Need for clarification

I've been studying the Wars of the Roses and Richard III since I was a child in the 1960s and received for Christmas the Plantagenet history series by Thomas Costain and especially enjoyed reading THE LAST PLANTAGENETS. As a new member of this group, I thought that I'd better ask "the big question:" Is one welcome here even if one has come to believe that Richard was at least morally, if not actively, responsible for the deaths of his nephews? I've read all the various theories over the years and simply can't "get around" the fact that Richard's nephews disappeared early in his reign, they were never conclusively seen again, and that it was apparently believed by some in both England and France before the end of Richard's short reign that he was responsible for their disappearance and deaths. Thanks for any input!

Warrenmalach, I think I can safely say that anyone with an open mind
concerning the fates of Edward V and his brother are welcomed here, as
nothing has been conclusively proven. It's amazing to think how much we
"know" about Richard III is, to be blunt, bunk.
Just to get the ball rolling however, and based on the contents of your
message, I DO have a couple of questions for you:
You say that your views of Richard are based, among other things on the
fact that "Richard's nephews disappeared early in his reign, they were never
conclusively seen again and that it was apparently believed by some in both
England and France...that he (Richard) was responsible for their
disappearance and deaths."
What do you mean by "early in his reign"? Richard's reign only lasted from
July of 1483 to early August of 1485. Dividing it into, say, quarters would
give July 1483 to January 1484 as "early", February 1484 to February 1485 as
"middle" and March 1485 to the Battle of Bosworth as "late." Audrey
Williamson, in "The Mystery of the Princes", cites the Great Chronicle of
London and provides evidence that Richard's nephews were still alive and
living in the Tower at Easter of 1484, which places their "disappearance"
well into the "middle" of Richard's reign. There are other indications that
children of high birth were being cared for as late as August 1484 and
perhaps even later. Who were these children?
Part of the problem about the fate of Edward and Richard is contained in
your phrase "never conclusively seen again". "Conclusively" by whom? Henry
VII, who had a direct interest in ensuring that neither Edward or Richard
were "proven" to be alive? That the histories and chronicles we rely on so
much for what we "know" were influenced by necessity (royal permission was
needed to publish ANYTHING until 1714) has been shown elsewhere. Then
consider that, the "evidence" cited glibly by "historians on whether or not
Perkin Warbeck was who he claimed to be, was put out by the supplanter of
Richard III and doesn't even include a copy of Warbeck's "confession"!
Those are, I believe, the major questions to be answered in relation to any
attempt to "pin" the disappearance of his nephews on Richard. The only
"proof" available against Richard in this matter is, to state it bluntly,
tainted by such self-interest and lack of corraboration as to be
inadmissable in any court of law I've ever heard of. Or, at least, any valid
court of law. I also can recommend reading Annette Carson's "The Maligned
King". It goes into what can, and can't, be definitely proven about
Richard's reign and the fate of his nephews and the amazing habit of many
writers of history to change possibilities into facts.
A thing to remember about ANY reference to the deaths or disappearances of
Richard's nephews, even in what little private correspondence that survives,
is that the writer would likely NOT include any reference to Edward and
Richard AS LONG AS THERE WAS NOTHING NEW TO REPORT. As long as Edward and
Richard were still being seen by anyone, that news wouldn't be worth
including in a letter. However, should a period of time pass wthout their
being seen where they were accustomed to be, that WOULD rate a mention. What
it DOESN'T do, however, is prove, one way or another, what DID happen to
them. Rumor, better known as gossip, is rarely known for spreading anything
laudatory about its' subject.
Anyway, if you scroll through the messages at the site you'll find lots and
lots and lots of recommended reading, most of it in English, as well as
thoughts and comments that can prove just as insightful.
So, welcome aboard. Hopefully you'll find this group interesting and
enjoyable.
Doug

----- Original Message -----
From: "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 8:50 PM
Subject: Need for clarification

Nicely done Doug!
Paul

On 23 Jul 2012, at 16:51, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:

> Warrenmalach, I think I can safely say that anyone with an open mind
> concerning the fates of Edward V and his brother are welcomed here, as
> nothing has been conclusively proven. It's amazing to think how much we
> "know" about Richard III is, to be blunt, bunk.
> Just to get the ball rolling however, and based on the contents of your
> message, I DO have a couple of questions for you:
> You say that your views of Richard are based, among other things on the
> fact that "Richard's nephews disappeared early in his reign, they were never
> conclusively seen again and that it was apparently believed by some in both
> England and France...that he (Richard) was responsible for their
> disappearance and deaths."
> What do you mean by "early in his reign"? Richard's reign only lasted from
> July of 1483 to early August of 1485. Dividing it into, say, quarters would
> give July 1483 to January 1484 as "early", February 1484 to February 1485 as
> "middle" and March 1485 to the Battle of Bosworth as "late." Audrey
> Williamson, in "The Mystery of the Princes", cites the Great Chronicle of
> London and provides evidence that Richard's nephews were still alive and
> living in the Tower at Easter of 1484, which places their "disappearance"
> well into the "middle" of Richard's reign. There are other indications that
> children of high birth were being cared for as late as August 1484 and
> perhaps even later. Who were these children?
> Part of the problem about the fate of Edward and Richard is contained in
> your phrase "never conclusively seen again". "Conclusively" by whom? Henry
> VII, who had a direct interest in ensuring that neither Edward or Richard
> were "proven" to be alive? That the histories and chronicles we rely on so
> much for what we "know" were influenced by necessity (royal permission was
> needed to publish ANYTHING until 1714) has been shown elsewhere. Then
> consider that, the "evidence" cited glibly by "historians on whether or not
> Perkin Warbeck was who he claimed to be, was put out by the supplanter of
> Richard III and doesn't even include a copy of Warbeck's "confession"!
> Those are, I believe, the major questions to be answered in relation to any
> attempt to "pin" the disappearance of his nephews on Richard. The only
> "proof" available against Richard in this matter is, to state it bluntly,
> tainted by such self-interest and lack of corraboration as to be
> inadmissable in any court of law I've ever heard of. Or, at least, any valid
> court of law. I also can recommend reading Annette Carson's "The Maligned
> King". It goes into what can, and can't, be definitely proven about
> Richard's reign and the fate of his nephews and the amazing habit of many
> writers of history to change possibilities into facts.
> A thing to remember about ANY reference to the deaths or disappearances of
> Richard's nephews, even in what little private correspondence that survives,
> is that the writer would likely NOT include any reference to Edward and
> Richard AS LONG AS THERE WAS NOTHING NEW TO REPORT. As long as Edward and
> Richard were still being seen by anyone, that news wouldn't be worth
> including in a letter. However, should a period of time pass wthout their
> being seen where they were accustomed to be, that WOULD rate a mention. What
> it DOESN'T do, however, is prove, one way or another, what DID happen to
> them. Rumor, better known as gossip, is rarely known for spreading anything
> laudatory about its' subject.
> Anyway, if you scroll through the messages at the site you'll find lots and
> lots and lots of recommended reading, most of it in English, as well as
> thoughts and comments that can prove just as insightful.
> So, welcome aboard. Hopefully you'll find this group interesting and
> enjoyable.
> Doug
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 8:50 PM
> Subject: Need for clarification
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

My understanding was that the Princes had disappeared by the time of Richard's leaving on his Northern Progress, and that this disappearance was well enough known as to be influential in the rising in which Warwick took part with Lancastrians that fall. Is this information incorrect?

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
> Warrenmalach, I think I can safely say that anyone with an open mind
> concerning the fates of Edward V and his brother are welcomed here, as
> nothing has been conclusively proven. It's amazing to think how much we
> "know" about Richard III is, to be blunt, bunk.
> Just to get the ball rolling however, and based on the contents of your
> message, I DO have a couple of questions for you:
> You say that your views of Richard are based, among other things on the
> fact that "Richard's nephews disappeared early in his reign, they were never
> conclusively seen again and that it was apparently believed by some in both
> England and France...that he (Richard) was responsible for their
> disappearance and deaths."
> What do you mean by "early in his reign"? Richard's reign only lasted from
> July of 1483 to early August of 1485. Dividing it into, say, quarters would
> give July 1483 to January 1484 as "early", February 1484 to February 1485 as
> "middle" and March 1485 to the Battle of Bosworth as "late." Audrey
> Williamson, in "The Mystery of the Princes", cites the Great Chronicle of
> London and provides evidence that Richard's nephews were still alive and
> living in the Tower at Easter of 1484, which places their "disappearance"
> well into the "middle" of Richard's reign. There are other indications that
> children of high birth were being cared for as late as August 1484 and
> perhaps even later. Who were these children?
> Part of the problem about the fate of Edward and Richard is contained in
> your phrase "never conclusively seen again". "Conclusively" by whom? Henry
> VII, who had a direct interest in ensuring that neither Edward or Richard
> were "proven" to be alive? That the histories and chronicles we rely on so
> much for what we "know" were influenced by necessity (royal permission was
> needed to publish ANYTHING until 1714) has been shown elsewhere. Then
> consider that, the "evidence" cited glibly by "historians on whether or not
> Perkin Warbeck was who he claimed to be, was put out by the supplanter of
> Richard III and doesn't even include a copy of Warbeck's "confession"!
> Those are, I believe, the major questions to be answered in relation to any
> attempt to "pin" the disappearance of his nephews on Richard. The only
> "proof" available against Richard in this matter is, to state it bluntly,
> tainted by such self-interest and lack of corraboration as to be
> inadmissable in any court of law I've ever heard of. Or, at least, any valid
> court of law. I also can recommend reading Annette Carson's "The Maligned
> King". It goes into what can, and can't, be definitely proven about
> Richard's reign and the fate of his nephews and the amazing habit of many
> writers of history to change possibilities into facts.
> A thing to remember about ANY reference to the deaths or disappearances of
> Richard's nephews, even in what little private correspondence that survives,
> is that the writer would likely NOT include any reference to Edward and
> Richard AS LONG AS THERE WAS NOTHING NEW TO REPORT. As long as Edward and
> Richard were still being seen by anyone, that news wouldn't be worth
> including in a letter. However, should a period of time pass wthout their
> being seen where they were accustomed to be, that WOULD rate a mention. What
> it DOESN'T do, however, is prove, one way or another, what DID happen to
> them. Rumor, better known as gossip, is rarely known for spreading anything
> laudatory about its' subject.
> Anyway, if you scroll through the messages at the site you'll find lots and
> lots and lots of recommended reading, most of it in English, as well as
> thoughts and comments that can prove just as insightful.
> So, welcome aboard. Hopefully you'll find this group interesting and
> enjoyable.
> Doug
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 8:50 PM
> Subject: Need for clarification
>

Hi Warren - I'm sure any member is welcome on any forum as long as their contributions aren't intemperate or discourteous, don't you think? As far as I can tell, this forum represents a wide spectrum of views on Richard, just like the Richard III Society which hosts it. I'm sure we encompass any number of different ideas about the mystery of what happened to Edward V and his brother, as is natural with any mystery. Unfortunately, with the historical resources presently available we cannot know the answer, so whatever anyone thinks can be only a guess. Thus I think most of us find it more productive to exchange ideas about what genuine facts it's possible to learn about Richard and his reign

However, one thing that intrigues me about your comments is your phrase "at least morally responsible". It's a phrase I've come across in writing before, but this is the first time I've been able to ask the writer ... what exactly do you mean by "morally", and how do you define morality when speaking of a reigning mediaeval monarch? (This should start an interesting thread!)
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: warrenmalach
To:
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 2:50 AM
Subject: Need for clarification



I've been studying the Wars of the Roses and Richard III since I was a child in the 1960s and received for Christmas the Plantagenet history series by Thomas Costain and especially enjoyed reading THE LAST PLANTAGENETS. As a new member of this group, I thought that I'd better ask "the big question:" Is one welcome here even if one has come to believe that Richard was at least morally, if not actively, responsible for the deaths of his nephews? I've read all the various theories over the years and simply can't "get around" the fact that Richard's nephews disappeared early in his reign, they were never conclusively seen again, and that it was apparently believed by some in both England and France before the end of Richard's short reign that he was responsible for their disappearance and deaths. Thanks for any input!

Ah, yes, Warren, this is incorrect. First it cannot be said that the disappearance of Edward V and his brother was 'well known' at any time during Richard's reign: there are one or two odd references but none of them are authoritative and none occur before September 1483, when the Crowland Chronicle first mentions 'a rumour was spread' to the effect that they were dead. Meanwhile numerous rebellious actions had been in train throughout that summer, with the aim of restoring a very much un-dead Edward V!


----- Original Message -----
From: warrenmalach
To:
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Need for clarification



My understanding was that the Princes had disappeared by the time of Richard's leaving on his Northern Progress, and that this disappearance was well enough known as to be influential in the rising in which Warwick took part with Lancastrians that fall. Is this information incorrect?

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
> Warrenmalach, I think I can safely say that anyone with an open mind
> concerning the fates of Edward V and his brother are welcomed here, as
> nothing has been conclusively proven. It's amazing to think how much we
> "know" about Richard III is, to be blunt, bunk.
> Just to get the ball rolling however, and based on the contents of your
> message, I DO have a couple of questions for you:
> You say that your views of Richard are based, among other things on the
> fact that "Richard's nephews disappeared early in his reign, they were never
> conclusively seen again and that it was apparently believed by some in both
> England and France...that he (Richard) was responsible for their
> disappearance and deaths."
> What do you mean by "early in his reign"? Richard's reign only lasted from
> July of 1483 to early August of 1485. Dividing it into, say, quarters would
> give July 1483 to January 1484 as "early", February 1484 to February 1485 as
> "middle" and March 1485 to the Battle of Bosworth as "late." Audrey
> Williamson, in "The Mystery of the Princes", cites the Great Chronicle of
> London and provides evidence that Richard's nephews were still alive and
> living in the Tower at Easter of 1484, which places their "disappearance"
> well into the "middle" of Richard's reign. There are other indications that
> children of high birth were being cared for as late as August 1484 and
> perhaps even later. Who were these children?
> Part of the problem about the fate of Edward and Richard is contained in
> your phrase "never conclusively seen again". "Conclusively" by whom? Henry
> VII, who had a direct interest in ensuring that neither Edward or Richard
> were "proven" to be alive? That the histories and chronicles we rely on so
> much for what we "know" were influenced by necessity (royal permission was
> needed to publish ANYTHING until 1714) has been shown elsewhere. Then
> consider that, the "evidence" cited glibly by "historians on whether or not
> Perkin Warbeck was who he claimed to be, was put out by the supplanter of
> Richard III and doesn't even include a copy of Warbeck's "confession"!
> Those are, I believe, the major questions to be answered in relation to any
> attempt to "pin" the disappearance of his nephews on Richard. The only
> "proof" available against Richard in this matter is, to state it bluntly,
> tainted by such self-interest and lack of corraboration as to be
> inadmissable in any court of law I've ever heard of. Or, at least, any valid
> court of law. I also can recommend reading Annette Carson's "The Maligned
> King". It goes into what can, and can't, be definitely proven about
> Richard's reign and the fate of his nephews and the amazing habit of many
> writers of history to change possibilities into facts.
> A thing to remember about ANY reference to the deaths or disappearances of
> Richard's nephews, even in what little private correspondence that survives,
> is that the writer would likely NOT include any reference to Edward and
> Richard AS LONG AS THERE WAS NOTHING NEW TO REPORT. As long as Edward and
> Richard were still being seen by anyone, that news wouldn't be worth
> including in a letter. However, should a period of time pass wthout their
> being seen where they were accustomed to be, that WOULD rate a mention. What
> it DOESN'T do, however, is prove, one way or another, what DID happen to
> them. Rumor, better known as gossip, is rarely known for spreading anything
> laudatory about its' subject.
> Anyway, if you scroll through the messages at the site you'll find lots and
> lots and lots of recommended reading, most of it in English, as well as
> thoughts and comments that can prove just as insightful.
> So, welcome aboard. Hopefully you'll find this group interesting and
> enjoyable.
> Doug
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 8:50 PM
> Subject: Need for clarification
>

My apologies! I meant "Buckingham" and not "Warwick."

--- In , "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> My understanding was that the Princes had disappeared by the time of Richard's leaving on his Northern Progress, and that this disappearance was well enough known as to be influential in the rising in which Warwick took part with Lancastrians that fall. Is this information incorrect?
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> > Warrenmalach, I think I can safely say that anyone with an open mind
> > concerning the fates of Edward V and his brother are welcomed here, as
> > nothing has been conclusively proven. It's amazing to think how much we
> > "know" about Richard III is, to be blunt, bunk.
> > Just to get the ball rolling however, and based on the contents of your
> > message, I DO have a couple of questions for you:
> > You say that your views of Richard are based, among other things on the
> > fact that "Richard's nephews disappeared early in his reign, they were never
> > conclusively seen again and that it was apparently believed by some in both
> > England and France...that he (Richard) was responsible for their
> > disappearance and deaths."
> > What do you mean by "early in his reign"? Richard's reign only lasted from
> > July of 1483 to early August of 1485. Dividing it into, say, quarters would
> > give July 1483 to January 1484 as "early", February 1484 to February 1485 as
> > "middle" and March 1485 to the Battle of Bosworth as "late." Audrey
> > Williamson, in "The Mystery of the Princes", cites the Great Chronicle of
> > London and provides evidence that Richard's nephews were still alive and
> > living in the Tower at Easter of 1484, which places their "disappearance"
> > well into the "middle" of Richard's reign. There are other indications that
> > children of high birth were being cared for as late as August 1484 and
> > perhaps even later. Who were these children?
> > Part of the problem about the fate of Edward and Richard is contained in
> > your phrase "never conclusively seen again". "Conclusively" by whom? Henry
> > VII, who had a direct interest in ensuring that neither Edward or Richard
> > were "proven" to be alive? That the histories and chronicles we rely on so
> > much for what we "know" were influenced by necessity (royal permission was
> > needed to publish ANYTHING until 1714) has been shown elsewhere. Then
> > consider that, the "evidence" cited glibly by "historians on whether or not
> > Perkin Warbeck was who he claimed to be, was put out by the supplanter of
> > Richard III and doesn't even include a copy of Warbeck's "confession"!
> > Those are, I believe, the major questions to be answered in relation to any
> > attempt to "pin" the disappearance of his nephews on Richard. The only
> > "proof" available against Richard in this matter is, to state it bluntly,
> > tainted by such self-interest and lack of corraboration as to be
> > inadmissable in any court of law I've ever heard of. Or, at least, any valid
> > court of law. I also can recommend reading Annette Carson's "The Maligned
> > King". It goes into what can, and can't, be definitely proven about
> > Richard's reign and the fate of his nephews and the amazing habit of many
> > writers of history to change possibilities into facts.
> > A thing to remember about ANY reference to the deaths or disappearances of
> > Richard's nephews, even in what little private correspondence that survives,
> > is that the writer would likely NOT include any reference to Edward and
> > Richard AS LONG AS THERE WAS NOTHING NEW TO REPORT. As long as Edward and
> > Richard were still being seen by anyone, that news wouldn't be worth
> > including in a letter. However, should a period of time pass wthout their
> > being seen where they were accustomed to be, that WOULD rate a mention. What
> > it DOESN'T do, however, is prove, one way or another, what DID happen to
> > them. Rumor, better known as gossip, is rarely known for spreading anything
> > laudatory about its' subject.
> > Anyway, if you scroll through the messages at the site you'll find lots and
> > lots and lots of recommended reading, most of it in English, as well as
> > thoughts and comments that can prove just as insightful.
> > So, welcome aboard. Hopefully you'll find this group interesting and
> > enjoyable.
> > Doug
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 8:50 PM
> > Subject: Need for clarification
> >
>

Annette, I have heard the "morally responsible" charge leveled against Richard even in "pro-Richard" biographies. The point, as one author put it, was that to dethrone a king in that violent age was to "push him towards the grave." No matter HOW strong Richard's claims to the throne might have been, once he had succeeded in delegimizing his nephews, their lives were in danger. The fact that Richard did NOT keep them publicly at court under some form of "house arrest" after he assumed the throne led to the rumors of their disappearance and deaths, rumors he apparently did NOT try to deny.

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Warren - I'm sure any member is welcome on any forum as long as their contributions aren't intemperate or discourteous, don't you think? As far as I can tell, this forum represents a wide spectrum of views on Richard, just like the Richard III Society which hosts it. I'm sure we encompass any number of different ideas about the mystery of what happened to Edward V and his brother, as is natural with any mystery. Unfortunately, with the historical resources presently available we cannot know the answer, so whatever anyone thinks can be only a guess. Thus I think most of us find it more productive to exchange ideas about what genuine facts it's possible to learn about Richard and his reign
>
> However, one thing that intrigues me about your comments is your phrase "at least morally responsible". It's a phrase I've come across in writing before, but this is the first time I've been able to ask the writer ... what exactly do you mean by "morally", and how do you define morality when speaking of a reigning mediaeval monarch? (This should start an interesting thread!)
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: warrenmalach
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 2:50 AM
> Subject: Need for clarification
>
>
>
> I've been studying the Wars of the Roses and Richard III since I was a child in the 1960s and received for Christmas the Plantagenet history series by Thomas Costain and especially enjoyed reading THE LAST PLANTAGENETS. As a new member of this group, I thought that I'd better ask "the big question:" Is one welcome here even if one has come to believe that Richard was at least morally, if not actively, responsible for the deaths of his nephews? I've read all the various theories over the years and simply can't "get around" the fact that Richard's nephews disappeared early in his reign, they were never conclusively seen again, and that it was apparently believed by some in both England and France before the end of Richard's short reign that he was responsible for their disappearance and deaths. Thanks for any input!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Annette,the Crowland Chronicle reference--assuming the identity of the supposed author, whose name for the moment escapes me--is significantly "early" in Richard's admittedly-short reign, and its connection to the rising which brought Buckingham into the conspiracy with the Lancastrians and some of the Yorkists against Richard demonstrates to me that there was some kind of "revulsion" against Richard within a few months of his coronation across a wide spectrum of political opinion which was able to find "common ground" in rejecting Richard as king. From then until Bosworth, Richard had to defend his claim to the throne against "all comers." Yes, so did Henry VII in the first years of HIS reign, but his opposition was purely Yorkist, and not across such a wide spectrum.

A personal note: I was briefly a member of the Richard III Society in the 1980s, but decided to not continue my membership when I could no longer excuse Richard from some form of responsibility for his nephews' disappearance and deaths. I hold no brief for Henry VII, but the "alternative" explanations for the Princes' disappearance and deaths simply have never been persuasive for me.

--- In , "Annette Carson"inio <email@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, yes, Warren, this is incorrect. First it cannot be said that the disappearance of Edward V and his brother was 'well known' at any time during Richard's reign: there are one or two odd references but none of them are authoritative and none occur before September 1483, when the Crowland Chronicle first mentions 'a rumour was spread' to the effect that they were dead. Meanwhile numerous rebellious actions had been in train throughout that summer, with the aim of restoring a very much un-dead Edward V!
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: warrenmalach
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 7:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Need for clarification
>
>
>
> My understanding was that the Princes had disappeared by the time of Richard's leaving on his Northern Progress, and that this disappearance was well enough known as to be influential in the rising in which Warwick took part with Lancastrians that fall. Is this information incorrect?
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> > Warrenmalach, I think I can safely say that anyone with an open mind
> > concerning the fates of Edward V and his brother are welcomed here, as
> > nothing has been conclusively proven. It's amazing to think how much we
> > "know" about Richard III is, to be blunt, bunk.
> > Just to get the ball rolling however, and based on the contents of your
> > message, I DO have a couple of questions for you:
> > You say that your views of Richard are based, among other things on the
> > fact that "Richard's nephews disappeared early in his reign, they were never
> > conclusively seen again and that it was apparently believed by some in both
> > England and France...that he (Richard) was responsible for their
> > disappearance and deaths."
> > What do you mean by "early in his reign"? Richard's reign only lasted from
> > July of 1483 to early August of 1485. Dividing it into, say, quarters would
> > give July 1483 to January 1484 as "early", February 1484 to February 1485 as
> > "middle" and March 1485 to the Battle of Bosworth as "late." Audrey
> > Williamson, in "The Mystery of the Princes", cites the Great Chronicle of
> > London and provides evidence that Richard's nephews were still alive and
> > living in the Tower at Easter of 1484, which places their "disappearance"
> > well into the "middle" of Richard's reign. There are other indications that
> > children of high birth were being cared for as late as August 1484 and
> > perhaps even later. Who were these children?
> > Part of the problem about the fate of Edward and Richard is contained in
> > your phrase "never conclusively seen again". "Conclusively" by whom? Henry
> > VII, who had a direct interest in ensuring that neither Edward or Richard
> > were "proven" to be alive? That the histories and chronicles we rely on so
> > much for what we "know" were influenced by necessity (royal permission was
> > needed to publish ANYTHING until 1714) has been shown elsewhere. Then
> > consider that, the "evidence" cited glibly by "historians on whether or not
> > Perkin Warbeck was who he claimed to be, was put out by the supplanter of
> > Richard III and doesn't even include a copy of Warbeck's "confession"!
> > Those are, I believe, the major questions to be answered in relation to any
> > attempt to "pin" the disappearance of his nephews on Richard. The only
> > "proof" available against Richard in this matter is, to state it bluntly,
> > tainted by such self-interest and lack of corraboration as to be
> > inadmissable in any court of law I've ever heard of. Or, at least, any valid
> > court of law. I also can recommend reading Annette Carson's "The Maligned
> > King". It goes into what can, and can't, be definitely proven about
> > Richard's reign and the fate of his nephews and the amazing habit of many
> > writers of history to change possibilities into facts.
> > A thing to remember about ANY reference to the deaths or disappearances of
> > Richard's nephews, even in what little private correspondence that survives,
> > is that the writer would likely NOT include any reference to Edward and
> > Richard AS LONG AS THERE WAS NOTHING NEW TO REPORT. As long as Edward and
> > Richard were still being seen by anyone, that news wouldn't be worth
> > including in a letter. However, should a period of time pass wthout their
> > being seen where they were accustomed to be, that WOULD rate a mention. What
> > it DOESN'T do, however, is prove, one way or another, what DID happen to
> > them. Rumor, better known as gossip, is rarely known for spreading anything
> > laudatory about its' subject.
> > Anyway, if you scroll through the messages at the site you'll find lots and
> > lots and lots of recommended reading, most of it in English, as well as
> > thoughts and comments that can prove just as insightful.
> > So, welcome aboard. Hopefully you'll find this group interesting and
> > enjoyable.
> > Doug
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "warrenmalach" <warrenmalach@>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 8:50 PM
> > Subject: Need for clarification
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, you're right, the 'moral responsibility' argument emanates from a variety of shades of opinion. I'm not suggesting it is an anti-Richard argument, just that it needs precisely defining. Concepts of morality are not universal, and certainly tend to vary depending on which century you inhabit and which code of ethics you espouse. For example, Edward the Black Prince considered it his moral duty to go to war to assist the odious Pedro the Cruel of Castile to regain his throne, based on chivalric concepts of responding to the appeal of a fellow royal house. In past ages a great store was placed on loyalty through thick and thin, from which for example we get the marriage vows 'for better or for worse'. With the benefit of hindsight many modern historians make judgements on mediaeval actions using their own moral codes. It is difficult to understand the huge forfeiture of life that took place in the Middle Ages, from hanging for petty larceny to burning for heresy - and, of course, execution if your actions threatened the crown.

If I have understood you correctly, you seem to express reservations about how strong Richard's claim to the throne 'might have been'. This is quite an important point, because actions on the part of a legitimate mediaeval king perceiving his throne to be under challenge (as Richard's was in the second half of 1483) must be regarded in quite a different light from actions by a usurper. Either way, the idea of a king in his position keeping his rivals publicly at court under house arrest simply doesn't make sense - not only were there conspiracies to breach the Tower of London's defences so that Edward V could be restored, even their sisters were the objects of conspiracies to snatch them from sanctuary and take them overseas so that they could produce sons to challenge his rule. We need to remember that the people who led the resistance to the deposition of Edward V were prepared to stop at nothing, to the extent that they mounted an open rebellion, with concomitant loss of life and limb on the part of those poor men who were compelled to bear arms for them.

A large number of moral dilemmas were involved in this situation. Should Richard be loyal to his brother and insist on his offspring's right to reign, despite their being adjudged to be bastards? [Richard himself did not bastardise them, by the way - the lords and commons considered the legal evidence and petitioned him to take the throne.] Or should Richard have taken the long view and realised that England would remain in jeopardy with a child (and dynasty) on the throne whose line had been shown to be illegitimate and whose reign would be subject to control by his maternal relatives? Did Richard feel a moral responsibility towards the good government of the realm, and did he feel that he was the right person to do the job, bearing in mind the duties of the king to dispense justice, decide foreign policy, and lead men in times of war?

Another moral dilemma was faced by the child's Woodville family and adherents. Should they take up arms for what they believed to be Edward's right to rule, or should they decide not to involve the realm in bloodshed by giving new opportunities to old jealousies, feuds and rivalries? Had they accepted Richard as king, there would have been no need for any of the deaths that followed. And indeed in those circumstances the deposed boys could perhaps have been found places at court, as their sisters were. But would that have been disloyal?

Another question of morality centres around the decision as to what place children should take in adult affairs. We do not know what Edward and Richard thought of all this, and even if they were in favour of taking up arms, we don't know whether they had sufficient judgement to understand the implications. Essentially the supporters of Edward V's reinstatement were using him as a figurehead in what were adult considerations of lineage, inheritance, legitimacy, royal succession and, ultimately, who wielded power in high places. Viewed objectively, most people would probably consider that an adult of proven capacity was a better occupant of the throne than a child of dubious parentage, but if you were one of a number of people whose expectations were thereby disappointed, you might consider you had good reasons for armed resistance.

I don't have time to ramble on at length, but perhaps the considerations I've mentioned may point up a variety of questions of morality to take into account when considering what actions were appropriate for Richard to take in the circumstances that actually prevailed in 1483, and what choices were available to him.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: warrenmalach
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: Need for clarification



Annette, I have heard the "morally responsible" charge leveled against Richard even in "pro-Richard" biographies. The point, as one author put it, was that to dethrone a king in that violent age was to "push him towards the grave." No matter HOW strong Richard's claims to the throne might have been, once he had succeeded in delegimizing his nephews, their lives were in danger. The fact that Richard did NOT keep them publicly at court under some form of "house arrest" after he assumed the throne led to the rumors of their disappearance and deaths, rumors he apparently did NOT try to deny.

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Warren - I'm sure any member is welcome on any forum as long as their contributions aren't intemperate or discourteous, don't you think? As far as I can tell, this forum represents a wide spectrum of views on Richard, just like the Richard III Society which hosts it. I'm sure we encompass any number of different ideas about the mystery of what happened to Edward V and his brother, as is natural with any mystery. Unfortunately, with the historical resources presently available we cannot know the answer, so whatever anyone thinks can be only a guess. Thus I think most of us find it more productive to exchange ideas about what genuine facts it's possible to learn about Richard and his reign
>
> However, one thing that intrigues me about your comments is your phrase "at least morally responsible". It's a phrase I've come across in writing before, but this is the first time I've been able to ask the writer ... what exactly do you mean by "morally", and how do you define morality when speaking of a reigning mediaeval monarch? (This should start an interesting thread!)
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: warrenmalach
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 2:50 AM
> Subject: Need for clarification
>
>
>
> I've been studying the Wars of the Roses and Richard III since I was a child in the 1960s and received for Christmas the Plantagenet history series by Thomas Costain and especially enjoyed reading THE LAST PLANTAGENETS. As a new member of this group, I thought that I'd better ask "the big question:" Is one welcome here even if one has come to believe that Richard was at least morally, if not actively, responsible for the deaths of his nephews? I've read all the various theories over the years and simply can't "get around" the fact that Richard's nephews disappeared early in his reign, they were never conclusively seen again, and that it was apparently believed by some in both England and France before the end of Richard's short reign that he was responsible for their disappearance and deaths. Thanks for any input!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I certainly don't mean to imply that the situation faced by Richard upon the death of Edward IV wasn't complicated or dangerous to himself, or that his hand wasn't "forced" because of the complicated and dangerous set of circumstances which he faced. Perhaps he was simply "caught up by events." I am willing to concede that, in such actions as the seizure of his nephew and arrest of Rivers/Grey/Vaughn and the summary execution of Hastings, Richard acted "out of character" when contrasted with his previous behavior. He could only hope that what some regarded as his "usurpation" would eventually be accepted, but of course that didn't happen. His loyalty to his late brother/king and to his family kept him from what might have been his only "safe course," if only for the near future, in 1483: stay in the North and keep his own retainers ready. Once he left the North, he put his head in the noose...

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, you're right, the 'moral responsibility' argument emanates from a variety of shades of opinion. I'm not suggesting it is an anti-Richard argument, just that it needs precisely defining. Concepts of morality are not universal, and certainly tend to vary depending on which century you inhabit and which code of ethics you espouse. For example, Edward the Black Prince considered it his moral duty to go to war to assist the odious Pedro the Cruel of Castile to regain his throne, based on chivalric concepts of responding to the appeal of a fellow royal house. In past ages a great store was placed on loyalty through thick and thin, from which for example we get the marriage vows 'for better or for worse'. With the benefit of hindsight many modern historians make judgements on mediaeval actions using their own moral codes. It is difficult to understand the huge forfeiture of life that took place in the Middle Ages, from hanging for petty larceny to burning for heresy - and, of course, execution if your actions threatened the crown.
>
> If I have understood you correctly, you seem to express reservations about how strong Richard's claim to the throne 'might have been'. This is quite an important point, because actions on the part of a legitimate mediaeval king perceiving his throne to be under challenge (as Richard's was in the second half of 1483) must be regarded in quite a different light from actions by a usurper. Either way, the idea of a king in his position keeping his rivals publicly at court under house arrest simply doesn't make sense - not only were there conspiracies to breach the Tower of London's defences so that Edward V could be restored, even their sisters were the objects of conspiracies to snatch them from sanctuary and take them overseas so that they could produce sons to challenge his rule. We need to remember that the people who led the resistance to the deposition of Edward V were prepared to stop at nothing, to the extent that they mounted an open rebellion, with concomitant loss of life and limb on the part of those poor men who were compelled to bear arms for them.
>
> A large number of moral dilemmas were involved in this situation. Should Richard be loyal to his brother and insist on his offspring's right to reign, despite their being adjudged to be bastards? [Richard himself did not bastardise them, by the way - the lords and commons considered the legal evidence and petitioned him to take the throne.] Or should Richard have taken the long view and realised that England would remain in jeopardy with a child (and dynasty) on the throne whose line had been shown to be illegitimate and whose reign would be subject to control by his maternal relatives? Did Richard feel a moral responsibility towards the good government of the realm, and did he feel that he was the right person to do the job, bearing in mind the duties of the king to dispense justice, decide foreign policy, and lead men in times of war?
>
> Another moral dilemma was faced by the child's Woodville family and adherents. Should they take up arms for what they believed to be Edward's right to rule, or should they decide not to involve the realm in bloodshed by giving new opportunities to old jealousies, feuds and rivalries? Had they accepted Richard as king, there would have been no need for any of the deaths that followed. And indeed in those circumstances the deposed boys could perhaps have been found places at court, as their sisters were. But would that have been disloyal?
>
> Another question of morality centres around the decision as to what place children should take in adult affairs. We do not know what Edward and Richard thought of all this, and even if they were in favour of taking up arms, we don't know whether they had sufficient judgement to understand the implications. Essentially the supporters of Edward V's reinstatement were using him as a figurehead in what were adult considerations of lineage, inheritance, legitimacy, royal succession and, ultimately, who wielded power in high places. Viewed objectively, most people would probably consider that an adult of proven capacity was a better occupant of the throne than a child of dubious parentage, but if you were one of a number of people whose expectations were thereby disappointed, you might consider you had good reasons for armed resistance.
>
> I don't have time to ramble on at length, but perhaps the considerations I've mentioned may point up a variety of questions of morality to take into account when considering what actions were appropriate for Richard to take in the circumstances that actually prevailed in 1483, and what choices were available to him.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: warrenmalach
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Need for clarification
>
>
>
> Annette, I have heard the "morally responsible" charge leveled against Richard even in "pro-Richard" biographies. The point, as one author put it, was that to dethrone a king in that violent age was to "push him towards the grave." No matter HOW strong Richard's claims to the throne might have been, once he had succeeded in delegimizing his nephews, their lives were in danger. The fact that Richard did NOT keep them publicly at court under some form of "house arrest" after he assumed the throne led to the rumors of their disappearance and deaths, rumors he apparently did NOT try to deny.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Warren - I'm sure any member is welcome on any forum as long as their contributions aren't intemperate or discourteous, don't you think? As far as I can tell, this forum represents a wide spectrum of views on Richard, just like the Richard III Society which hosts it. I'm sure we encompass any number of different ideas about the mystery of what happened to Edward V and his brother, as is natural with any mystery. Unfortunately, with the historical resources presently available we cannot know the answer, so whatever anyone thinks can be only a guess. Thus I think most of us find it more productive to exchange ideas about what genuine facts it's possible to learn about Richard and his reign
> >
> > However, one thing that intrigues me about your comments is your phrase "at least morally responsible". It's a phrase I've come across in writing before, but this is the first time I've been able to ask the writer ... what exactly do you mean by "morally", and how do you define morality when speaking of a reigning mediaeval monarch? (This should start an interesting thread!)
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: warrenmalach
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 2:50 AM
> > Subject: Need for clarification
> >
> >
> >
> > I've been studying the Wars of the Roses and Richard III since I was a child in the 1960s and received for Christmas the Plantagenet history series by Thomas Costain and especially enjoyed reading THE LAST PLANTAGENETS. As a new member of this group, I thought that I'd better ask "the big question:" Is one welcome here even if one has come to believe that Richard was at least morally, if not actively, responsible for the deaths of his nephews? I've read all the various theories over the years and simply can't "get around" the fact that Richard's nephews disappeared early in his reign, they were never conclusively seen again, and that it was apparently believed by some in both England and France before the end of Richard's short reign that he was responsible for their disappearance and deaths. Thanks for any input!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On 7/23/2012 6:03 PM, warrenmalach wrote:
> Annette, I have heard the "morally responsible" charge leveled against Richard even in "pro-Richard" biographies. The point, as one author put it, was that to dethrone a king in that violent age was to "push him towards the grave." No matter HOW strong Richard's claims to the throne might have been, once he had succeeded in delegimizing his nephews, their lives were in danger. The fact that Richard did NOT keep them publicly at court under some form of "house arrest" after he assumed the throne led to the rumors of their disappearance and deaths, rumors he apparently did NOT try to deny.
>
> -
According to Holinshed, Richard did deny killing his nephews.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1983

Killing a rival to the throne does not end their threat unless the
general public knows the rival is dead. Richard III knew this; his
brother Edward IV had the bodies of Henry VI and Henry's son Edward
publicly displayed. If Richard had the boys killed, it was to his
advantage to let the public know the boys were dead. Instead, there
were people claiming to be one of the Princes over a decade after
Richard III's death.

There's also the issue of Edward of Warwick, the son of Richard III's
older brother, George of Clarence. If Edward IV's sons were dead, then
Edward of Warwick had a better claim to the throne than Richard III or
Henry VII. In 1484, Richard had Edward of Warwick attainted for his
father's treason at the same time Edward IV's sons were barred from the
succession in an act of Parliament, the Titulus Regius. Edward of
Warwick survived Richard III's reign. If Richard would kill two nephews
to secure his throne, why would he spare a third?

Neither of them returned to England as adults to claim the throne. The faux
Duke of York (poor 'Perkin') was created simply because neither of the real
princes was around to do it. I'd love to think of them being spirited to
safe exile somewhere, but the utter silence about and from them does
strongly suggests that both of them were dead before Henry VII turned up.
I've just recently blogged about Perkin (I jumped the gun and read Ann
Wroe's book well out of sequence!) and Henry's actions, his desperate need
to pin a name to the lad, convinces me, as nothing else could, that he had
no hand in the princes' deaths. As young boys, they posed no threat to
Richard, but they weren't going to stay young boys forever. I don't know
what happened anymore than anyone else does, but Richard has to remain a
suspect. He's certainly a better one that Margaret Beaufort, who seems to be
in fashion in some quarters at the moment.

Karen

From: Ed Simons <easimons@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 21:34:48 -0600
To: <>
Subject: Re: Need for clarification






On 7/23/2012 6:03 PM, warrenmalach wrote:
> Annette, I have heard the "morally responsible" charge leveled against Richard
even in "pro-Richard" biographies. The point, as one author put it, was that to
dethrone a king in that violent age was to "push him towards the grave." No
matter HOW strong Richard's claims to the throne might have been, once he had
succeeded in delegimizing his nephews, their lives were in danger. The fact
that Richard did NOT keep them publicly at court under some form of "house
arrest" after he assumed the throne led to the rumors of their disappearance and
deaths, rumors he apparently did NOT try to deny.
>
> -
According to Holinshed, Richard did deny killing his nephews.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holins
hed_chronicle&PagePosition=1983

Killing a rival to the throne does not end their threat unless the
general public knows the rival is dead. Richard III knew this; his
brother Edward IV had the bodies of Henry VI and Henry's son Edward
publicly displayed. If Richard had the boys killed, it was to his
advantage to let the public know the boys were dead. Instead, there
were people claiming to be one of the Princes over a decade after
Richard III's death.

There's also the issue of Edward of Warwick, the son of Richard III's
older brother, George of Clarence. If Edward IV's sons were dead, then
Edward of Warwick had a better claim to the throne than Richard III or
Henry VII. In 1484, Richard had Edward of Warwick attainted for his
father's treason at the same time Edward IV's sons were barred from the
succession in an act of Parliament, the Titulus Regius. Edward of
Warwick survived Richard III's reign. If Richard would kill two nephews
to secure his throne, why would he spare a third?

Thanks, Ed, but I couldn't read the page you linked. If Richard denied killing the Princes, why didn't he say what had happened to them?

Apparently no one was going to "rise" to put Clarence's son on the throne, so he survived until Henry VII had him killed, to the lasting regret of Catherine of Aragon.

--- In , Ed Simons <easimons@...> wrote:
>
> On 7/23/2012 6:03 PM, warrenmalach wrote:
> > Annette, I have heard the "morally responsible" charge leveled against Richard even in "pro-Richard" biographies. The point, as one author put it, was that to dethrone a king in that violent age was to "push him towards the grave." No matter HOW strong Richard's claims to the throne might have been, once he had succeeded in delegimizing his nephews, their lives were in danger. The fact that Richard did NOT keep them publicly at court under some form of "house arrest" after he assumed the throne led to the rumors of their disappearance and deaths, rumors he apparently did NOT try to deny.
> >
> > -
> According to Holinshed, Richard did deny killing his nephews.
>
> http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1983
>
> Killing a rival to the throne does not end their threat unless the
> general public knows the rival is dead. Richard III knew this; his
> brother Edward IV had the bodies of Henry VI and Henry's son Edward
> publicly displayed. If Richard had the boys killed, it was to his
> advantage to let the public know the boys were dead. Instead, there
> were people claiming to be one of the Princes over a decade after
> Richard III's death.
>
> There's also the issue of Edward of Warwick, the son of Richard III's
> older brother, George of Clarence. If Edward IV's sons were dead, then
> Edward of Warwick had a better claim to the throne than Richard III or
> Henry VII. In 1484, Richard had Edward of Warwick attainted for his
> father's treason at the same time Edward IV's sons were barred from the
> succession in an act of Parliament, the Titulus Regius. Edward of
> Warwick survived Richard III's reign. If Richard would kill two nephews
> to secure his throne, why would he spare a third?
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, Karen, all the Ricardians' horses and men can't absolve Richard of the strong suspicion that he had a hand in his nephews' demise, "Tudor Myth" or no "Tudor Myth."

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Neither of them returned to England as adults to claim the throne. The faux
> Duke of York (poor 'Perkin') was created simply because neither of the real
> princes was around to do it. I'd love to think of them being spirited to
> safe exile somewhere, but the utter silence about and from them does
> strongly suggests that both of them were dead before Henry VII turned up.
> I've just recently blogged about Perkin (I jumped the gun and read Ann
> Wroe's book well out of sequence!) and Henry's actions, his desperate need
> to pin a name to the lad, convinces me, as nothing else could, that he had
> no hand in the princes' deaths. As young boys, they posed no threat to
> Richard, but they weren't going to stay young boys forever. I don't know
> what happened anymore than anyone else does, but Richard has to remain a
> suspect. He's certainly a better one that Margaret Beaufort, who seems to be
> in fashion in some quarters at the moment.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ed Simons <easimons@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 21:34:48 -0600
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Need for clarification
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/23/2012 6:03 PM, warrenmalach wrote:
> > Annette, I have heard the "morally responsible" charge leveled against Richard
> even in "pro-Richard" biographies. The point, as one author put it, was that to
> dethrone a king in that violent age was to "push him towards the grave." No
> matter HOW strong Richard's claims to the throne might have been, once he had
> succeeded in delegimizing his nephews, their lives were in danger. The fact
> that Richard did NOT keep them publicly at court under some form of "house
> arrest" after he assumed the throne led to the rumors of their disappearance and
> deaths, rumors he apparently did NOT try to deny.
> >
> > -
> According to Holinshed, Richard did deny killing his nephews.
>
> http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holins
> hed_chronicle&PagePosition=1983
>
> Killing a rival to the throne does not end their threat unless the
> general public knows the rival is dead. Richard III knew this; his
> brother Edward IV had the bodies of Henry VI and Henry's son Edward
> publicly displayed. If Richard had the boys killed, it was to his
> advantage to let the public know the boys were dead. Instead, there
> were people claiming to be one of the Princes over a decade after
> Richard III's death.
>
> There's also the issue of Edward of Warwick, the son of Richard III's
> older brother, George of Clarence. If Edward IV's sons were dead, then
> Edward of Warwick had a better claim to the throne than Richard III or
> Henry VII. In 1484, Richard had Edward of Warwick attainted for his
> father's treason at the same time Edward IV's sons were barred from the
> succession in an act of Parliament, the Titulus Regius. Edward of
> Warwick survived Richard III's reign. If Richard would kill two nephews
> to secure his throne, why would he spare a third?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On 7/28/2012 11:27 PM, warrenmalach wrote:
> Thanks, Ed, but I couldn't read the page you linked. If Richard denied killing the Princes, why didn't he say what had happened to them?

I see two logical possibilities - either Richard did not know what had
happened to the Princes or nothing had happened to the Princes. If they
were dead for any reason, it was to Richard's advantage to say they were
dead and publicly display the bodies.

>
> Apparently no one was going to "rise" to put Clarence's son on the throne, so he survived until Henry VII had him killed, to the lasting regret of Catherine of Aragon.
>

Clarence's son was just as much a threat to Richard's reign as the sons
of Edward IV. People did rise in Edward of Warwick's name in one of the
first attempts to remove Henry VII as king.

As soon as Richard had the Princes "removed" from public view, he immediately exposed himself to the charge that he had killed them. Why he did so, with that risk to his reputation, I can't imagine.
Perhaps he thought it was the "lesser of evils" at that time. If so, he gambled and lost.

--- In , Ed Simons <easimons@...> wrote:
>
> On 7/28/2012 11:27 PM, warrenmalach wrote:
> > Thanks, Ed, but I couldn't read the page you linked. If Richard denied killing the Princes, why didn't he say what had happened to them?
>
> I see two logical possibilities - either Richard did not know what had
> happened to the Princes or nothing had happened to the Princes. If they
> were dead for any reason, it was to Richard's advantage to say they were
> dead and publicly display the bodies.
>
> >
> > Apparently no one was going to "rise" to put Clarence's son on the throne, so he survived until Henry VII had him killed, to the lasting regret of Catherine of Aragon.
> >
>
> Clarence's son was just as much a threat to Richard's reign as the sons
> of Edward IV. People did rise in Edward of Warwick's name in one of the
> first attempts to remove Henry VII as king.
>

My pet theory, from an absolutely non-scholarly point of view, is that the boys were both sent somewhere overseas to safety, and didn't come back to press their claims because they knew there was a good chance they wouldn't survive the attempt.

And perhaps they snickered on hearing that their sister would be queen consort, thus ensuring that their bloodline would still hold the throne even if it was no longer the Plantagenet dynasty.

Hey, it may sound naive but that's just my theory. I wouldn't have wanted to be a king in those times.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ed Simons" <easimons@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 12:02:38 PM
Subject: Re: Need for clarification





On 7/28/2012 11:27 PM, warrenmalach wrote:
> Thanks, Ed, but I couldn't read the page you linked. If Richard denied killing the Princes, why didn't he say what had happened to them?

I see two logical possibilities - either Richard did not know what had
happened to the Princes or nothing had happened to the Princes. If they
were dead for any reason, it was to Richard's advantage to say they were
dead and publicly display the bodies.

>
> Apparently no one was going to "rise" to put Clarence's son on the throne, so he survived until Henry VII had him killed, to the lasting regret of Catherine of Aragon.
>

Clarence's son was just as much a threat to Richard's reign as the sons
of Edward IV. People did rise in Edward of Warwick's name in one of the
first attempts to remove Henry VII as king.

Angie, your comments raise the excellent question of how the Princes THEMSELVES may have viewed their situation. We often think of them as passive, "helpless" children, when they may well have been politically astute for their ages, especially Edward. There is no question in my mind that Edward, if he had remained king, would have eventually sought revenge upon Richard III for the execution of Rivers, Grey, Vaughn and Haute. If Edward had lived, he may well have been willing to "bide his time" for his revenge, as Richard II did for his own. Richard III HAD to have realized that his bastardized nephews could be recognized as a "ticking timebomb, waiting to go off," which is another case for me of Richard having to ultimately recognize the wisdom of the saying that "stone dead hath no fellow."

--- In , Angie Telepenko <gooble@...> wrote:
>
> My pet theory, from an absolutely non-scholarly point of view, is that the boys were both sent somewhere overseas to safety, and didn't come back to press their claims because they knew there was a good chance they wouldn't survive the attempt.
>
> And perhaps they snickered on hearing that their sister would be queen consort, thus ensuring that their bloodline would still hold the throne even if it was no longer the Plantagenet dynasty.
>
> Hey, it may sound naive but that's just my theory. I wouldn't have wanted to be a king in those times.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Ed Simons" <easimons@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 12:02:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Need for clarification
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/28/2012 11:27 PM, warrenmalach wrote:
> > Thanks, Ed, but I couldn't read the page you linked. If Richard denied killing the Princes, why didn't he say what had happened to them?
>
> I see two logical possibilities - either Richard did not know what had
> happened to the Princes or nothing had happened to the Princes. If they
> were dead for any reason, it was to Richard's advantage to say they were
> dead and publicly display the bodies.
>
> >
> > Apparently no one was going to "rise" to put Clarence's son on the throne, so he survived until Henry VII had him killed, to the lasting regret of Catherine of Aragon.
> >
>
> Clarence's son was just as much a threat to Richard's reign as the sons
> of Edward IV. People did rise in Edward of Warwick's name in one of the
> first attempts to remove Henry VII as king.
>
>
>
>
>
>