Alison Weir - "The Princes In The Tower"

First of all, I'm new. My name's Jen, and I hope it's alright that I
join here so that I can ask a few questions.

I recently read Alison Weir's "The Princes In The Tower", and it
raised some very good points adn questions about Richard II's
involvement in the diappearance/murder of Edward V and the Duke of
York.

Please understand, I am solely here to try to gain a better
understanding - I don't think it's fair to study one side of things,
and automatically conclude that he did it. I must admit that Ms.
Weir was pretty convincing, but I couldn't possibly hope to
understand the full scope of the situation if I didn't check out
Richard's side.

What is the Richard III Society's official take on her conclusions?

If Richard III was not involved in his nephews' disappearance, who
do you think actually was?

Another issue was that Ms. Weir only seemed to glance over his
accomplishments - I believe it was all of two sentences. What good
did he do during his reign?

I hope it's alright that I come here and ask these. My apologies if
it's not.

Thanks in advance!

Welcome from me too, Jen.

Of course nobody minds you asking questions. And I think anybody who
didn't already know the subject reading Ms Weir would be taken in.
She writes with such an air of confident authority and claims such
rational scholarship. All a smokescreen, sadly.

It seems she even has you terrified of Ricardians out to canonise
Richard and boil dissenters in sunflower oil. We don't (in fact a lot
are even vegetarians).

Given the ubiquitousness of her book, I thought it might be useful to
deal with her arguments online. This is a bit off the cuff, though,
so I would value anyone else's contribution. Anyway, starting with
Chapter 1 "Richard III and the Chroniclers".

She begins by getting lady reader on her side with stuff
like ""Modern writers. . . have tended to fall into two categories:
those who believe Richard III guilty of the murder of the Princes but
are afraid to commit themselves..., and those who would like to see
Richard more or less canonised." It isn't true, but gives immediate
impression that the people who believe Richard guilty are the
rational, cool-headed ones.
Then she promises: "...this book was not written with the intention
of fuelling the controversy, but because there is a need for the
subject to be dealt with from an objective viewpoint based on common
sense." Well, there is such a need but that's definitely not what her
book is doing. Still, as I say, she has made sure she now has the
reader confident that they are in the hands of an unbiased scholar
genuinely seeking truth.

Mancini. She actually does admit all the flaws in Mancini's work -
couldn't speak English, never saw Richard, contacts were enemies of
his, left England too early (in fact, almost certainly while the
Princes were still publicly visible using the Tower's royal garden ),
etc. But overrides all this by stressing his "objectivity",
saying "he had no reason to wreite anything hostile to Richard III",
and failing a) to take into account his hostile sources, which she
mentions on the next page, and b)to describe possible political
motives of his reporting in terms of the very difficult and dangerous
state of relations between France and England at that point and the
need for France to destabilise this man who had shown himself so
hostile to their interests in the past. She artfully says he
completed his book on 1st December 1483, giving the impression it was
written over a period before that, and thus contempoaneously with the
events it describes. From what I understand from other sources, he
wrote the entire thing in early December, from France - a France
hostile to Richard and where Mancini met exiled enemies of Richard;
one of these being Edward V's former physician John Argentine (later
physician to Prince Arthur); Weir allows the reader to gain the
impression that Mancini met Argentine in London.

Croyland. Weir identifies him, as historians generally did up to the
1970s, as Richard's chancellor Bishop Russell. This has the effect of
giving his words great inside authority and 'exposing' Richard's
chief minister as not very keen on him. In fact, few historians would
now say that Russell is the likeliest candidate. He does not fulfil
all the criteria, and there are other, lesser-known individuals, who
do so much better. Most tellingly, perhaps, the writer seeems to have
been someone far more in the know about Edward IV's reign than
Richard III's - certainly not Richard's chancellor, then. Frankly, by
the time she wrote the book Russell's authorship was at the very
least seriously in doubt and it is strange that she does not mention
this.

Rous. She says he "altered his own Latin copy", as if he did it for
his own pleasure. The fact is, it was not safe to praise Richard
after his death, and Rous was also in need of patronage from the new
regime - thus his history dedicated to Henry VII. Weir says it has
been suggested that Rous's hostility to Richard derived "not so much
from his desire to win the favour of Henry VII as from his conviction
that Richard had murdered his heroine, Anne Neville." Cleverly, she
does not say she herself believes this but puts it down to leave an
impression. She doesn't mention Rous' wilder claims - that Richard
was born with teeth after a gestation period of two years.

Great Chronicle & More. Weir supports all early Tudor sources on the
grounds that they used "eye-witness accounts". However, she has to
admit that the Great Chronicle was compiled 16-17 years after
Bosworth, is Lancastrian in tone and full of "errors and confused
chronology". In fact, the chronology in a lot of sources written
after Richard's death is "confused" in the selfsame ways, so one has
to ask whether these changes to chronology were not deliberate and
purposeful. Weir doesn't ask this, of course.
It is her praise of More that is perhaps most revealing. "Rich in
compelling, authentic, eye-witness detail". Vivid indeed it is, but
highly inaccurate where it can be measured against contemporary
evidence. There are no grounds for her statement that he went to
great trouble to find out the truth about the Princes in the Tower.
We don't have any idea what trouble he went to. Or whether he made it
all up. She dismisses the view that More had a lot of his work from
his former employer, Bishop Morton, but he really does have a very
prominent place in the work. She alsosays it was never intnedned for
publication and so he didn't have to be careful what he said. This is
uinlikely. In fact, the work was never finished, and this is reason
enough to explain its not bing published. Weir surmises he lost
interest in it or lacked the time to finish it. I believe he revised
the section he did write two or three times, so no loss of interest,
apparently, and he managed to complete many other works, so
apparently not lack of time. Perhaps he was unhappy with the way the
work was proceeding, then? Really, More should be tested against
contemporary evidence, not accepted first-off and thereafter used
uncritically. That's no examination of the "Tudor tradition" at all -
not what she promised on page 1!

Buck gets dismissed. Reading Weir, it is not all that clear that his
original manuscript, published by Kincaid, actually shows him to be
at least as serious a writer as any of her more favoured sources, and
much more serious than many of them. Nor does she mention that he,
like them (like Bacon, for instance), was a government official and
serious antiquarian. Why? Because he's favourable to Richard, I
suppose.

Sorry this is so long. Anyone on to deal with Chapter 2?

Marie

Hi again.

At risk of boring you, to pass on to Chapter 2. Not much to say in
the sense that Ms Weir keeps quoting unattributed sources, giving the
impression they are contemporary. I'm rusty and can't place them all
now, but would say they are all Tudor or even later. She gives what I
regard as an unfairly negative view of Richard Duke of York, an
individual I have studied much and who was, as well as proud
and "indecisive to a fault" (both true), also unusually honest,
honourable & well intentioned. He did an excellent job during his
periods as Protector. I can't remember but I wonder if she isn't
knocking him down because Richard III was likened to his father.

Chapter III. Starts with quote from "the reliable contemporary
chronicler John Warwkworth" that Henry VI died on 21st May and that
Richard was in the Tower that night. The problem is a) Warkworth,
sadly isn't reliable. I read him once and found him to be UNUSABLY
unreliable, and also dead gullible - any miracle anybody could come
up with and he'd report it. I'm not sure where Warkworth was when
this happened, but I think he belonged to the NE of England as his
name suggests. And b) because there are accounts from Edward's
administration which indicate that by 21st May Richard had already
left London for Kent to sort out the Bastard of Fauconberg. So if he
was at the Tower the night Henry died, then either Warkworth or
Edward's clerks have their dates wrong. He had very possibly been at
the Tower before he left for Kent, to collect munitions.
If you look back over this forum you'll also find discussion of the
bleeding on the pavement business. In a nutshell, a dead body can't
go on bleeding, but apparently the embalming techniques used at the
time often caused red-coloured leakage from a body (even where there
were no wounds). For all that it seems obvious that Henry must have
been put to death by order of Edward IV, whether or not Gloucester
was around when the deed was done. I think it was Kendall who first
came up with the idea that Richard would have been responsible for
conveying the order to the Tower because he was Constable. But this
is not so - we are talking about murder, not judicial condemnation
and execution. By the same token, she would have to have Richard send
Buckingham to the Tower to get the Princes killed.
All the other sources quoted by Weir on this are Tudor, written
after Richard had, shall we say, a certain reputation, and when
Edward's daughter was Queen. As Weir says, the murder was secret, so
none of the sources she quotes actually knew anything.
Richard's deformities: perhaps could not have been mentioned by
contemporaries at home during his lifetime, but not mentioned either
by foreigners who met him such as Von Poppelau. Certainly his
physical prowess was not affected.
That Richard was a weakling child: "Richard liveth yet". This has
been debunked. It is an English version of a Latin list of York's
children; the Latin doesn't contain the word 'yet', which has just
been put in in the English to make up the rhyme. The list is of all
those born, and which had died and which hadn't.... That's all.
Also see this forum for discussion of the idea that he must have been
violent because of his early life.
Stature. Weir quotes Archibald Whitelaw that he was short (what
Whitelaw actually said is that never had such great qualities been
found in such a small frame), and Von Poppelau that he had delicate
arms & legs, to create an impression . . . ., but omits to mention
that Von Poppelau (a noted warrior) said Richard was 2 or 3 fingers
(ie 1 or 2 inches) taller than himself.
As for her unfavourable report of Richard's portraits, perhaps you
can make your own judgements.

Here I give up.

> From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 18:06:43 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Alison Weir - "The Princes In The
> Tower"
>
> At risk of boring you
boring us by picking Weir to bits? How could you?
Great job Marie!
Paul

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> Hi again.
>
> At risk of boring you, to pass on to Chapter 2. Not much to say in
> the sense that Ms Weir keeps quoting unattributed sources, giving
the
> impression they are contemporary. I'm rusty and can't place them
all
> now, but would say they are all Tudor or even later. She gives what
I
> regard as an unfairly negative view of Richard Duke of York, an
> individual I have studied much and who was, as well as proud
> and "indecisive to a fault" (both true), also unusually honest,
> honourable & well intentioned. He did an excellent job during his
> periods as Protector. I can't remember but I wonder if she isn't
> knocking him down because Richard III was likened to his father.
>
> Chapter III. Starts with quote from "the reliable contemporary
> chronicler John Warwkworth" that Henry VI died on 21st May and that
> Richard was in the Tower that night. The problem is a) Warkworth,
> sadly isn't reliable. I read him once and found him to be UNUSABLY
> unreliable, and also dead gullible - any miracle anybody could come
> up with and he'd report it. I'm not sure where Warkworth was when
> this happened, but I think he belonged to the NE of England as his
> name suggests. And b) because there are accounts from Edward's
> administration which indicate that by 21st May Richard had already
> left London for Kent to sort out the Bastard of Fauconberg. So if
he
> was at the Tower the night Henry died, then either Warkworth or
> Edward's clerks have their dates wrong. He had very possibly been
at
> the Tower before he left for Kent, to collect munitions.
> If you look back over this forum you'll also find discussion of the
> bleeding on the pavement business. In a nutshell, a dead body can't
> go on bleeding, but apparently the embalming techniques used at the
> time often caused red-coloured leakage from a body (even where
there
> were no wounds). For all that it seems obvious that Henry must have
> been put to death by order of Edward IV, whether or not Gloucester
> was around when the deed was done. I think it was Kendall who first
> came up with the idea that Richard would have been responsible for
> conveying the order to the Tower because he was Constable. But this
> is not so - we are talking about murder, not judicial condemnation
> and execution. By the same token, she would have to have Richard
send
> Buckingham to the Tower to get the Princes killed.
> All the other sources quoted by Weir on this are Tudor, written
> after Richard had, shall we say, a certain reputation, and when
> Edward's daughter was Queen. As Weir says, the murder was secret,
so
> none of the sources she quotes actually knew anything.
> Richard's deformities: perhaps could not have been mentioned by
> contemporaries at home during his lifetime, but not mentioned
either
> by foreigners who met him such as Von Poppelau. Certainly his
> physical prowess was not affected.
> That Richard was a weakling child: "Richard liveth yet". This has
> been debunked. It is an English version of a Latin list of York's
> children; the Latin doesn't contain the word 'yet', which has just
> been put in in the English to make up the rhyme. The list is of all
> those born, and which had died and which hadn't.... That's all.
> Also see this forum for discussion of the idea that he must have
been
> violent because of his early life.
> Stature. Weir quotes Archibald Whitelaw that he was short (what
> Whitelaw actually said is that never had such great qualities been
> found in such a small frame), and Von Poppelau that he had delicate
> arms & legs, to create an impression . . . ., but omits to mention
> that Von Poppelau (a noted warrior) said Richard was 2 or 3 fingers
> (ie 1 or 2 inches) taller than himself.
> As for her unfavourable report of Richard's portraits, perhaps you
> can make your own judgements.
>
> Here I give up.


Speaking of the statement that Richard was short, I wonder if that
might have been that he was short in comparison to his brothers. I
believe I have seen it said that Edward was 6-3 or 6-4 and George was
even taller. There is a common notion that "people were shorter
then" but actually that pertains more to later centuries, when
crowding in the cities had an adverse affect on the health of the
general population. The remains of some men killed in battle were
discovered dring road construction near Lewes a while back, and
there was some question as to whether they dated to battles of the
Civil War or to an earlier battle near Lewes in the 13th century.
The fact that the men were all over six feet tall was one of the
factors indicating it was the latter. They had been stripped of
their armor and weapons, which would have helped the dating.)

You wrote:
> Speaking of the statement that Richard was short, I wonder if that
> might have been that he was short in comparison to his brothers. I
> believe I have seen it said that Edward was 6-3 or 6-4 and George
was
> even taller. There is a common notion that "people were shorter
> then" but actually that pertains more to later centuries, when
> crowding in the cities had an adverse affect on the health of the
> general population. The remains of some men killed in battle were
> discovered dring road construction near Lewes a while back, and
> there was some question as to whether they dated to battles of the
> Civil War or to an earlier battle near Lewes in the 13th century.
> The fact that the men were all over six feet tall was one of the
> factors indicating it was the latter. They had been stripped of
> their armor and weapons, which would have helped the dating.)

Oddly, I think this is another of those myths (which demonstrates how
wary we need ot be of tradition). The bones believed to be those of
Clarence & Isabel in Tewkesbury Abbey (the thighbones, I think) have
been measured in recent times, and suggest that they were both about
5ft 5in tall. However, I don't think the identification is 100%
certain. Interestingly, Michael Hicks suggests in his biography of
Clarence that Richard may have been the taller of the two since when
they were in Burgundy as children many commentators thought he was
the elder one. I suspect Richard's rather slight built (confirmed by
Von Poppelau) made him appear rather shorter than he actually was.

Again, it makes you wonder how typical Edward was of York's children -
another factor, perhaps, which may have fuelled speculation about his
paternity.

However, I agree completely about the general height question. The
remains recently investigated from Towton were of healthy skeletons
averaging 5' 8" or more just like their 20th century counterparts;
similarly from the Mary Rose. I think three things have contributed
to misunderstandings about past heights:
1) old timber-framed cottages with low ceilings. People forget that
these were dictated by the available materials, and in some soils
trees just don't grow tall & straight; find me an old stone-built
house you have to stoop in and I'll eat my words.
2) the products of impoverished diet of Victorian & early 20C urban
poor, famously causing problems with recruitment at start of WW I and
leading to drop in height qualification.
3) The 'progress' theory (or religion).

I worry that expected growth restriction and delayed puberty are
sometimes given as excuse by people discussing 'The Bones' for the
fact that the owners appear to be a little underdeveloped for boys of
the Princes' ages, judged by even fairly early 20th century data.
Surely, given privileged individuals brought up on a diet extremely
high in animal protein, and with a 6ft 4in man for a father, we would
expect their development to be at least as good as the average for
that period.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> You wrote:
> > Speaking of the statement that Richard was short, I wonder if
that
> > might have been that he was short in comparison to his brothers.
I
> > believe I have seen it said that Edward was 6-3 or 6-4 and George
> was
> > even taller. There is a common notion that "people were shorter
> > then" but actually that pertains more to later centuries, when
> > crowding in the cities had an adverse affect on the health of the
> > general population. The remains of some men killed in battle
were
> > discovered dring road construction near Lewes a while back, and
> > there was some question as to whether they dated to battles of
the
> > Civil War or to an earlier battle near Lewes in the 13th
century.
> > The fact that the men were all over six feet tall was one of the
> > factors indicating it was the latter. They had been stripped of
> > their armor and weapons, which would have helped the dating.)
>
> Oddly, I think this is another of those myths (which demonstrates
how
> wary we need ot be of tradition). The bones believed to be those of
> Clarence & Isabel in Tewkesbury Abbey (the thighbones, I think)
have
> been measured in recent times, and suggest that they were both
about
> 5ft 5in tall. However, I don't think the identification is 100%
> certain. Interestingly, Michael Hicks suggests in his biography of
> Clarence that Richard may have been the taller of the two since
when
> they were in Burgundy as children many commentators thought he was
> the elder one. I suspect Richard's rather slight built (confirmed
by
> Von Poppelau) made him appear rather shorter than he actually was.
>
> Again, it makes you wonder how typical Edward was of York's
children -
> another factor, perhaps, which may have fuelled speculation about
his
> paternity.
>
> However, I agree completely about the general height question. The
> remains recently investigated from Towton were of healthy skeletons
> averaging 5' 8" or more just like their 20th century counterparts;
> similarly from the Mary Rose. I think three things have contributed
> to misunderstandings about past heights:
> 1) old timber-framed cottages with low ceilings. People forget
that
> these were dictated by the available materials, and in some soils
> trees just don't grow tall & straight; find me an old stone-built
> house you have to stoop in and I'll eat my words.
> 2) the products of impoverished diet of Victorian & early 20C urban
> poor, famously causing problems with recruitment at start of WW I
and
> leading to drop in height qualification.
> 3) The 'progress' theory (or religion).
>
> I worry that expected growth restriction and delayed puberty are
> sometimes given as excuse by people discussing 'The Bones' for the
> fact that the owners appear to be a little underdeveloped for boys
of
> the Princes' ages, judged by even fairly early 20th century data.
> Surely, given privileged individuals brought up on a diet extremely
> high in animal protein, and with a 6ft 4in man for a father, we
would
> expect their development to be at least as good as the average for
> that period.

That's interesting information I didn't know, re the bones thought to
be those of George (Clarence) and Isabel.

I'm not a methodical researcher as much as I am a reader with a lot
of interest in Richard II and his times, and an accumulator of
information (and misinformation, no doubt) so I can rarely say where
I got this or that idea. However, I think I have also read that the
grave of Edward IV was opened a century or so after his death. I
don't recall anything about his bones revealing his height, but I do
remember that supposedly his body was in a remarkably good state of
preservation. (Which made me gallop mentally off in all directions,
thinking of the preserving quality of arsenic and the rumors that
hehad been poisoned....)

A while back the identity of the Croyland Chronicer was being
discussed. Someone said that it is enerally believed that he was not
John Morton. I've read that a number of times, but I've never really
understood why he had been eliminated from the likely suspects.
Weren't those sections of the Croyland Cronicle written at thetime
Morton was on the lam and beforehe is known to have resurfaced in
France? As Bishop of Ely, the Croyland Abbey and the surrounding
fenlands were in Morton's bailiwick, and he could have been quite
familiar with them. It sounds like a pretty good place to hole up.
(You'd think the resident monks would have recognized Bishop Morton,
if he was the man ho sat down to update their chronicle with the
latest news from afar, but then you'd think they'd also recognize
John Russell, who was Bishop of what? London? at the time Or, being
isolated, maybe it would be unlikely that they'd recognize either
eminince.) And doesn't the Chronicler brag that he was present at the
deathbed of Cardinal Beaufort? I'm sure it has been investigated
whether either Morton or Russell were there when Henry Beaufort
breathed is last, but I don't know what was the conclusion. (I'd
love to know.) However, John Morton was Beaufort's protege, so his
being at the deathbed would not be surprising.

I recently watched a tv documentary regarding whether Christopher
(gad, Ican't think of his name...I keep wanting to say Wren or
Lowell...you know who I mean and I hope I think of it before I finish
this posting) was the true author of the works attributed to
Shakepeare. They used a computer analysis of works by Kit
Whatsisname and Shakespeare's plays, comparing vocabulary, grammat,
syntax, Classical references, and so on. If no one as done that with
the Croyland Chronicle sections in question and known works by
Morton (and, for that matter, the first section of More's life of
Richard III, the part before the point where, in mid-page, the style
of the writer changes so abruptly that the reader gets a whiplash), I
sure wish somebody would.


I enjoy everyone's insights and information.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> Hi again.
>
> At risk of boring you, to pass on to Chapter 2. Not much to say in
> the sense that Ms Weir keeps quoting unattributed sources, giving
the
> impression they are contemporary. I'm rusty and can't place them
all
> now, but would say they are all Tudor or even later. She gives what
I
> regard as an unfairly negative view of Richard Duke of York, an
> individual I have studied much and who was, as well as proud
> and "indecisive to a fault" (both true), also unusually honest,
> honourable & well intentioned. He did an excellent job during his
> periods as Protector. I can't remember but I wonder if she isn't
> knocking him down because Richard III was likened to his father.
>
> Chapter III. Starts with quote from "the reliable contemporary
> chronicler John Warwkworth" that Henry VI died on 21st May and that
> Richard was in the Tower that night. The problem is a) Warkworth,
> sadly isn't reliable. I read him once and found him to be UNUSABLY
> unreliable, and also dead gullible - any miracle anybody could come
> up with and he'd report it. I'm not sure where Warkworth was when
> this happened, but I think he belonged to the NE of England as his
> name suggests. And b) because there are accounts from Edward's
> administration which indicate that by 21st May Richard had already
> left London for Kent to sort out the Bastard of Fauconberg. So if
he
> was at the Tower the night Henry died, then either Warkworth or
> Edward's clerks have their dates wrong. He had very possibly been
at
> the Tower before he left for Kent, to collect munitions.
> If you look back over this forum you'll also find discussion of the
> bleeding on the pavement business. In a nutshell, a dead body can't
> go on bleeding, but apparently the embalming techniques used at the
> time often caused red-coloured leakage from a body (even where
there
> were no wounds). For all that it seems obvious that Henry must have
> been put to death by order of Edward IV, whether or not Gloucester
> was around when the deed was done. I think it was Kendall who first
> came up with the idea that Richard would have been responsible for
> conveying the order to the Tower because he was Constable. But this
> is not so - we are talking about murder, not judicial condemnation
> and execution. By the same token, she would have to have Richard
send
> Buckingham to the Tower to get the Princes killed.
> All the other sources quoted by Weir on this are Tudor, written
> after Richard had, shall we say, a certain reputation, and when
> Edward's daughter was Queen. As Weir says, the murder was secret,
so
> none of the sources she quotes actually knew anything.
> Richard's deformities: perhaps could not have been mentioned by
> contemporaries at home during his lifetime, but not mentioned
either
> by foreigners who met him such as Von Poppelau. Certainly his
> physical prowess was not affected.
> That Richard was a weakling child: "Richard liveth yet". This has
> been debunked. It is an English version of a Latin list of York's
> children; the Latin doesn't contain the word 'yet', which has just
> been put in in the English to make up the rhyme. The list is of all
> those born, and which had died and which hadn't.... That's all.
> Also see this forum for discussion of the idea that he must have
been
> violent because of his early life.
> Stature. Weir quotes Archibald Whitelaw that he was short (what
> Whitelaw actually said is that never had such great qualities been
> found in such a small frame), and Von Poppelau that he had delicate
> arms & legs, to create an impression . . . ., but omits to mention
> that Von Poppelau (a noted warrior) said Richard was 2 or 3 fingers
> (ie 1 or 2 inches) taller than himself.
> As for her unfavourable report of Richard's portraits, perhaps you
> can make your own judgements.
>
> Here I give up.

You are NOT boring me! Not in the least. If I could do nothing but
sit and study history all day long, I would be one seriously happy
woman. ;) I appreciate this more than you know!

You make quite a few very good points there (and in your previous
post). Much more for me to think about. Thank you.