The trouble with Edward V

The trouble with Edward V

I've no desire to demonise Richard III or angelise him, come to that.

It seems from the evidence that he tried to assert his position as protector at Stony Stratford and found that the nascent King, probably arrogant, wasn't at all happy about his uncle Rivers, who had been responsible for his tuition and his half brother Richard Grey being slapped down by Richard. Dorset, a brother of Grey, had apparently made a comment about the Council and not Richard being top man. We are told that Edward V was in tears over the confrontation with Richard who may've learned rough northern ways from his years in the North and his military experience.

It must've dawned upon Richard that he was in deadly trouble with Edward V and true to his military background he bravely took on Edward V and the Woodville connection: supporters of Edward: Rivers, Grey, Vaughan , Haute and Hastings, were executed .

Kendall states clearly that any king at that period of history if knocked off the throne could only fall into his / her grave. So, in my opinion, logically, given the fact that so many of Edward V's supporters had been killed, Edward V and his brother would have to be eliminated sooner or later in order for Richard to protect himself, his family and friends. Buckingham may've convinced Richard of the need, maybe for his own ambitions and may've orchestrated the deaths under his own authority. It's possible that Richard had convinced himself that the princes were bastards (something the princes would never have accepted) and their disappearance was no great loss. Edward IV surely had lost respect with his decline into wine, women and gluttony: his early death was no surprise.

We can't prove that Richard ordered the princes to be killed, but the damaging rumour of their deaths was around and he said nothing about it while denying his interest in an incestuous marriage to their sister.

I think sooner or later Richard HAD to face reality and get rid of the princes – even a pretender to one of them: Perkin Warbeck, later caused trouble for Henry VII - so 1483 was a possible time.

The killing of children isn't usually liked, but I'm afraid it does happen: there are so many cases I'm sure you can fill in the blanks.

".......... from the evidence .........."

This "evidence" being written years later by Vergil etc, working for the Tydder - they could give Graeme Swann lessons in spin.

There is NO evidence of Edward V being a problem alive, particularly if he was unwell, but much evidence if he was dead or thought to be.

----- Original Message -----
From: vermeertwo
To:
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 3:55 PM
Subject: The trouble with Edward V



The trouble with Edward V

I've no desire to demonise Richard III or angelise him, come to that.

It seems from the evidence that he tried to assert his position as protector at Stony Stratford and found that the nascent King, probably arrogant, wasn't at all happy about his uncle Rivers, who had been responsible for his tuition and his half brother Richard Grey being slapped down by Richard. Dorset, a brother of Grey, had apparently made a comment about the Council and not Richard being top man. We are told that Edward V was in tears over the confrontation with Richard who may've learned rough northern ways from his years in the North and his military experience.

It must've dawned upon Richard that he was in deadly trouble with Edward V and true to his military background he bravely took on Edward V and the Woodville connection: supporters of Edward: Rivers, Grey, Vaughan , Haute and Hastings, were executed .

Kendall states clearly that any king at that period of history if knocked off the throne could only fall into his / her grave. So, in my opinion, logically, given the fact that so many of Edward V's supporters had been killed, Edward V and his brother would have to be eliminated sooner or later in order for Richard to protect himself, his family and friends. Buckingham may've convinced Richard of the need, maybe for his own ambitions and may've orchestrated the deaths under his own authority. It's possible that Richard had convinced himself that the princes were bastards (something the princes would never have accepted) and their disappearance was no great loss. Edward IV surely had lost respect with his decline into wine, women and gluttony: his early death was no surprise.

We can't prove that Richard ordered the princes to be killed, but the damaging rumour of their deaths was around and he said nothing about it while denying his interest in an incestuous marriage to their sister.

I think sooner or later Richard HAD to face reality and get rid of the princes - even a pretender to one of them: Perkin Warbeck, later caused trouble for Henry VII - so 1483 was a possible time.

The killing of children isn't usually liked, but I'm afraid it does happen: there are so many cases I'm sure you can fill in the blanks.

So, if Edward V, after being deposed and bastardised, had broken from the Tower, formed an army and captured Richard III, what do you think he would've done with Richard?

I don't know what happened to Edward V, but to say that he was no danger to rivals for his crown seems unrealistic.

In view of this, any measures taken by Richard would seem credible.


--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> ".......... from the evidence .........."
>
> This "evidence" being written years later by Vergil etc, working for the Tydder - they could give Graeme Swann lessons in spin.
>
> There is NO evidence of Edward V being a problem alive, particularly if he was unwell, but much evidence if he was dead or thought to be.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: vermeertwo
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 3:55 PM
> Subject: The trouble with Edward V
>
>
>
> The trouble with Edward V
>
> I've no desire to demonise Richard III or angelise him, come to that.
>
> It seems from the evidence that he tried to assert his position as protector at Stony Stratford and found that the nascent King, probably arrogant, wasn't at all happy about his uncle Rivers, who had been responsible for his tuition and his half brother Richard Grey being slapped down by Richard. Dorset, a brother of Grey, had apparently made a comment about the Council and not Richard being top man. We are told that Edward V was in tears over the confrontation with Richard who may've learned rough northern ways from his years in the North and his military experience.
>
> It must've dawned upon Richard that he was in deadly trouble with Edward V and true to his military background he bravely took on Edward V and the Woodville connection: supporters of Edward: Rivers, Grey, Vaughan , Haute and Hastings, were executed .
>
> Kendall states clearly that any king at that period of history if knocked off the throne could only fall into his / her grave. So, in my opinion, logically, given the fact that so many of Edward V's supporters had been killed, Edward V and his brother would have to be eliminated sooner or later in order for Richard to protect himself, his family and friends. Buckingham may've convinced Richard of the need, maybe for his own ambitions and may've orchestrated the deaths under his own authority. It's possible that Richard had convinced himself that the princes were bastards (something the princes would never have accepted) and their disappearance was no great loss. Edward IV surely had lost respect with his decline into wine, women and gluttony: his early death was no surprise.
>
> We can't prove that Richard ordered the princes to be killed, but the damaging rumour of their deaths was around and he said nothing about it while denying his interest in an incestuous marriage to their sister.
>
> I think sooner or later Richard HAD to face reality and get rid of the princes - even a pretender to one of them: Perkin Warbeck, later caused trouble for Henry VII - so 1483 was a possible time.
>
> The killing of children isn't usually liked, but I'm afraid it does happen: there are so many cases I'm sure you can fill in the blanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I still go back to- if Richard had Edward V put to death, why didn't he display his body saying poor Edward died of melancholy, as his brother did to Henry VI?  It makes no sense to kill him and hide the fact.  That would do more harm to Richard than being open about it. 
Vickie
 
 On Tue, 3/1/11, vrmeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:


From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The trouble with Edward V
To:
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 10:50 AM


 



So, if Edward V, after being deposed and bastardised, had broken from the Tower, formed an army and captured Richard III, what do you think he would've done with Richard?

I don't know what happened to Edward V, but to say that he was no danger to rivals for his crown seems unrealistic.

In view of this, any measures taken by Richard would seem credible.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> ".......... from the evidence .........."
>
> This "evidence" being written years later by Vergil etc, working for the Tydder - they could give Graeme Swann lessons in spin.
>
> There is NO evidence of Edward V being a problem alive, particularly if he was unwell, but much evidence if he was dead or thought to be.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: vermeertwo
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 3:55 PM
> Subject: The trouble with Edward V
>
>
>
> The trouble with Edward V
>
> I've no desire to demonise Richard III or angelise him, come to that.
>
> It seems from the evidence that he tried to assert his position as protector at Stony Stratford and found that the nascent King, probably arrogant, wasn't at all happy about his uncle Rivers, who had been responsible for his tuition and his half brother Richard Grey being slapped down by Richard. Dorset, a brother of Grey, had apparently made a comment about the Council and not Richard being top man. We are told that Edward V was in tears over the confrontation with Richard who may've learned rough northern ways from his years in the North and his military experience.
>
> It must've dawned upon Richard that he was in deadly trouble with Edward V and true to his military background he bravely took on Edward V and the Woodville connection: supporters of Edward: Rivers, Grey, Vaughan , Haute and Hastings, were executed .
>
> Kendall states clearly that any king at that period of history if knocked off the throne could only fall into his / her grave. So, in my opinion, logically, given the fact that so many of Edward V's supporters had been killed, Edward V and his brother would have to be eliminated sooner or later in order for Richard to protect himself, his family and friends. Buckingham may've convinced Richard of the need, maybe for his own ambitions and may've orchestrated the deaths under his own authority. It's possible that Richard had convinced himself that the princes were bastards (something the princes would never have accepted) and their disappearance was no great loss. Edward IV surely had lost respect with his decline into wine, women and gluttony: his early death was no surprise.
>
> We can't prove that Richard ordered the princes to be killed, but the damaging rumour of their deaths was around and he said nothing about it while denying his interest in an incestuous marriage to their sister.
>
> I think sooner or later Richard HAD to face reality and get rid of the princes - even a pretender to one of them: Perkin Warbeck, later caused trouble for Henry VII - so 1483 was a possible time.
>
> The killing of children isn't usually liked, but I'm afraid it does happen: there are so many cases I'm sure you can fill in the blanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"the damaging rumour of their deaths was around and he said nothing"

What could Richard have said?

A. Yes, I did it; I had them both killed, and disposed of the bodies. (Not exactly in his best interests to admit that.)
B. I took them to a place of safety with X in location Y. (He would have had to produce them to prove it.)
C. I've hidden them for their own safety. (Obviously he would have been asked to prove they were still alive. Again, they would need to be seen.)
D. They are both dead, murdered by X, but I had nothing to do with it. (Would that be believed?)

Other than say nothing, what could Richard possibly have said? I agree with Vickie that the easiest thing to do was to display the bodies and claim both boys died of some sickness. It would have put questions to rest once and for all. Some may not have liked the answers, but what could they have done?




On Mar 1, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Vickie Cook wrote:

> the damaging rumour of their deaths was around and he said nothing

Since there exists plenty of evidence of Edward V's degree of threat to Richard III in 1483, I can't see what value there is in forming conclusions based on hypotheses that ignore the realities of the times and instead consider a fictitious outcome of a fictitious battle. Better, surely, to look at the facts:

(a) When Edward V was deemed to be alive, groups of people who objected to his replacement by Richard conspired to raise forces to depose the new king. The fact that Edward was known to be in the Tower of London under Richard's control, despite unsuccessful attempts to remove him, did not deter them. Thus his personal presence at the head of an army was not necessary to the endeavour: whatever importance he had for the rebels, even in his absence, was as a figurehead and rallying point.

(b) When the people who objected to Edward's replacement got word that he and his brother 'had met their fate', they chose another candidate and continued with the rebellion. The fact that Edward was supposedly dead did not deter them. Actually they had no way of knowing for sure whether he was dead or alive, but either way his importance to the rebels evaporated.

(c) Most of the country was basically unconcerned about Richard's accession, or supportive of it, as can be seen by his highly popular coronation and the decisive victory of his forces over the rebels. This was followed by a period of calm lasting close on two years (Nov 1483 to Aug 1485), the only serious threat being Henry Tudor's warmongering at the instigation of the French. Until Richard's death Edward V was scarcely mentioned again in surviving contemporaneous records.

Aged twelve at the time of his disappearance, and having spent the last nine years at Ludlow, he was largely unknown in the realm, had no ready money, no effective personal following, and was of no dynastic significance once he had been deposed by the lords and commons in favour of Richard. Any magnate weighing up the idea of staking his life on Edward V had to take these handicaps into account, bearing in mind that even if he was restored to the throne, the genie (of his illegitimacy) would never go back into the bottle. And ... what would the reign of a skint twelve-year-old boy be like? Who would be the real power behind the throne? Richard III knew all about the thought-processes of men of his time, and he knew that possession was nine points of the law. On a scale of one to ten, you can't really set Edward V's threat rating at more than about five, and that's being generous.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: vermeertwo
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: The trouble with Edward V



So, if Edward V, after being deposed and bastardised, had broken from the Tower, formed an army and captured Richard III, what do you think he would've done with Richard?

I don't know what happened to Edward V, but to say that he was no danger to rivals for his crown seems unrealistic.

In view of this, any measures taken by Richard would seem credible.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> ".......... from the evidence .........."
>
> This "evidence" being written years later by Vergil etc, working for the Tydder - they could give Graeme Swann lessons in spin.
>
> There is NO evidence of Edward V being a problem alive, particularly if he was unwell, but much evidence if he was dead or thought to be.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: vermeertwo
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 3:55 PM
> Subject: The trouble with Edward V
>
>
>
> The trouble with Edward V
>
> I've no desire to demonise Richard III or angelise him, come to that.
>
> It seems from the evidence that he tried to assert his position as protector at Stony Stratford and found that the nascent King, probably arrogant, wasn't at all happy about his uncle Rivers, who had been responsible for his tuition and his half brother Richard Grey being slapped down by Richard. Dorset, a brother of Grey, had apparently made a comment about the Council and not Richard being top man. We are told that Edward V was in tears over the confrontation with Richard who may've learned rough northern ways from his years in the North and his military experience.
>
> It must've dawned upon Richard that he was in deadly trouble with Edward V and true to his military background he bravely took on Edward V and the Woodville connection: supporters of Edward: Rivers, Grey, Vaughan , Haute and Hastings, were executed .
>
> Kendall states clearly that any king at that period of history if knocked off the throne could only fall into his / her grave. So, in my opinion, logically, given the fact that so many of Edward V's supporters had been killed, Edward V and his brother would have to be eliminated sooner or later in order for Richard to protect himself, his family and friends. Buckingham may've convinced Richard of the need, maybe for his own ambitions and may've orchestrated the deaths under his own authority. It's possible that Richard had convinced himself that the princes were bastards (something the princes would never have accepted) and their disappearance was no great loss. Edward IV surely had lost respect with his decline into wine, women and gluttony: his early death was no surprise.
>
> We can't prove that Richard ordered the princes to be killed, but the damaging rumour of their deaths was around and he said nothing about it while denying his interest in an incestuous marriage to their sister.
>
> I think sooner or later Richard HAD to face reality and get rid of the princes - even a pretender to one of them: Perkin Warbeck, later caused trouble for Henry VII - so 1483 was a possible time.
>
> The killing of children isn't usually liked, but I'm afraid it does happen: there are so many cases I'm sure you can fill in the blanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

An alternative claimant could try to exploit Edward (or his brother) by legitimising them but would then be faced with one of them coming age. With both boys officially dead, whether physically or not, the Tydder could marry one of the sisters - who was no threat at all as a Queen Regnant was unthinkable at the time.

----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: The trouble with Edward V



Since there exists plenty of evidence of Edward V's degree of threat to Richard III in 1483, I can't see what value there is in forming conclusions based on hypotheses that ignore the realities of the times and instead consider a fictitious outcome of a fictitious battle. Better, surely, to look at the facts:

(a) When Edward V was deemed to be alive, groups of people who objected to his replacement by Richard conspired to raise forces to depose the new king. The fact that Edward was known to be in the Tower of London under Richard's control, despite unsuccessful attempts to remove him, did not deter them. Thus his personal presence at the head of an army was not necessary to the endeavour: whatever importance he had for the rebels, even in his absence, was as a figurehead and rallying point.

(b) When the people who objected to Edward's replacement got word that he and his brother 'had met their fate', they chose another candidate and continued with the rebellion. The fact that Edward was supposedly dead did not deter them. Actually they had no way of knowing for sure whether he was dead or alive, but either way his importance to the rebels evaporated.

(c) Most of the country was basically unconcerned about Richard's accession, or supportive of it, as can be seen by his highly popular coronation and the decisive victory of his forces over the rebels. This was followed by a period of calm lasting close on two years (Nov 1483 to Aug 1485), the only serious threat being Henry Tudor's warmongering at the instigation of the French. Until Richard's death Edward V was scarcely mentioned again in surviving contemporaneous records.

Aged twelve at the time of his disappearance, and having spent the last nine years at Ludlow, he was largely unknown in the realm, had no ready money, no effective personal following, and was of no dynastic significance once he had been deposed by the lords and commons in favour of Richard. Any magnate weighing up the idea of staking his life on Edward V had to take these handicaps into account, bearing in mind that even if he was restored to the throne, the genie (of his illegitimacy) would never go back into the bottle. And ... what would the reign of a skint twelve-year-old boy be like? Who would be the real power behind the throne? Richard III knew all about the thought-processes of men of his time, and he knew that possession was nine points of the law. On a scale of one to ten, you can't really set Edward V's threat rating at more than about five, and that's being generous.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: vermeertwo
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: The trouble with Edward V

So, if Edward V, after being deposed and bastardised, had broken from the Tower, formed an army and captured Richard III, what do you think he would've done with Richard?

I don't know what happened to Edward V, but to say that he was no danger to rivals for his crown seems unrealistic.

In view of this, any measures taken by Richard would seem credible.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> ".......... from the evidence .........."
>
> This "evidence" being written years later by Vergil etc, working for the Tydder - they could give Graeme Swann lessons in spin.
>
> There is NO evidence of Edward V being a problem alive, particularly if he was unwell, but much evidence if he was dead or thought to be.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: vermeertwo
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 3:55 PM
> Subject: The trouble with Edward V
>
>
>
> The trouble with Edward V
>
> I've no desire to demonise Richard III or angelise him, come to that.
>
> It seems from the evidence that he tried to assert his position as protector at Stony Stratford and found that the nascent King, probably arrogant, wasn't at all happy about his uncle Rivers, who had been responsible for his tuition and his half brother Richard Grey being slapped down by Richard. Dorset, a brother of Grey, had apparently made a comment about the Council and not Richard being top man. We are told that Edward V was in tears over the confrontation with Richard who may've learned rough northern ways from his years in the North and his military experience.
>
> It must've dawned upon Richard that he was in deadly trouble with Edward V and true to his military background he bravely took on Edward V and the Woodville connection: supporters of Edward: Rivers, Grey, Vaughan , Haute and Hastings, were executed .
>
> Kendall states clearly that any king at that period of history if knocked off the throne could only fall into his / her grave. So, in my opinion, logically, given the fact that so many of Edward V's supporters had been killed, Edward V and his brother would have to be eliminated sooner or later in order for Richard to protect himself, his family and friends. Buckingham may've convinced Richard of the need, maybe for his own ambitions and may've orchestrated the deaths under his own authority. It's possible that Richard had convinced himself that the princes were bastards (something the princes would never have accepted) and their disappearance was no great loss. Edward IV surely had lost respect with his decline into wine, women and gluttony: his early death was no surprise.
>
> We can't prove that Richard ordered the princes to be killed, but the damaging rumour of their deaths was around and he said nothing about it while denying his interest in an incestuous marriage to their sister.
>
> I think sooner or later Richard HAD to face reality and get rid of the princes - even a pretender to one of them: Perkin Warbeck, later caused trouble for Henry VII - so 1483 was a possible time.
>
> The killing of children isn't usually liked, but I'm afraid it does happen: there are so many cases I'm sure you can fill in the blanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

according to holinshed's chronicle.
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_richIII&PagePosition=15
 
the correct answer is ...D ....sorta, because it does appear that people did believe him until h7, his cronies and his descendents and their cronies made sure vital documents disappeared. can anyone say titulus regis.
 
now, i am cognizant that holinshed is a secondary source (considered less than reliable by some, because it has some errors), but i'm communicated with several very serious ricardians over the past decade plus. they did not know this existed. according to holinshed, richard DECLARED "his innocenie before the world". aka..it was very likely done at parliament. loads of embassadors and other visiting dignitaries from the then known world.
 
holinshed seems to imply that richard is lying..covering up. however, holinshed where one dare not offend the ruling class by revealing too much or siding with the defeated. but at least there is somewhere that does record that richard said he did not kill the boys. i found this "record" shortly after joining this group a few years ago. prof. kendall even tells his readers there is no need to read the old documents. i've lost count how many times i've been told i'm wasting my time reading old chronicles etc. but i keep on finding tidbits, hints and clues. (even if my french is second rate).
 
regarding..less than reliable..i've yet to read anything but a primary source that is less than reliable. and even primary sources can be unreliable, especially from the 15thC to early 16thC with regards to surnames and locations.
 
or even the meaning of words..i.e. "be the vise" is being debated as the advice or device.
i was even told by a born and bred yorkshire man, that "be the vise" could mean to be under the care of, as within the vision.
 
finding the truth about richard is like looking for a needle in a haystack. quite simply it takes time..and you have to move the haystack..one straw at a time...very carefully.
thankfully we now live in the age of computers...:-) we can sift through the info so much easier now.
 
roslyn

--- On Tue, 3/1/11, Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:


From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
Subject: Re: The trouble with Edward V
To:
Received: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 2:08 PM


 



"the damaging rumour of their deaths was around and he said nothing"

What could Richard have said?

A. Yes, I did it; I had them both killed, and disposed of the bodies. (Not exactly in his best interests to admit that.)
B. I took them to a place of safety with X in location Y. (He would have had to produce them to prove it.)
C. I've hidden them for their own safety. (Obviously he would have been asked to prove they were still alive. Again, they would need to be seen.)
D. They are both dead, murdered by X, but I had nothing to do with it. (Would that be believed?)

Other than say nothing, what could Richard possibly have said? I agree with Vickie that the easiest thing to do was to display the bodies and claim both boys died of some sickness. It would have put questions to rest once and for all. Some may not have liked the answers, but what could they have done?

On Mar 1, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Vickie Cook wrote:

> the damaging rumour of their deaths was around and he said nothing

There weren't opinion polls in the 1480s to decide what people thought about Richard III's accession: the usual reply about politicians these days is that: "they're all the same!"
Given the fact that Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI fell rapidly into their graves after deposition I suppose most people felt the princes went the same way. Paul Kendall states this as being likely.

It's impossible to prove what happened to them, but I'd have thought that Richard III would've been wise to say that Buckingham illegally had them killed, whether true or not, just as he stated openly that he had no desire for an incestuous match with his niece, whether true or not. His silence fuelled speculation, which, then and now, was unhelpful, especially to him.


--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> according to holinshed's chronicle.
> http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_richIII&PagePosition=15
>  
> the correct answer is ...D ....sorta, because it does appear that people did believe him until h7, his cronies and his descendents and their cronies made sure vital documents disappeared. can anyone say titulus regis.
>  
> now, i am cognizant that holinshed is a secondary source (considered less than reliable by some, because it has some errors), but i'm communicated with several very serious ricardians over the past decade plus. they did not know this existed. according to holinshed, richard DECLARED "his innocenie before the world". aka..it was very likely done at parliament. loads of embassadors and other visiting dignitaries from the then known world.
>  
> holinshed seems to imply that richard is lying..covering up. however, holinshed where one dare not offend the ruling class by revealing too much or siding with the defeated. but at least there is somewhere that does record that richard said he did not kill the boys. i found this "record" shortly after joining this group a few years ago. prof. kendall even tells his readers there is no need to read the old documents. i've lost count how many times i've been told i'm wasting my time reading old chronicles etc. but i keep on finding tidbits, hints and clues. (even if my french is second rate).
>  
> regarding..less than reliable..i've yet to read anything but a primary source that is less than reliable. and even primary sources can be unreliable, especially from the 15thC to early 16thC with regards to surnames and locations.
>  
> or even the meaning of words..i.e. "be the vise" is being debated as the advice or device.
> i was even told by a born and bred yorkshire man, that "be the vise" could mean to be under the care of, as within the vision.
>  
> finding the truth about richard is like looking for a needle in a haystack. quite simply it takes time..and you have to move the haystack..one straw at a time...very carefully.
> thankfully we now live in the age of computers...:-) we can sift through the info so much easier now.
>  
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 3/1/11, Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
> Subject: Re: The trouble with Edward V
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 2:08 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> "the damaging rumour of their deaths was around and he said nothing"
>
> What could Richard have said?
>
> A. Yes, I did it; I had them both killed, and disposed of the bodies. (Not exactly in his best interests to admit that.)
> B. I took them to a place of safety with X in location Y. (He would have had to produce them to prove it.)
> C. I've hidden them for their own safety. (Obviously he would have been asked to prove they were still alive. Again, they would need to be seen.)
> D. They are both dead, murdered by X, but I had nothing to do with it. (Would that be believed?)
>
> Other than say nothing, what could Richard possibly have said? I agree with Vickie that the easiest thing to do was to display the bodies and claim both boys died of some sickness. It would have put questions to rest once and for all. Some may not have liked the answers, but what could they have done?
>
> On Mar 1, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Vickie Cook wrote:
>
> > the damaging rumour of their deaths was around and he said nothing
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>