Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 3rd, 2012, 01:57 PM   #21

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,890
Blog Entries: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiver View Post
Thomas Stanley, the man who betrayed Richard III at Bosworth believed that the man known to history as Perkin Warbeck could have been Richard of Shrewsbury. Stenley was executed for saying this.
Thomas Stanley had not fared as well he thought under Henry Tudor and not even the fact that his brother William who was married to Henry's mother still did nothing from facing the executors block.
I don't think any of those were any better of in Henry's reign, that turned their back at Bosworth.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 3rd, 2012, 02:02 PM   #22

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,890
Blog Entries: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by funakison View Post
The gospel according to Shakespeare taught as history.

Richard had a hunchback
Caesars last words
Macbeth was an evil tyrant.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I wish some of those idiots stop referring Shakesphere to events that had happened in history and start to see him as the biggest vandal in history.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 06:42 AM   #23
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Pax juxta probitatem
Posts: 1,621
Blog Entries: 14

Let's not leave out the state of the English court during 1480-1483, or the year the princes disappeared. Arguably both princes lived among decadence, and licentious adults. Even their father Edward IV is described as a womaniser presiding over a promiscuous court.

It looks like for various reasons their safety couldn't have been guaranteed by anybody. This isn't to suggest any murderer but rather to show up the sort of people those two kids had to live with.

R3 was plainly a 15th century Grifter. A scheming pragmatist who married, grabbed and conspired his way to wealth and estates and didn't shrink from slotting nobility, commoners, and royalty alike. Just because he's remembered as pious, noble, a reformer, or a brave warrior (which he was) doesn't exclude R3 from subterfuge or murder. The same applies to the rest of them.

R3 enjoyed a swift rise to nobility, and wealth, at an early age and became a royal prince through the succession of Edward IV. It seems he was also an ambitious social climber, appearing at court, at chapters of the Order of the Garter, in Parliament and royal council, and in major ceremonial occasions until he had enough power and influence to take the throne. He'd never had any entitlement to the throne but we could say it was in his sights.

So what did he get up to...in 1478 for instance, Richard didn't defend charges of treason against his own brother George, leading to George's execution. Guess who was to gain the most out of that episode.

The successful ploy that convinced a hasty kangaroo parliament to block Edward V's coronation, out of the tenuous charge that the princes weren't legitimate because Edward IV had made a contract to Lady Eleanor Butler—an obligation as binding as marriage at this time—and thus had not been free to marry his queen. Lady Butler has popped her clogs by 1483 anyway.

The successful bastardy charge wouldn't have disqualified Edward V and the decree to disbar him wasn't made by any recognisable authority or church. But it did get him locked up and might have contributed to both boys' deaths, another leg up for R3 on his way to Westminster Abbey.

Worth mentioning that soon after R3 "took the boys in to safe custody" in the Tower, he had himself crowned King and the princes weren't seen again. There's enough evidence to believe that the boys were removed during all these events and if they weren't sent away, they were killed and shoved under the stairs in a sad episode and a hasty, dirty cover up. Contemporary writing seems to confirm that by late 1483 the princes were dead.

Then there's the Wydevilles, dominating the royal council, who decided to crown Edward V straight after Edward IV's death so there'd be no need for any Protector. They could have ruled England themselves albeit on the boy's behalf. An attractive prospect. Queen Elizabeth Wydeville wasn't too popular at court and liked to hand out favours and titles to her friends and relatives. It's also not clear why she gave up her younger son and her daughters to Richard III. Her reputation, truth or not, played a part in Richard's coronation but his treatment of Elizabeth for whatever reasons, was pretty disgraceful.

Or take Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham. Another likely suspect for the princes' murders or at least he was involved. He seized the opportunity after Edward IV's death to help R3 usurp the throne from the 12-year-old king Edward V and arrested several members of Edward V’s entourage. It was Buckingham who arranged for Edward and his younger brother's "safe custody" and probably their disappearance. It's possible Buckingham wanted the crown himself and believed he'd get it, if the princes vanished and all blame should fall on R3.

Buckingham also helped spread the story of the "bastard children" and got himself all sorts of rewards when R3 became King. Then what does he do? He turns round, calls for Henry Tudor's coronation and plots with the Lancastrians to overthrow Richard III. It's enough to make you think the man wanted the crown himself, but after his little rebellion and if he was responsible for the boys' disappearance, he got what was coming to him.

Thomas Stanley, 1st earl of Derby and husband to Henry Tudor's mother. A serial fence-sitter perhaps even without the stomach for a fight, who oversaw Edward IV's Will and at first supported Edward V (but actually placed the crown on Henry's head after Bosworth) . Stanley turned round to side with Richard's early claims, to keep his job and because he probably knew what was coming. He kept out of the Buckingham's 1483 rebellion on behalf of Henry Tudor, and in which it's worth mentioning his own wife Margaret Beaufort was involved.

The princes lived among pretty immoral and greedy self serving folk. And at such a young defenceless age, they never stood a chance in any case, not to mention the threats they would have posed as adults.
John Paul is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 02:50 PM   #24

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,890
Blog Entries: 50

I have written blogs about the life of Richard III, I don't know whose sources you have been using but I have certainly have not read those sources from Paul Murray Kendall.
Lady Eleanor Butler was still alive when Edward IV had made that private marriage with Elizabeth Woodville making there marriage illegal . I agree with there it was not one of Edward's smartest of moves as she and her free loading family were very pushy and were very unpopular with the Nobles. Clarence hated the Woodvilles and made no secret of it and sided with the Earl of Warwick and married his daughter Isabel. During Clarence's stay in exile he realised he made a mistake when he had found Warwick's plan's to marry his youngest daughter to Edward duke of Lancaster, Margaret of Anjou son. Clarence had decided to go back to his brother when he got back to England. The peace did not last for very long as Clarence wife had died of poison and he knew that the Woodvilles were involved.
During this time Richard was far happier in the North far away from the court and its intrigues. He was known as the Lord of the North, Clarence was imprisoned and Richard had gone down to plea for Georges life but his pleas had gone unanswered as the Woodvilles had their way and had murdered him privately. I don't think there was any record as far as I know that Edward had sign a warrant for his execution.
It had been quoted by Mancini that After Clarence was executed that everybody considered the Woodvilles were responsible for Clarence's death. Mancini had also had mentioned That the Duke of Gloucester rarely went back to the Court as he could not stand being near such corruption and preferred his life in the North.
Richard never wanted to be king, and he certainly did not enjoy being a king. I have to agree with you about the princes it was not an ideal place for them.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 04:28 PM   #25
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Pax juxta probitatem
Posts: 1,621
Blog Entries: 14
Thumbs up


Okay :-) With respect, I don't know if you've written blogs and my sources are academic . I don't know the name you mention there. If you'll forgive me I tend to read academic or trusted material (which I know is debatable) and then take a position somewhere in the middle, not at the extremes. Commentators mostly read up on stuff as factual as possible, and say things as they appear to be, even taking a position sometimes. And of course we can all be challenged it's just how we handle it that matters.

It's also not been questioned that Lady Butler was alive at the time of that marriage contract, my point however was she was deceased by 1483, and there's no independent or contemporary evidence from the 1460s to support the claim they were promised, and there's no evidence their engagement was ever adjudicated by a competent church court. (The usurpation story and the propaganda war are discussed in Michael Hicks, Richard III (2000, reissued 2003).

I would question you on the matter that Richard didn't want to be king, why would he have taken it? Are we suggesting Richard agreed to be King under sufferance, purely because Edward V had been disqualified and there was nobody else?

"Richard staged his first coup d’état on May 1, 1483, at Stony Stratford (Northamptonshire). He seized Edward V, dismissed his household, and placed Earl Rivers (Elizabeth's brother) and Edward’s half-brother Lord Richard Grey in custody". (Hicks, 2000, 2003). Once R3 had both boys in his charge (read possession) he declared himself King, an event which is on record. These events happened speedily and Richard's actions don't seem to be the actions of a man who didn't want to reign.

The Wydeville family, Queen, the boy and the girls took refuge in Westminster Abbey and she gave up her children before she was sent in to obscurity, or sought sanctuary. Her treatment by R3 and Henry VII was a disgrace but who knows what she got up to, treason is suggested. Why would all that have happened?

Richard also had Hastings executed, probably to remove Edward's strongest supporter. By June 16, Richard had usurped the Crown backed by the northern army, which over ran London. The northern army didn't just happen to be there by chance supporting Richard who didn't need their help and didn't want to be king.

You say "Richard never wanted to be king, and he certainly did not enjoy being a king". King Richard III and Queen Anne were crowned at Westminster Abbey on July 6, 1483. But not, I imagine, dragged screaming and kicking down the aisle :-)
John Paul is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 04:51 PM   #26

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,890
Blog Entries: 50

Lets take this step by step so we can understand one and another, there is no point in going in all guns blazing. We will never get to the truth this way. First what do you think of the Woodvilles, please tell me what do you think them and be honest to how you feel about them.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 04:31 AM   #27
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Pax juxta probitatem
Posts: 1,621
Blog Entries: 14

Okay, again with respect... my time's limited, what with work and getting assignments in early (or trying) . Rather than studying important parts of my module I find myself on here. I might have views on all this but never rude and argumentative. Just for you I'll keep a little tiny gun ;-)

Personally and it's only my take, we can see how important and precious power, wealth and titles were in those days, and just how far people would go to get them. No-one was safe, not family, daughters, sons, even little children if someone wanted to be King or even just get in to royal court.
While religious and popular for their reforms , they still imposed rule and did whatever needed to be done including all the brutality.

Right...Mrs Wydeville/Wydville/Woodville. Queen consort to Edward IV, daughter of Sir Richard Woodville/Earl Rivers and widow of Sir John Grey of Leicestershire, that family by the way includes Lady Jane Grey. As a Leicestershire bloke this is interesting stuff, Simon de Montfort's also in there. The history eventually leads to Leicester, R3 and the recent dig.

A bit of a looker by all accounts, which is probably how Elizabeth hooked the randy Edward IV in 1464 while also a Lancastrian, which upset the Yorkist household. She was already a widow with two sons and went on to bear at least ten children which wasn't unusual for those times. And anyone would think the family became big enough to secure the Yorkists.

Her own pedigree wasn't as lowly as people think, she wasn't a mere commoner but descended from Simon de Montfort and John's daughter Eleanor. If you want to know what I think, I think Elizabeth's history suggests she was a bit of a Cleopatra (seeking alliances, seducing Edward IV and demanding marriage before he had his wicked way) from a large and very ambitious family. I also think Elizabeth knew the princes had been removed when she plotted the marriage of her daughter to Henry Tudor.

The snobbery and rumours at court that she was nothing special caused her a few problems while married to Edward IV, and it looks like antagonism at court, along with decadence and immorality, didn't do the Yorkists any favours along with the resentment the family nepotism caused. Marrying Elizabeth's brother off to an 80 year old just for money wouldn't have helped the situation and by then the establishment had probably had enough. You could almost believe it was a mini revolution that happened in 1483.

Richard would have wanted to put an end to all that but he also had his own reasons for doing so. After Edward IV died sudden, the Woodvilles were finished and R3 saw his chance.

You'll know her daughter became Henry VII's queen. Elizabeth herself may have got up to treason against Henry, for which she lost her dower and retired to Bermondsey Abbey, "she died in a Convent". All of which makes me think Elizabeth and her family played a large part in the events and in Richard's rise during 1483.

I've yet to read the book by David MacGibbon, "Elizabeth Woodville (1437–1492): Her Life and Times (1938)" and at some stage I might. There is a bit of Cleopatra in there and she's an attractive figure if a little disingenuous, and she did give up her children. She's been called the tragic queen possibly because she died penniless in exile and for the way she was treated by Richard and Henry VII. But in some way she contributed to the end of the Roses Wars, joined up with Margaret Beaufort, and united the factions. Richard's own part in all this didn't really do him much good.

I still think the Woodvilles' behaviour, social climbers and nepotism, wasn't quite as bad as Richard's actions in the way he usurped the crown.
John Paul is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 07:19 AM   #28
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Pax juxta probitatem
Posts: 1,621
Blog Entries: 14

As the thread OP asked about the princes in the Tower, there's one more spanner in the works; the two coffins supposedly found in a hidden vault next to Edward IV and Elizabeth's vault. "In 1789, work was carried out to the paving in St George’s Chapel.... During repair work, they came upon the entrance to the burial vault of Edward IV. Within the vault, they found a lead coffin, with the remains of a wooden coffin* on top – the coffins of Edward IV and his wife, Elizabeth Woodville*".

Okay, so Henry VII had decreed Edward IV's and Elizabeth's marriage legitimate, restoring her position and title. But they also found two further coffins, "believed to contain the bodies of George, Duke of Bedford, 3rd son of Edward IV who died aged around 2 in 1479, and Mary, 5th daughter of Edward IV, who died aged 14 in 1482".

"However, in 1810, two further coffins were found in what is now the Albert Memorial Chapel. (At the time it's been suggested royal approval would have been required to investigate, and this has been looked at more recently but the anomaly might have been left to future generations for whatever reasons).

"One of coffins had the inscription “serenissimus princeps Georgius filius tercius Christianissimi principis Edvardi iiij” suggesting that this was the coffin of George, not the one in the vault near Edward IV. In fact, when George was buried on 22 March 1479, St George’s Chapel was still under construction, so that although his body was taken to be buried at Windsor, it couldn’t have been interred in the Quire, and was instead laid to rest to the south of the high altar of the old chapel, the Albert Memorial Chapel".

In the written account of Mary’s funeral, it states that she was “buried by my Lorde George, her brother”. Source and a blog from St Georges-Windsor College of St George Archives Blog » Royal funeral

So who did the other two coffins belong to?

Buried in that place near Edward IV – could they have been the bodies of Edward’s other sons, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York from the stories of 1483. And if so how might their possible burial with their parents be explained?

The bones in Westminster Abbey discovered 1674 might well be children's and they're assumed to be the two princes, but it seems they're also incomplete and mixed up with animal bones and rubbish.

Just for their point of view Richard III Society of NSW » Blog Archive » The Princes in the Tower?

College of St George - Windsor Castle - Burials in the Chapel by location

Edited for decent English.

Last edited by John Paul; December 5th, 2012 at 07:49 AM.
John Paul is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 02:24 PM   #29

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,890
Blog Entries: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Paul View Post
As the thread OP asked about the princes in the Tower, there's one more spanner in the works; the two coffins supposedly found in a hidden vault next to Edward IV and Elizabeth's vault. "In 1789, work was carried out to the paving in St George’s Chapel.... During repair work, they came upon the entrance to the burial vault of Edward IV. Within the vault, they found a lead coffin, with the remains of a wooden coffin* on top – the coffins of Edward IV and his wife, Elizabeth Woodville*".

Okay, so Henry VII had decreed Edward IV's and Elizabeth's marriage legitimate, restoring her position and title. But they also found two further coffins, "believed to contain the bodies of George, Duke of Bedford, 3rd son of Edward IV who died aged around 2 in 1479, and Mary, 5th daughter of Edward IV, who died aged 14 in 1482".

"However, in 1810, two further coffins were found in what is now the Albert Memorial Chapel. (At the time it's been suggested royal approval would have been required to investigate, and this has been looked at more recently but the anomaly might have been left to future generations for whatever reasons).

"One of coffins had the inscription “serenissimus princeps Georgius filius tercius Christianissimi principis Edvardi iiij” suggesting that this was the coffin of George, not the one in the vault near Edward IV. In fact, when George was buried on 22 March 1479, St George’s Chapel was still under construction, so that although his body was taken to be buried at Windsor, it couldn’t have been interred in the Quire, and was instead laid to rest to the south of the high altar of the old chapel, the Albert Memorial Chapel".

In the written account of Mary’s funeral, it states that she was “buried by my Lorde George, her brother”. Source and a blog from St Georges-Windsor College of St George Archives Blog » Royal funeral

So who did the other two coffins belong to?

Buried in that place near Edward IV – could they have been the bodies of Edward’s other sons, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York from the stories of 1483. And if so how might their possible burial with their parents be explained?

The bones in Westminster Abbey discovered 1674 might well be children's and they're assumed to be the two princes, but it seems they're also incomplete and mixed up with animal bones and rubbish.

Just for their point of view Richard III Society of NSW » Blog Archive » The Princes in the Tower?

College of St George - Windsor Castle - Burials in the Chapel by location

Edited for decent English.
I had never believed that the bones underneath those stairs were creditable story I had read those links and I have felt that the young king was murdered, but Richard of York survived and was who they called the pretender Perkin Warbeck.
The events leading up to Edward V coronation, Elizabeth Woodville was in sanctuary with Richard of York and his sisters. Richard had taken Anthony Woodville, two others in prison in Yorkshire safe out of harms way. I think I read somewhere Elizabeth Woodville seemed to think that she was concerned about the safety of her children with Hastings. Hastings was well known to be an open enemy with the Woodvilles. This is where the documents don't make much sense at all, as I suspect have been tampered with. Hastings was executed straight after a meeting with the Bishop of Ely and Stanley and Buckingham. Soon after that Richard had signed the death warrants of the three prisoners in Yorkshire, Why he never had done that before? Nothing has been documented on the reason why Hastings was executed, its missing reason is suspicious as it hides something to what really went on.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 11:42 PM   #30

johnincornwall's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 922

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal Rainbow View Post
I have written blogs on here about the Summer of 1483 as to what happened back then. I had to scratch around and forget using any Tudor Propaganda to the likely events that happened back then. The boy king was in the Tower just before his coronation and the Duke of York was in sanctuary in Westminster with his mother and his sisters. A turn of events seemed to happen around the time when Hastings was executed.
Its seems that still today's historians seem to refer to Richard as an evil child murdering hunchback that Shakesphere had painted him.
Bow to your knowledge on this subject Crystal. I can only tell you that Alonso de Palencia, in his classic (and superb) account of the War of Granada wrote a chapter for each year - should have been 1482 to 92 but unfortunately he died before the war end! In each chapter he inserts a passage about contemporary events around European courts, and in 1483 he writes that the princes were mudered by Richard. I have no opinion on this my point is that Tudor propoganda was powerful and instant!
johnincornwall is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
princes, tower


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Princes in the Tower Tudor chick Medieval and Byzantine History 78 November 21st, 2013 03:48 PM
Who killed the Princes in the Tower? Bismarck European History 90 March 15th, 2013 05:06 PM
The Tower of London popstar21 General History 18 September 8th, 2011 03:11 AM
What happened to the princes in the tower Crystal Rainbow Medieval and Byzantine History 124 August 11th, 2011 08:20 AM
Princes in the Tower Crystal Rainbow Medieval and Byzantine History 40 March 15th, 2011 08:10 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.