Conspiarcy On richard

Hey all i'm matt new visitor to the site, I'm not a member but I do
belive that richard has benn given a bad time.

Youv'e probably mentioned this before but I really find it suspect
that Richard the III was acussed of murdering the princes (if they
where that at all!) and THEN with the entier population against
richard he conincidently happens to invade England at the height of
the anger and appear as the saviour?

Weird no? Oh well thanks for reading though guys

Matt

--- In , "phoenix_412003"
<phoenix_412003@y...> wrote:
> Hey all i'm matt new visitor to the site, I'm not a member but I do
> belive that richard has benn given a bad time.
>
> Youv'e probably mentioned this before but I really find it suspect
> that Richard the III was acussed of murdering the princes (if they
> where that at all!) and THEN with the entier population against
> richard he conincidently happens to invade England at the height of
> the anger and appear as the saviour?
>
> Weird no? Oh well thanks for reading though guys
>
> Matt

Hi Matt.

old listers may remember that I'm in the process of making 1483
timeline - will take a lifetime, I think. However, two things I've
observed so far:

1. On the Buckingham theory (which I must admit I'd always rather
favoured): there was a long time between Buckingham leaving London
and Richard finding out he was a traitor - in the meantime docs.
suggest he went on trusting him. So if Buck. murdered the Princes
before he left London without Richard's agreement, how did he keep
the fact from him for so long?

2. After Richard's coronation there were plots uncovered both to
rescue the Princes and to spirit their sisters abroad to find
husbands who could make good their claim if anything happened to the
boys. These plots were foiled (by end of July, I get the impression),
but Richard was unable to get the girls out of Sanctuary. Yet it is
at this very point - in August - just after the potential danger from
Edward's daughters had been made so plain - that the Tudor writers
would have us believe Richard murdered their brothers, thus altering
his position from one where his immediate rivals were safely in his
power to one where they were not. Traditionalists have argued that
Richard didn't see the girls as candidates for the throne, but this
clearly is not the case. The recently foiled conspiracy had declared
them as candidates, and Richard had responded by placing an armed
guard round the sanctuary. Stupid, or what?

Thoughts?

Marie

PS. I like the word "acussed".

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "phoenix_412003"
> <phoenix_412003@y...> wrote:
> > Hey all i'm matt new visitor to the site, I'm not a member but I
do
> > belive that richard has benn given a bad time.
> >
> > Youv'e probably mentioned this before but I really find it
suspect
> > that Richard the III was acussed of murdering the princes (if
they
> > where that at all!) and THEN with the entier population against
> > richard he conincidently happens to invade England at the height
of
> > the anger and appear as the saviour?
> >
> > Weird no? Oh well thanks for reading though guys
> >
> > Matt
>
> Hi Matt.
>
> old listers may remember that I'm in the process of making 1483
> timeline - will take a lifetime, I think. However, two things I've
> observed so far:
>
> 1. On the Buckingham theory (which I must admit I'd always rather
> favoured): there was a long time between Buckingham leaving London
> and Richard finding out he was a traitor - in the meantime docs.
> suggest he went on trusting him. So if Buck. murdered the Princes
> before he left London without Richard's agreement, how did he keep
> the fact from him for so long?
>
> 2. After Richard's coronation there were plots uncovered both to
> rescue the Princes and to spirit their sisters abroad to find
> husbands who could make good their claim if anything happened to
the
> boys. These plots were foiled (by end of July, I get the
impression),
> but Richard was unable to get the girls out of Sanctuary. Yet it is
> at this very point - in August - just after the potential danger
from
> Edward's daughters had been made so plain - that the Tudor writers
> would have us believe Richard murdered their brothers, thus
altering
> his position from one where his immediate rivals were safely in his
> power to one where they were not. Traditionalists have argued that
> Richard didn't see the girls as candidates for the throne, but this
> clearly is not the case. The recently foiled conspiracy had
declared
> them as candidates, and Richard had responded by placing an armed
> guard round the sanctuary. Stupid, or what?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Marie
>
> PS. I like the word "acussed".


Re how, if Buckingham murdered the princes (actually a duke and an
uncrowned king, but that doesn't have the same ring, does it?) before
leaving London, why did it take Richard so long to find out.... Well,
what if Buckingham didn't kill them, either. What if Buckingham,
Richard's trusted friend and ally at the time, was supposed to
remove the boys from the Tower and take then someplace secure and far
away, like perhaps Sheriff Hutton where other royal children ended
up? All this to happen while Richard was creating a distraction by
means of his progress. And what if, instead, Buckingham set off with
them for his holdings in Wales where he could keep them under control
and make some sort of political use of them? And when they didn't
arrive where they were supposed to be at the proper time, Richard
found out and there was nothing for our friend Harre Bockingham to do
but try to mount his ill-prepared and ill-timed rebellion..his goose
was cooked.

And what did Richard and Buckingham say to each other when they met
privately on horseback on the road in Gloucestershire, and what was
it Buckingham wanted so urgently to tell Richard after he was
condemned to death for treason, but was prevented from saying?
History's mysteries.

> > >
> > 1. On the Buckingham theory (which I must admit I'd always rather
> > favoured): there was a long time between Buckingham leaving
London
> > and Richard finding out he was a traitor - in the meantime docs.
> > suggest he went on trusting him. So if Buck. murdered the Princes
> > before he left London without Richard's agreement, how did he
keep
> > the fact from him for so long?
> >
> > 2. After Richard's coronation there were plots uncovered both to
> > rescue the Princes and to spirit their sisters abroad to find
> > husbands who could make good their claim if anything happened to
> the
> > boys. These plots were foiled (by end of July, I get the
> impression),
> > but Richard was unable to get the girls out of Sanctuary. Yet it
is
> > at this very point - in August - just after the potential danger
> from
> > Edward's daughters had been made so plain - that the Tudor
writers
> > would have us believe Richard murdered their brothers, thus
> altering
> > his position from one where his immediate rivals were safely in
his
> > power to one where they were not. Traditionalists have argued
that
> > Richard didn't see the girls as candidates for the throne, but
this
> > clearly is not the case. The recently foiled conspiracy had
> declared
> > them as candidates, and Richard had responded by placing an armed
> > guard round the sanctuary. Stupid, or what?
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > PS. I like the word "acussed".
>
>
> Re how, if Buckingham murdered the princes (actually a duke and an
> uncrowned king, but that doesn't have the same ring, does it?)
before
> leaving London, why did it take Richard so long to find out....
Well,
> what if Buckingham didn't kill them, either. What if Buckingham,
> Richard's trusted friend and ally at the time, was supposed to
> remove the boys from the Tower and take then someplace secure and
far
> away, like perhaps Sheriff Hutton where other royal children ended
> up? All this to happen while Richard was creating a distraction
by
> means of his progress. And what if, instead, Buckingham set off
with
> them for his holdings in Wales where he could keep them under
control
> and make some sort of political use of them? And when they didn't
> arrive where they were supposed to be at the proper time, Richard
> found out and there was nothing for our friend Harre Bockingham to
do
> but try to mount his ill-prepared and ill-timed rebellion..his
goose
> was cooked.

Funnily enough, I thought of that very sort of idea too as I was
noticing the dates problem. It's always seemed to me that Henry VII's
behaviour makes more sense if the boys weren't killed in the Tower
(despite those bones), and Richard's own actions seem more plausible
if he too was confused as to their fate. Certainly, if I'd been
Richard at that time I'd have wanted them a) kept alive because of
the danger from their sisters, and b) taken away from the Tower,
which was too much the focus of rescue plans. I'd probably also want
them split up. And I mght well have trusted Buckingham to do it.


> And what did Richard and Buckingham say to each other when they
met
> privately on horseback on the road in Gloucestershire, and what
was
> it Buckingham wanted so urgently to tell Richard after he was
> condemned to death for treason, but was prevented from saying?
> History's mysteries.

Actually, we don't know where Buckingham was at all between 6th July
(at the coronation) and 23rd August (when he wrote a letter from
Brecon). He wasn't with Richard in Oxford, as the Magdalen records
show. It was Kendall who surmised he may have stayed in London, then
galloped to Gloucester to catch Richard there in time for the parting
row described by More and Vergil. But that row was supposed to be
because Richard refused him the Bohun estates, whereas Harley 433
shows he was granted those before Richard left London. They have the
two parting at Gloucester, of course, because that is where the route
of Richard's progress parts company with the road to Brecon. But if
Buckingham wasn't on the progress, and didn't have a row about
Richard over the Bohun estates - did they ever meet at Gloucester at
all? In my view there is no reason at all to suppose they did.
Richard and Buckingham may not have met at all after richard set out
on his progress. Where was Buckingham, and what was he doing? What
did Richard believe was his reason for not coming on the progress -
personal or state? And did he stay in London when the King set out,
or had he already gone home to Brecon? And why do the Tudor writers
insist he was with Richard??

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > 1. On the Buckingham theory (which I must admit I'd always
rather
> > > favoured): there was a long time between Buckingham leaving
> London
> > > and Richard finding out he was a traitor - in the meantime
docs.
> > > suggest he went on trusting him. So if Buck. murdered the
Princes
> > > before he left London without Richard's agreement, how did he
> keep
> > > the fact from him for so long?
> > >
> > > 2. After Richard's coronation there were plots uncovered both
to
> > > rescue the Princes and to spirit their sisters abroad to find
> > > husbands who could make good their claim if anything happened
to
> > the
> > > boys. These plots were foiled (by end of July, I get the
> > impression),
> > > but Richard was unable to get the girls out of Sanctuary. Yet
it
> is
> > > at this very point - in August - just after the potential
danger
> > from
> > > Edward's daughters had been made so plain - that the Tudor
> writers
> > > would have us believe Richard murdered their brothers, thus
> > altering
> > > his position from one where his immediate rivals were safely in
> his
> > > power to one where they were not. Traditionalists have argued
> that
> > > Richard didn't see the girls as candidates for the throne, but
> this
> > > clearly is not the case. The recently foiled conspiracy had
> > declared
> > > them as candidates, and Richard had responded by placing an
armed
> > > guard round the sanctuary. Stupid, or what?
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > PS. I like the word "acussed".
> >
> >
> > Re how, if Buckingham murdered the princes (actually a duke and
an
> > uncrowned king, but that doesn't have the same ring, does it?)
> before
> > leaving London, why did it take Richard so long to find out....
> Well,
> > what if Buckingham didn't kill them, either. What if
Buckingham,
> > Richard's trusted friend and ally at the time, was supposed to
> > remove the boys from the Tower and take then someplace secure and
> far
> > away, like perhaps Sheriff Hutton where other royal children
ended
> > up? All this to happen while Richard was creating a distraction
> by
> > means of his progress. And what if, instead, Buckingham set off
> with
> > them for his holdings in Wales where he could keep them under
> control
> > and make some sort of political use of them? And when they
didn't
> > arrive where they were supposed to be at the proper time, Richard
> > found out and there was nothing for our friend Harre Bockingham
to
> do
> > but try to mount his ill-prepared and ill-timed rebellion..his
> goose
> > was cooked.
>
> Funnily enough, I thought of that very sort of idea too as I was
> noticing the dates problem. It's always seemed to me that Henry
VII's
> behaviour makes more sense if the boys weren't killed in the Tower
> (despite those bones), and Richard's own actions seem more
plausible
> if he too was confused as to their fate. Certainly, if I'd been
> Richard at that time I'd have wanted them a) kept alive because of
> the danger from their sisters, and b) taken away from the Tower,
> which was too much the focus of rescue plans. I'd probably also
want
> them split up. And I mght well have trusted Buckingham to do it.
>
>
> > And what did Richard and Buckingham say to each other when they
> met
> > privately on horseback on the road in Gloucestershire, and what
> was
> > it Buckingham wanted so urgently to tell Richard after he was
> > condemned to death for treason, but was prevented from saying?
> > History's mysteries.
>
> Actually, we don't know where Buckingham was at all between 6th
July
> (at the coronation) and 23rd August (when he wrote a letter from
> Brecon). He wasn't with Richard in Oxford, as the Magdalen records
> show. It was Kendall who surmised he may have stayed in London,
then
> galloped to Gloucester to catch Richard there in time for the
parting
> row described by More and Vergil. But that row was supposed to be
> because Richard refused him the Bohun estates, whereas Harley 433
> shows he was granted those before Richard left London. They have
the
> two parting at Gloucester, of course, because that is where the
route
> of Richard's progress parts company with the road to Brecon. But if
> Buckingham wasn't on the progress, and didn't have a row about
> Richard over the Bohun estates - did they ever meet at Gloucester
at
> all? In my view there is no reason at all to suppose they did.
> Richard and Buckingham may not have met at all after richard set
out
> on his progress. Where was Buckingham, and what was he doing? What
> did Richard believe was his reason for not coming on the progress -
> personal or state? And did he stay in London when the King set out,
> or had he already gone home to Brecon? And why do the Tudor writers
> insist he was with Richard??


Well, I don't put too much stock in More's account of the goings-on,
since he was five or six years old at the time. Many people assume
he got his material from Morton, and Morton had no reason to give an
unbiased version.

Regarding the boys, what has always nagged at me re whether Richard
had them put to death is that even if there was any point to it after
Parliament issued the Titulus Regius, if it was important that the
two heirs of Edward IV be dead, wasn't it even more important that
they be KNOWN to be dead? Having them simply disappear is about the
least satisfactory of the choices. That leaves the door open to
having all sorts of "reappearances" for the several decades, which is
exactly what happened. If Richard wanted them out of the picture he
could have had them poisoned or smothered in their beds, then
displayed their corpses at a lovely funeral -- "Poor boys, a sudden
fever carried them off..." and been done with it, and them, forever.