name" obviously), to Isabella of Castile. In it, he details how Richard III had his brother murdered. He then details how he was taken from Sanctuary and delivered into the hands of a noble to be killed in a similar fashion, but the man took pity on him due to his youth and innocence. I found it in "Documents Relating To Perkin Warbeck, With Remarks on History" by Frederic Madden.

Presumably, then, it's impossible for Warbeck to be the real Prince, and for Richard to be innocent of the murder :P However, my own personal belief is that Warbeck was making this clap-trap up.

In response to a post above mine. Richard would never be safe while those boys lived. They wouldn't stay boys for ever. They may even have inherited their father's fighting prowess. If they didn't take to the field themselves; then there would be plenty who would have done so in their name. Anything done through Parliament can be just as easily undone by Parliament. As for the murder of Hastings, what plot was he meant to be involved in? We will never know, because he was murdered on the spot. I daresay he knew a little too much about Edward IV's private life, and that supposed pre-contract that rendered the Wydeville marriage invalid. IE He knew Richard was lying!

All the indications re this matter put Richard III in the frame but, we have to this date, no tangible evidence or should I say, solid and sound proof that he is guilty. The warbeck episode IMO, is nonsense and may be just a desperate attempt by die hard yorkists to extend the House of York by false pretences. This mystery will endure until someone, somewhere, comes up with fresh evidence. I have the personal opinion that Richard had the boys done away with, not because of 'jumping on bandwagons', but because he had all of the reasons to do so.

Loyaulte me lie · June 17th, 2012, 02:28 PM

Re Pre Contract, I found this interesting bit of information in 'Eleanor, Secret Queen' John Ashdown-Hill,

'According to medieval law, a widow was free to make a will, but a wife could not do so without permission from her husband. If Eleanor considered herself to be married then she was not free to make a will, and the only way to ensure with absolute certainty that her lands passed to her sister (the Duchess of Norfolk), was by deed of gift executed in her own lifetime. It is interesting, therefore to discover that this is the precise course which Eleanor took. It is significant then that in the matter of the disposal of her estates, Eleanor chose to act as a wife rather than a widow. More over this conduct was entirely consistent with the choice that she made earlier in respect of her religious commitment. On that occasion too, she had chosen an option which was opened to married women.'

Although it does not categorically prove the marriage between Eleanor and Edward, it is compelling evidence that Eleanor considered herself to be a married women, rather than a widow. Why would she do this unless she was married?

I appreciate I'm going a little of track here from the question, however I felt it was a valid point in regards to Richard actions in 1483 and the ultimate status of the Princes.

johnincornwall · June 20th, 2012, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPERRO

All the indications re this matter put Richard III in the frame but, we have to this date, no tangible evidence or should I say, solid and sound proof that he is guilty. The warbeck episode IMO, is nonsense and may be just a desperate attempt by die hard yorkists to extend the House of York by false pretences. This mystery will endure until someone, somewhere, comes up with fresh evidence. I have the personal opinion that Richard had the boys done away with, not because of 'jumping on bandwagons', but because he had all of the reasons to do so.

As I said earlier in the thread Alonso de Palencia's contemporary account of the War of Granada states in the chapter of 1483 about Richard III murdering the princes in the tower, in a little background diversion of European courts.

Now it may just be rapidly spreading royal gossip, but it may also be the case that compelling evidence was at hand at the time. Who are we to say not eh? Either way it shows it was the common view at the time and not dreamt up by future speculatory historians.

**SPERRO** · June 21st, 2012, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnincornwall

As I said earlier in the thread Alonso de Palencia's contemporary account of the War of Granada states in the chapter of 1483 about Richard III murdering the princes in the tower, in a little background diversion of European courts.

Now it may just be rapidly spreading royal gossip, but it may also be the case that compelling evidence was at hand at the time. Who are we to say not eh? Either way it shows it was the common view at the time and not dreamt up by future speculatory historians.

I fully agree, but it is still conjecture despite being a common rumour. Dont get my opinion confused, Richard (without substantial evidence) could still be innocent but, if the Royal courts of Europe were buzzing with this, there may be more to it. No smoke without fire

Loyaulte me lie · June 25th, 2012, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnincornwall

As I said earlier in the thread Alonso de Palencia's contemporary account of the War of Granada states in the chapter of 1483 about Richard III murdering the princes in the tower, in a little background diversion of European courts.

Now it may just be rapidly spreading royal gossip, but it may also be the case that compelling evidence was at hand at the time. Who are we to say not eh? Either way it shows it was the common view at the time and not dreamt up by future speculatory historians.

Spain and Portugal were in marriage negotiations with Richard in 1485. John II could be a ruthless monarch, but it seems far fetched that the he and his Council should have tired to force Joanna (his sister) into marrying a blood stained usurper. Joanna accepted Richard even though she had already refused Maximilian of Austria and Charles Duke of Orleans. Also Portuguese ambassadors were in England in summer 1484 when the Treaty of Windsor was renewed with Richard, so Portugal must have been aware of events in England.

Also Isabella and Ferdinand were just as willing that Richard should marry the Infanta Isabella (their eldest daughter) as Portugal were that Richard should marry Joanna. The attitude of the Kings of Spain and Portugal is the best testimony we have for Richards character, it should carry more weight than the gossip circulating in England and France.

Also from what I can tell Alonso de Palencia has fallen out of Royal favour in 1480, so it's not likely he would be privy to the same information that Isabella and Ferdinand were.