Re: Richard's silence after young princes went missing

liz wrote: "Exactly, it's just common sense really. Of course whe may have been totally cold-hearted and not given a stuff about the boys but any normal woman, even a medeieval one, would not behave like that. I simply cannot believe if she 'knew' or thought she knew Richard had killed the boys, that she wouldn't have said so after his death and the Tudor propaganda machine would have made a meal out of it." Doug here: Yet another "dog that didn't bark"! Really, between these "non-barking dogs" and the mis-assumptions of earlier "historians", there's absolutely no reason for any competent, self-respecting modern historian to claim anything more about Edward and his brother than that they were seen playing in the Tower garden during the summer of 1483 and their whereabouts, and fates, aren't known. What irks me the most is the total reliance on HVII's declarations by these so-called historians as to the meaning of the word "pretender." The word merely denotes someone who *claims* a throne and says nothing about the *validity* of those claims. It was only because of the trap he'd put himself in by repealing Titulus Regius that Henry *also* had to deny that Lambert and Perkin really were who they claimed to be. Henry had an excuse historians after the Tudors don't... Doug Doug

Marie wrote: "I totally agree, The Woodville marriage (w)as a disaster, and Richard's letter to Desmond makes it pretty clear he blamed the Woodvilles for all the bloodshed of 1471. But Clarence's execution, as a result of Woddville influence as Richard clearly believed - was the last straw. The way I see it, a bridge had been crossed then into a nightmare country from which there was no return. Richard could never again feel his own life safe whilst Edward''s queen and her family had any power, and they could never feel safe from his desire to avenge his brother's death. This is the sub-text running through the events that followed Edward IV's death." Doug here: I'm abashed to admit I'd never even considered what you wrote in your third sentence as a motive for the Woodville's actions! Certainly trumps the Woodvilles fear of losing power/position as a motive for rushing Edward's coronation and limiting Richard's powers as Protector. Or getting rid of him altogether... Doug Doug

I agree too Doug - I hadn' either Marie and it seems spot on. There's one other thing isn't there? Not only did Edward execute his brother, he deserted his sister in her hour of need and much to his credit Hastings tried to help her from Calais until Edward recalled him. Just what, I wonder, did Hastings really think about Edward after that, even if he did still play the boon companion? And yet another reason for Richard to hate what he must have thought of as Woodville influence. That's why I find it hard to ever have Hastings siding with the Woodvilles. I just do. And what terrrible times these must have been for Cis. She lost a daughter Anne in 1476, Clarence just over a year later, and Edward abandoned her other daughter shortly afterwards. H.

On Wednesday, 20 November 2013, 15:37, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Marie wrote: "I totally agree, The Woodville marriage (w)as a disaster, and Richard's letter to Desmond makes it pretty clear he blamed the Woodvilles for all the bloodshed of 1471. But Clarence's execution, as a result of Woddville influence as Richard clearly believed - was the last straw. The way I see it, a bridge had been crossed then into a nightmare country from which there was no return. Richard could never again feel his own life safe whilst Edward''s queen and her family had any power, and they could never feel safe from his desire to avenge his brother's death. This is the sub-text running through the events that followed Edward IV's death." Doug here: I'm abashed to admit I'd never even considered what you wrote in your third sentence as a motive for the Woodville's actions! Certainly trumps the Woodvilles fear of losing power/position as a motive for rushing Edward's coronation and limiting Richard's powers as Protector. Or getting rid of him altogether... Doug Doug

Hilar wrote:

"There's one other thing isn't there? Not only did Edward execute his brother, he deserted his sister in her hour of need and much to his credit Hastings tried to help her from Calais until Edward recalled him. Just what, I wonder, did Hastings really think about Edward after that, even if he did still play the boon companion? And yet another reason for Richard to hate what he must have thought of as Woodville influence. That's why I find it hard to ever have Hastings siding with the Woodvilles. I just do."

Marie replies:

I totally agree with you, Hilary, about Edward's failure to help their sister Margaret. I think he came quite close in 1477 to another rebellion against his rule by his own side, just as in the late 1460s. Clarence's own arrest and execution can really be traced to the enormous fallout over that business.

I think Mike Jones has done amazing work looking into that crisis, but actually it's not entirely clear that Hastings was recalled from Calais for a dressing-down. All we know is that he returned to England about the time his stepdaughter's baby was born, and rode with the King to Windsor.

I suppose we shouldn't forget that Hastings wasn't Margaret's brother and may not have felt quite as strongly about the issue as Richard and George. For Hastings it was probably more about preventing Calais falling into French hands, which was a serious risk at the time.

We shouldn't forget that Hastings had earlier agreed to the marriage of his stepdaughter Cecily Bonville to Dorset, and that Dorset was to all intents and purposes his son-in-law. I think it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that his 'daughter' had managed to effect a reconciliation between the two, *which we know had also been King Edward's dying wish*.

Here's another very speculative thought. In 1475 Edward had made his will, putting Rivers in charge in the event of his death. He apparently did not see fit to change that provision until he was on his deathbed. What happened to change his mind, particularly given that Richard was now such a necessary presence in he North? Was he having second thoughts about his wife's family, or did someone close to him persuade him to add that codicil? If, for example, Hastings had encouraged Edward to appoint Richard as Protector, then he may well have felt that Richard owed him big time and very personally resented Buckingham coming along and taking the credit. He may also have felt that what he had given he had a right to take away. Richard, on the other hand, believed his having the protectorship was his brother's sacred dying wish.....

Highly speculative, but food for thought for novelists and a reminder of how much of the human detail we don't know.

Marie

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

I agree too Doug - I hadn' either Marie and it seems spot on. There's one other thing isn't there? Not only did Edward execute his brother, he deserted his sister in her hour of need and much to his credit Hastings tried to help her from Calais until Edward recalled him. Just what, I wonder, did Hastings really think about Edward after that, even if he did still play the boon companion? And yet another reason for Richard to hate what he must have thought of as Woodville influence. That's why I find it hard to ever have Hastings siding with the Woodvilles. I just do. And what terrrible times these must have been for Cis. She lost a daughter Anne in 1476, Clarence just over a year later, and Edward abandoned her other daughter shortly afterwards. H.

On Wednesday, 20 November 2013, 15:37, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Marie wrote: "I totally agree, The Woodville marriage (w)as a disaster, and Richard's letter to Desmond makes it pretty clear he blamed the Woodvilles for all the bloodshed of 1471. But Clarence's execution, as a result of Woddville influence as Richard clearly believed - was the last straw. The way I see it, a bridge had been crossed then into a nightmare country from which there was no return. Richard could never again feel his own life safe whilst Edward''s queen and her family had any power, and they could never feel safe from his desire to avenge his brother's death. This is the sub-text running through the events that followed Edward IV's death." Doug here: I'm abashed to admit I'd never even considered what you wrote in your third sentence as a motive for the Woodville's actions! Certainly trumps the Woodvilles fear of losing power/position as a motive for rushing Edward's coronation and limiting Richard's powers as Protector. Or getting rid of him altogether... Doug Doug