Realpolitik

Richard, if we accept that the princes disappeared during his reign,
was following precedent. Richard followed precedent by having himself
proclaimed at St. Paul's Cross as Edward IV was, he believed in a
traditional legal claim through Act of Parliament and he was probably
a tradionalist in believing that deposed monarchs should be cut off in
their prime. After all, hadn't he, according to the
Warkworth Chronicle, supervised the execution of the old & mad Henry 6
at the behest of his brother? Hadn't he fought and shared in the
killing of his enemies at Barnet & Tewkesbury & Bosworth? Was someone
like this going to become limp-wristed and liberal about sparing two
bastards, who he proclaimed bastards & may've convinced himself that
they were bastards,in whose name the 1483 rebellion against Richard
was raised? And what does Croyland, someone in the know, intimate?
That the princes WERE murdered, as Mancini, not a Tudor mouthpieced as
Laura correctly said, suspected they would be!

Realpolitik dictated their deaths, call it murder or execution!

Perhaps, History is mere propaganda of the victors over the
vanquished? Then why bother with it? Perhaps, Henry 7 was a sound
administrator & good financial director. Would anyone agree with
that?

hi David

<Richard followed precedent by having himself
proclaimed at St. Paul's Cross as Edward IV was,>

Wrong - neither were 'proclaimed' at St Paul's Cross.

< After all, hadn't he, according to the
Warkworth Chronicle, supervised the execution of the old & mad Henry
6 at the behest of his brother? >

Again - please check your facts. if you've read his account, then
you'll be aware that Warkworth states *very precisely* when Henry 6
died, even down to the time, IIRC, and Richard had well and truly
left by then! On the night in question Richard was in fact engaged
on troop business in Sandwich, Kent - at a distance from the Tower of
London at least a day's ride away! Surviving official records *prove*
Richard has to be entirely innocent of this particular 'murder' at
least.

Furthermore, official records for Henry's board and lodgings record
that he and his servants were supplied with food etc. all throughout
Richard's absence from the capital.

Warkworth is another one who can't distinguish between fact and
fiction, unless you think that Warkworth's unqualified recording in
the same Chronicle of a headless man wailing by the roadside is as
real an episode as Richard miraculously being in two places at once!

<And what does Croyland, someone in the know, intimate? >

Well, for a start anything he 'intimates' is intimated long after R3
is safely dead. But in any case, he doesn't SAY they ARE dead, he
reports only that it was rumoured, for the purposes of a rebellion.

<> That the princes WERE murdered, as Mancini, not a Tudor
mouthpieced as Laura correctly said, suspected they would be!>

Mancini does not 'suspect' they are murdered. We must be fair to the
bloke here as he is very careful what he writes on the matter. He
merely records that there was concern about them, and that from being
visible, the boys gradually became less so, as the summer wore on.

Which just suggests the boys were no longer in the Tower, not
necessarily that they were dead.

And don't forget Mancini had left England by July 83, and didn't
begin writing up his account until just before Xmas, when he could
have been influenced by subsequent events in England.

Let's be right about this. The first recorded 'fact' about the death
of the boys dates from Feb 1484, in a rally speech in Tours.
If you properly examine the text of that speech, the politician in
question even mixes up the supposed chronology of the so-called
murder since he states Richard killed the boys *and subsequently*
took the throne. Now, whatever else he did, Richard took over the
reins when the boys were most definitely still alive - hell, even
Mancini says so! ;)

Indeed, it's worth pointing out once again that ALL the rumours of
the boys death date from a very specific point in time, and all
recorded instances of such rumours, both domestically and abroad,
cease very shortly afterwards. The logical conclusion to reach is of
black propaganda having served a purpose and subseqently run its
course. (Real politik).

And, crucially, these rumours had little or no effect on Richard's
standing with his European Heads of State contemporaries.
Things pretty much went on as before, with the French vaguely hostile
and no-one else really giving a toss. That the Tours speech was
merely aimed at frightening the French (who were having upheavals of
their own with a minority and regency and all the rest of it),
and not a major moral criticism of the English king, is rather borne
out by the fact that a mere six months later the bloke's over in
England on a diplomatic visit!

And while we're listing who said what about Richard and his nephews,
what about Poppelau, who, unlike Mancini, talked with Richard himself
and his courtiers whilst on a visit to northern England, and who was
in the pay of Frederick 111, who, after reporting the rumours about
the Princes, was quite certain that they were still alive in May 1484.

Lorraine

--- In , "lpickering2
<lpickering2@y...>" <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> hi David
>
> <Richard followed precedent by having himself
> proclaimed at St. Paul's Cross as Edward IV was,>
>
> Wrong - neither were 'proclaimed' at St Paul's Cross.

I think we must be reading different books. Depens what you mean by
'proclaimed.' Shaa's speech was the first shot in getting Richard in
situ as King over Edward 5.
>
> < After all, hadn't he, according to the
> Warkworth Chronicle, supervised the execution of the old & mad Henry
> 6 at the behest of his brother? >
>
> Again - please check your facts. if you've read his account, then
> you'll be aware that Warkworth states *very precisely* when Henry 6
> died, even down to the time, IIRC, and Richard had well and truly
> left by then! On the night in question Richard was in fact engaged
> on troop business in Sandwich, Kent - at a distance from the Tower
of
> London at least a day's ride away! Surviving official records
*prove*
> Richard has to be entirely innocent of this particular 'murder' at
> least.
>
> Furthermore, official records for Henry's board and lodgings record
> that he and his servants were supplied with food etc. all throughout
> Richard's absence from the capital.
>
> Warkworth is another one who can't distinguish between fact and
> fiction, unless you think that Warkworth's unqualified recording in
> the same Chronicle of a headless man wailing by the roadside is as
> real an episode as Richard miraculously being in two places at once!

Well, I agree that historians - don't they all? - leave a lot to be
desired, but we are never going to get a written confession of murder
from any of these delightful people! Warkworth does state that
Richard was present in the Tower when Henry 6 met his maker,
suggesting Richard was the supervisor. Why Warkworth would make this
up is beyond me? Perhaps, they were all cracked or incorrigible
liars.
>
> <And what does Croyland, someone in the know, intimate? >
>
> Well, for a start anything he 'intimates' is intimated long after R3
> is safely dead. But in any case, he doesn't SAY they ARE dead, he
> reports only that it was rumoured, for the purposes of a rebellion.

In fact, Croyland includes a latin tag at the end saying that 'Richard
destroyed his brother's progeny.' I agree this doesn't say murder,
but it doesn't suggest it wasn't niether. In fact, it does sound
rather negative I would say.
>
> <> That the princes WERE murdered, as Mancini, not a Tudor
> mouthpieced as Laura correctly said, suspected they would be!>
>
> Mancini does not 'suspect' they are murdered. We must be fair to
the
> bloke here as he is very careful what he writes on the matter. He
> merely records that there was concern about them, and that from
being
> visible, the boys gradually became less so, as the summer wore on.
>
> Which just suggests the boys were no longer in the Tower, not
> necessarily that they were dead.
>
> And don't forget Mancini had left England by July 83, and didn't
> begin writing up his account until just before Xmas, when he could
> have been influenced by subsequent events in England.

What was Mancini implying by saying that men men burst into tears when
mention was made of the princes? Tears are usually associated with
grief and grief is usually associated with bereavement/death.
>
> Let's be right about this. The first recorded 'fact' about the
death
> of the boys dates from Feb 1484, in a rally speech in Tours.
> If you properly examine the text of that speech, the politician in
> question even mixes up the supposed chronology of the so-called
> murder since he states Richard killed the boys *and subsequently*
> took the throne. Now, whatever else he did, Richard took over the
> reins when the boys were most definitely still alive - hell, even
> Mancini says so! ;)
>
> Indeed, it's worth pointing out once again that ALL the rumours of
> the boys death date from a very specific point in time, and all
> recorded instances of such rumours, both domestically and abroad,
> cease very shortly afterwards. The logical conclusion to reach is
of
> black propaganda having served a purpose and subseqently run its
> course. (Real politik).

Propaganda maybe, but what did Richard do to combat it? He seems to
have been fond of propaganda against others such as his bastard
nephews and the bastard Henry Tudor & his immoral & rapist followers
and the disgraceful Mistress Shore (despite the fact that Richard had
fathered several bastards himself with such 'disgraceful ' women,) but
over the accusation that he was a murderer he remains stum. Lost for
words?
>
> And, crucially, these rumours had little or no effect on Richard's
> standing with his European Heads of State contemporaries.
> Things pretty much went on as before, with the French vaguely
hostile
> and no-one else really giving a toss.

I didn't know that anyone gave anyone any 'standing' in those days.
They were usually wheeling & dealing - worse than the modern UN? - to
play the chess game.

That the Tours speech was > merely aimed at frightening the French
(who were having upheavals of > their own with a minority and regency
and all the rest of it),> and not a major moral criticism of the
English king, is rather borne> out by the fact that a mere six months
later the bloke's over in> England on a diplomatic visit!

I'm inclined to agree with you that no-one really gave a toss about
the princes. They've certainly been dead a long time now! Apart from
Victorian romantics & Oh Yes those men who, according to Mancini,
burst into tears about them & possibly their own family & followers.
Whether killing his nephews was a criticism of Richard is a moot
point. If they had to go they had to go or you can cry your eyes out
about them! What do YOU think Richard should've done with them? Let
them out at some future date to try to unseat him?
>
> And while we're listing who said what about Richard and his nephews,
> what about Poppelau, who, unlike Mancini, talked with Richard
himself > and his courtiers whilst on a visit to northern England, and
who was
> in the pay of Frederick 111, who, after reporting the rumours about
> the Princes, was quite certain that they were still alive in May
1484.
>
> Lorraine

I get the impression that Poppelau was as much in the dark as Mancini
& was simply stating rumours, obviously some good, some bad.

David