Re: Digest Number 4788

Richard III Society Forum - Discussion area for 15th 16th century history

The Disappearance of the Princes in the Tower

Questions:

1. Who was first to find that the boys were gone?

2. What did they find in the rooms of the Princes? Were there signs of violence? Were the boys' belongings lying around or had they been packed up and taken away with them (or hidden away)?

3. Who was the last person to see them at the Tower? When do the accounts of expenditure show the cessation of orders of food and supplies for the Princes?

4. Who reported that they were gone to the Constable of the Tower and/or to the King?

Are there any answers to any of these questions?

Greg. DownUnder

Hi Greg, You sound like Inspector Barnaby from Midsomer :) (I know you have that in Aus) You know, if any one of us had the answer to any one of those questions we'd probably make a fortune. So much was wiped from the record when the new regime came in and my particular beef has always been that surely oral history must have passed down some of these things (where were the cleaners, laundry maids etc?) but .... There are far more erudite people on here who can answer why there are no answers in much more detail, but I would recommend Josephine Wilkinson or Audrey Williamson who've both written on the Princes in the Tower. Then you might begin to understand the difficulties. Kind Regards H (who spent a few good years Down Under)

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014, 12:43, Greg Henderson <brgregfsc@...> wrote:
The Disappearance of the Princes in the Tower Questions: 1. Who was first to find that the boys were gone? 2. What did they find in the rooms of the Princes? Were there signs of violence? Were the boys' belongings lying around or had they been packed up and taken away with them (or hidden away)? 3. Who was the last person to see them at the Tower? When do the accounts of expenditure show the cessation of orders of food and supplies for the Princes?4. Who reported that they were gone to the Constable of the Tower and/or to the King? Are there any answers to any of these questions? Greg. DownUnder

"The Maligned King" by Annette Carson might also help to illuminate what actually is known, as opposed to what is hearsay.

~Weds

I love it&&there was a murder in your home, so therefore we are investigating the event&.more or less the beloved first Inspector Barnaby!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:28 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Digest Number 4788

Hi Greg,

You sound like Inspector Barnaby from Midsomer :) (I know you have that in Aus)

You know, if any one of us had the answer to any one of those questions we'd probably make a fortune.

So much was wiped from the record when the new regime came in and my particular beef has always been that surely oral history must have passed down some of these things (where were the cleaners, laundry maids etc?) but ....

There are far more erudite people on here who can answer why there are no answers in much more detail, but I would recommend Josephine Wilkinson or Audrey Williamson who've both written on the Princes in the Tower. Then you might begin to understand the difficulties. Kind Regards H (who spent a few good years Down Under)

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014, 12:43, Greg Henderson <brgregfsc@...> wrote:

The Disappearance of the Princes in the Tower

Questions:

1. Who was first to find that the boys were gone?

2. What did they find in the rooms of the Princes? Were there signs of violence? Were the boys' belongings lying around or had they been packed up and taken away with them (or hidden away)?

3. Who was the last person to see them at the Tower? When do the accounts of expenditure show the cessation of orders of food and supplies for the Princes?

4. Who reported that they were gone to the Constable of the Tower and/or to the King?

Are there any answers to any of these questions?

Greg. DownUnder

If the whereabouts of the burial place of Edward of Middleham can get mislaid and lost Im not surprised. How very, very careless.....
Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I love it……”there was a murder in your home, so therefore we are investigating the event”….more or less the beloved first Inspector Barnaby!
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:28 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 4788
>
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> You sound like Inspector Barnaby from Midsomer :) (I know you have that in Aus)
>
> You know, if any one of us had the answer to any one of those questions we'd probably make a fortune.
>
> So much was wiped from the record when the new regime came in and my particular beef has always been that surely oral history must have passed down some of these things (where were the cleaners, laundry maids etc?) but ....
>
> There are far more erudite people on here who can answer why there are no answers in much more detail, but I would recommend Josephine Wilkinson or Audrey Williamson who've both written on the Princes in the Tower. Then you might begin to understand the difficulties. Kind Regards H (who spent a few good years Down Under)
>
> On Wednesday, 22 January 2014, 12:43, Greg Henderson <brgregfsc@...<mailto:brgregfsc@...>> wrote:
>
> The Disappearance of the Princes in the Tower
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Who was first to find that the boys were gone?
> 2. What did they find in the rooms of the Princes? Were there signs of violence? Were the boys’ belongings lying around or had they been packed up and taken away with them (or hidden away)?
> 3. Who was the last person to see them at the Tower? When do the accounts of expenditure show the cessation of orders of food and supplies for the Princes?
> 4. Who reported that they were gone to the Constable of the Tower and/or to the King?
>
> Are there any answers to any of these questions?
>
> Greg. DownUnder
>

Absolutely Eileen (and yes Pamela I preferred Tom and Joyce). You know when you stand back and look at evidence for the whole of this period it's more than weird. We've got a beautiful description of the gloves Richard wore for his Coronation by the woman who made them for him yet when it comes to the News Headlines it's like going back another thousand years, some scribe in a monastery reporting things like 'men say'. The Mortons must have had an incredibly effective shredding machines. Do you reckon they carried out a raid on Caxton?:) And as you say, Edward of Middleham, how on earth can no-one know about that. Surely some farmer at Middleham saw the cortege pass by? H

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014, 19:48, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
If the whereabouts of the burial place of Edward of Middleham can get mislaid and lost Im not surprised. How very, very careless.....
Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I love it⬦⬦â¬there was a murder in your home, so therefore we are investigating the eventâ¬â¬¦.more or less the beloved first Inspector Barnaby!
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:28 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 4788
>
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> You sound like Inspector Barnaby from Midsomer :) (I know you have that in Aus)
>
> You know, if any one of us had the answer to any one of those questions we'd probably make a fortune.
>
> So much was wiped from the record when the new regime came in and my particular beef has always been that surely oral history must have passed down some of these things (where were the cleaners, laundry maids etc?) but ....
>
> There are far more erudite people on here who can answer why there are no answers in much more detail, but I would recommend Josephine Wilkinson or Audrey Williamson who've both written on the Princes in the Tower. Then you might begin to understand the difficulties. Kind Regards H (who spent a few good years Down Under)
>
> On Wednesday, 22 January 2014, 12:43, Greg Henderson <brgregfsc@...<mailto:brgregfsc@...>> wrote:
>
> The Disappearance of the Princes in the Tower
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Who was first to find that the boys were gone?
> 2. What did they find in the rooms of the Princes? Were there signs of violence? Were the boysâ¬" belongings lying around or had they been packed up and taken away with them (or hidden away)?
> 3. Who was the last person to see them at the Tower? When do the accounts of expenditure show the cessation of orders of food and supplies for the Princes?
> 4. Who reported that they were gone to the Constable of the Tower and/or to the King?
>
> Are there any answers to any of these questions?
>
> Greg. DownUnder
>

I suppose part of the problem i.e. the burial place of EoM is that his parents would not have attended the funeral.

Of course you would have thought that the respective abbey/church would have recorded such an important burial but if that place is now in a ruinous state, such as one of the possibilities, Coverdale Abbey, then it's highly unlikely their records would have survived. What a shame.

I also had a thought...I wonder if there was confusion with some of the population about which Prince Edward had died and been buried. Both kings sons, both young....especially when most people gleaned their news from chit chat at the local inn or market...

Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Absolutely Eileen (and yes Pamela I preferred Tom and Joyce). You know when you stand back and look at evidence for the whole of this period it's more than weird. We've got a beautiful description of the gloves Richard wore for his Coronation by the woman who made them for him yet when it comes to the News Headlines it's like going back another thousand years, some scribe in a monastery reporting things like 'men say'. The Mortons must have had an incredibly effective shredding machines. Do you reckon they carried out a raid on Caxton?:)
>  
> And as you say, Edward of Middleham, how on earth can no-one know about that. Surely some farmer at Middleham saw the cortege pass by?  H
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 22 January 2014, 19:48, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>  
> If the whereabouts of the burial place of Edward of Middleham can get mislaid and lost Im not surprised. How very, very careless.....
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > I love it……â€there was a murder in your home, so therefore we are investigating the eventâ€â€¦.more or less the beloved first Inspector Barnaby!
> >
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:28 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Digest Number 4788
> >
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > You sound like Inspector Barnaby from Midsomer :) (I know you have that in Aus)
> >
> > You know, if any one of us had the answer to any one of those questions we'd probably make a fortune.
> >
> > So much was wiped from the record when the new regime came in and my particular beef has always been that surely oral history must have passed down some of these things (where were the cleaners, laundry maids etc?) but ....
> >
> > There are far more erudite people on here who can answer why there are no answers in much more detail, but I would recommend Josephine Wilkinson or Audrey Williamson who've both written on the Princes in the Tower. Then you might begin to understand the difficulties. Kind Regards H (who spent a few good years Down Under)
> >
> > On Wednesday, 22 January 2014, 12:43, Greg Henderson <brgregfsc@<mailto:brgregfsc@>> wrote:
> >
> > The Disappearance of the Princes in the Tower
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > 1. Who was first to find that the boys were gone?
> > 2. What did they find in the rooms of the Princes? Were there signs of violence? Were the boys’ belongings lying around or had they been packed up and taken away with them (or hidden away)?
> > 3. Who was the last person to see them at the Tower? When do the accounts of expenditure show the cessation of orders of food and supplies for the Princes?
> > 4. Who reported that they were gone to the Constable of the Tower and/or to the King?
> >
> > Are there any answers to any of these questions?
> >
> > Greg. DownUnder
> >
>

Greg wrote:

Richard III Society Forum - Discussion area for 15th 16th century history

"Questions:

"1. Who was first to find that the boys were gone?

"2. What did they find in the rooms of the Princes? Were there signs of violence? Were the boys' belongings lying around or had they been packed up and taken away with them (or hidden away)?

"3. Who was the last person to see them at the Tower? When do the accounts of expenditure show the cessation of orders of food and supplies for the Princes?

"4. Who reported that they were gone to the Constable of the Tower and/or to the King?

"Are there any answers to any of these questions"

Carol responds:

You say in another post that you've read Annette Carson's "The Maligned King," which I thought makes it clear that there are no answers. That aside, I'll attempt to answer your questions one at a time and then tell you what little I know, but, first, I should make it clear that being missing would not necessarily make them dead (see Annette Carson and Audrey Williamson for the possibility that they were removed from the Tower for their own safety).

"Who was the first to find that the boys were gone?" We don't know. Neither Henry VII nor anyone else ever officially reported them missing.

"What did they find in the rooms of the 'Princes'?" We don't know. There was no report.

"Who was the last person to see them at the Tower?" Again, we don't know. There was no report. It was certainly *not* Dr. Argentine, Mancini's source for young Edward's behavior, who was dismissed from service before the rumors arose.

"Who reported that they were gone to the Constable of the Tower or the king?" We don't know. (Since Richard's Constable of the Tower, Brackenbury, died fighting for him at Bosworth, Henry couldn't question him.)

You asked in another post about Tyrell's alleged confession. As far as we know, that confession never existed and was apparently the invention of Sir Thomas More. I strongly recommend that you find Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out" in our Files.

Since it's hard to read long messages in this format, I'll put part two in another post.

Carol

Greg wrote:

Richard III Society Forum - Discussion area for 15th 16th century history" Who was first to find that the boys were gone?<snip>"

Carol responds:

As I said in another post, essentially the answers to your questions are "no one" and "nothing." Tyrell's supposed confession is almost certainly Sir Thomas More's invention.

Here's what we do know. (I may add speculations along the way, but you'll recognize them as such by the hedge words like "possibly" and "apparently.") Warning: This post will be long and you may need to click reply and the three dots to read the whole thing.

Richard, in his role as Protector, took Edward V from the control of the Woodvilles and brought him safely to London. Edward was at first lodged in a bishop's palace, but the council voted unanimously to move him to the royal apartments in the Tower, traditional lodgings for a king before he was crowned and also conveniently close to the council chamber, which was also in the Tower.

After the death of Hastings, the Archbishop of Canterbury persuaded Elizabeth Woodville to let her younger son, Richard, Duke of York, join his brother in the Tower. A witness reports a friendly meeting between Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and his nephew.

One source reports that the boys were seen playing and shooting in the Tower at various times during the mayor's year of 1483, which ended, I believe, in October.

In late June, the Three Estates presented their petition to Richard declaring the boys illegitimate because of the precontract (previous marriage) between Edward IV and Eleanor Butler and asking Richard to accept the kingship. He does so.

On July 6, Richard and Anne are crowned. Later in the month, he begins his progress northward.

On July 29, Richard sent his letter to Chancellor Russell about "the fact of an enterprise," apparently an attempt to "rescue" the boys from the Tower though other sources say it was an attempt to "rescue" their sisters from sanctuary. Apparently, there was another "rescue" attempt involving a relative of Margaret Beaufort's and deliberately set fires for which I don't have a date. Both attempts were unsuccessful and the would-be perpetrators executed.

On September 8, Edward of Middleham is invested as Prince of Wales. At about this time, according to the Croyland Chronicle, Richard's nephews are moved deeper into the Tower under strong security.

On October 12, Richard sends a letter to the chancellor about the treachery of Buckingham, whose rebellion shocks and astounds him.

At about the same time, rumors arise (presumably deliberately spread among the dissident Yorkists by Tudor supporters or Buckingham) that the boys have been killed in some unknown way by unnamed persons. The focus of the rebellion shifts from restoring Edward V to making Tudor king (conditional upon his marriage to EoY).

Richard, with aid from the weather, easily puts down the rebellion and executes Buckingham but says nothing, then or later, about his nephews. Tudor returns to Brittany.

In December, Mancini completes his report to Angelo Cato in which he records having heard a rumor that the older nephew, Edward, has been killed but states clearly that he can't confirm it. He says nothing about the younger boy's being included in the rumor.

The rumor surfaces in France (I think in January?), presented as fact. Almost certainly, this speech is simply anti-English propaganda.

Tudor begins circulating propaganda calling himself the rightful king and Richard a usurper and murderer. Richard retaliates with petitions against Tudor calling attention to the illegitimacy on both sides of his family.

August 22, 1485. Richard is killed at Bosworth. Henry calls himself king and backdates his reign by a day to make Richard and the men who fought for him traitors.

Soon afterward, Henry seizes Elizabeth of York and Edward of Warwick, putting both in his mother's custody. He arrests Bishop Stillington, author of Titulus Regius. His attainder of Richard accuses him of tyranny, usurpation, and "shedding of infants blood" (no apostrophe) but no more specific accusation. He pardons Stillington, apparently so that he doesn't have to defend Titulus Regius, and makes sure that Titulus Regius is repealed unread, the original destroyed and all copies ordered to be burned. No precis is left on the Parliament Rolls. The brief explanation of the repeal refers to Richard's "tyranny" and calls TR a "malicious lie," but says nothing about the precontract or the "princes," who are nevertheless legitimized, along with EoY, but the repeal. By implication, Edward V is the rightful king of England.

Henry makes sure that his claim is primarily by right of conquest and secondarily by right of his supposed Lancastrian heritage (the bill making Henry VI a rightful king and not a usurper calls Tudor Henry VI's nephew). He reluctantly marries EoY as promised but ignores her claim (now stronger than his) and does not crown her until months later when she is pregnant with his heir.

About the time of Prince Arthur's death and the surfacing of Perkin Warbeck, Henry authorizes a tomb and memorial plaque for Richard in which he does not accuse him of murdering the "princes" and implies that he was the rightful king.

May 6, 1502 (nearly seven years later)--Sir James Tyrell is executed for aiding a Yorkist pretender, Edmund de la Pole.

Rumors apparently circulate that Tyrell murdered the "princes" for Richard III.

Ca. 1514--More invents his detailed story of the smothering, burial, and reburial of the princes, ostensibly based on Tyrell's confession.

Later, Francis Bacon adds to the confusion by stating that More's story is based on what "the king {Henry} gave out." Henry, however, clearly "gave out" nothing.

Sorry this is so detailed, but it should show that what we know about the supposed deaths of the "Princes" is absolutely nothing. It appears that Henry also knew nothing. The bones in the urn also tell us nothing, but that's a topic for another post.

Carol

Richard III Society Forum - Discussion area for 15th 16th century history

Thank you, Carol. Maybe my original post needed to be more specific. Let me try again.

I have been a member of this group for over 4 years and have read all the posts. I have a sizeable collection of books on Richard III and have read them all, many several times. I should have said that in spite of what has been published, and what has been discussed here, does anyone know of any evidence from contemporary sources?

I was hoping that someone would know something but it looks like all we have is & nothing. I was hoping there would be a comment in a book that I haven't read that indicated that the room in the Tower looked like it had been hastily evacuated or similar.

We live in hope that evidence will turn up, or Her Majesty will permit the opening and re-examination of the contents of a certain urn.  After all, miracles do happen  King Richard's grave turned out to be in exactly the spot that Phillippa felt it would be.

Cheers,

Greg.

Princes Evidence? (Was Digest Number 4788) Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:17 am (PST) . Posted by: justcarol67

Greg wrote:

Richard III Society Forum - Discussion area for 15th 16th century history "Questions:

"1. Who was first to find that the boys were gone?
"2. What did they find in the rooms of the Princes? Were there signs of violence? Were the boys' belongings lying around or had they been packed up and taken away with them (or hidden away)?
"3. Who was the last person to see them at the Tower? When do the accounts of expenditure show the cessation of orders of food and supplies for the Princes?
"4. Who reported that they were gone to the Constable of the Tower and/or to the King?

"Are there any answers to any of these questions"

Carol responds:


You say in another post that you've read Annette Carson's "The Maligned King," which I thought makes it clear that there are no answers. That aside, I'll attempt to answer your questions one at a time and then tell you what little I know, but, first, I should make it clear that being missing would not necessarily make them dead (see Annette Carson and Audrey Williamson for the possibility that they were removed from the Tower for their own safety).


"Who was the first to find that the boys were gone?" We don't know. Neither Henry VII nor anyone else ever officially reported them missing.


"What did they find in the rooms of the 'Princes&#39;?" We don't know. There was no report.


"Who was the last person to see them at the Tower?" Again, we don't know. There was no report. It was certainly *not* Dr. Argentine, Mancini's source for young Edward's behavior, who was dismissed from service before the rumors arose.


"Who reported that they were gone to the Constable of the Tower or the king?" We don't know. (Since Richard's Constable of the Tower, Brackenbury, died fighting for him at Bosworth, Henry couldn't question him.)


You asked in another post about Tyrell's alleged confession. As far as we know, that confession never existed and was apparently the invention of Sir Thomas More. I strongly recommend that you find Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out" in our Files.


Since it's hard to read long messages in this format, I'll put part two in another post.


Carol

Thanks Carol for all this information.The more research that is done the closer we will come to the truth.Richard was a good man.
Kathryn x


--- In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Greg wrote:
>
> Richard III Society Forum - Discussion area for 15th 16th century history " Who was first to find that the boys were gone?<snip>"
>
> Carol responds:
>
> As I said in another post, essentially the answers to your questions are "no one" and "nothing." Tyrell's supposed confession is almost certainly Sir Thomas More's invention.
>
> Here's what we do know. (I may add speculations along the way, but you'll recognize them as such by the hedge words like "possibly" and "apparently.") Warning: This post will be long and you may need to click reply and the three dots to read the whole thing.
>
> Richard, in his role as Protector, took Edward V from the control of the Woodvilles and brought him safely to London. Edward was at first lodged in a bishop's palace, but the council voted unanimously to move him to the royal apartments in the Tower, traditional lodgings for a king before he was crowned and also conveniently close to the council chamber, which was also in the Tower.
>
> After the death of Hastings, the Archbishop of Canterbury persuaded Elizabeth Woodville to let her younger son, Richard, Duke of York, join his brother in the Tower. A witness reports a friendly meeting between Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and his nephew.
>
> One source reports that the boys were seen playing and shooting in the Tower at various times during the mayor's year of 1483, which ended, I believe, in October.
>
> In late June, the Three Estates presented their petition to Richard declaring the boys illegitimate because of the precontract (previous marriage) between Edward IV and Eleanor Butler and asking Richard to accept the kingship. He does so.
>
> On July 6, Richard and Anne are crowned. Later in the month, he begins his progress northward.
>
> On July 29, Richard sent his letter to Chancellor Russell about "the fact of an enterprise," apparently an attempt to "rescue" the boys from the Tower though other sources say it was an attempt to "rescue" their sisters from sanctuary. Apparently, there was another "rescue" attempt involving a relative of Margaret Beaufort's and deliberately set fires for which I don't have a date. Both attempts were unsuccessful and the would-be perpetrators executed.
>
> On September 8, Edward of Middleham is invested as Prince of Wales. At about this time, according to the Croyland Chronicle, Richard's nephews are moved deeper into the Tower under strong security.
>
> On October 12, Richard sends a letter to the chancellor about the treachery of Buckingham, whose rebellion shocks and astounds him.
>
> At about the same time, rumors arise (presumably deliberately spread among the dissident Yorkists by Tudor supporters or Buckingham) that the boys have been killed in some unknown way by unnamed persons. The focus of the rebellion shifts from restoring Edward V to making Tudor king (conditional upon his marriage to EoY).
>
> Richard, with aid from the weather, easily puts down the rebellion and executes Buckingham but says nothing, then or later, about his nephews. Tudor returns to Brittany.
>
> In December, Mancini completes his report to Angelo Cato in which he records having heard a rumor that the older nephew, Edward, has been killed but states clearly that he can't confirm it. He says nothing about the younger boy's being included in the rumor.
>
> The rumor surfaces in France (I think in January?), presented as fact. Almost certainly, this speech is simply anti-English propaganda.
>
> Tudor begins circulating propaganda calling himself the rightful king and Richard a usurper and murderer. Richard retaliates with petitions against Tudor calling attention to the illegitimacy on both sides of his family.
>
> August 22, 1485. Richard is killed at Bosworth. Henry calls himself king and backdates his reign by a day to make Richard and the men who fought for him traitors.
>
> Soon afterward, Henry seizes Elizabeth of York and Edward of Warwick, putting both in his mother's custody. He arrests Bishop Stillington, author of Titulus Regius. His attainder of Richard accuses him of tyranny, usurpation, and "shedding of infants blood" (no apostrophe) but no more specific accusation. He pardons Stillington, apparently so that he doesn't have to defend Titulus Regius, and makes sure that Titulus Regius is repealed unread, the original destroyed and all copies ordered to be burned. No precis is left on the Parliament Rolls. The brief explanation of the repeal refers to Richard's "tyranny" and calls TR a "malicious lie," but says nothing about the precontract or the "princes," who are nevertheless legitimized, along with EoY, but the repeal. By implication, Edward V is the rightful king of England.
>
> Henry makes sure that his claim is primarily by right of conquest and secondarily by right of his supposed Lancastrian heritage (the bill making Henry VI a rightful king and not a usurper calls Tudor Henry VI's nephew). He reluctantly marries EoY as promised but ignores her claim (now stronger than his) and does not crown her until months later when she is pregnant with his heir.
>
> About the time of Prince Arthur's death and the surfacing of Perkin Warbeck, Henry authorizes a tomb and memorial plaque for Richard in which he does not accuse him of murdering the "princes" and implies that he was the rightful king.
>
> May 6, 1502 (nearly seven years later)--Sir James Tyrell is executed for aiding a Yorkist pretender, Edmund de la Pole.
>
> Rumors apparently circulate that Tyrell murdered the "princes" for Richard III.
>
> Ca. 1514--More invents his detailed story of the smothering, burial, and reburial of the princes, ostensibly based on Tyrell's confession.
>
> Later, Francis Bacon adds to the confusion by stating that More's story is based on what "the king {Henry} gave out." Henry, however, clearly "gave out" nothing.
>
> Sorry this is so detailed, but it should show that what we know about the supposed deaths of the "Princes" is absolutely nothing. It appears that Henry also knew nothing. The bones in the urn also tell us nothing, but that's a topic for another post.
>
> Carol
>

Your questions are very good though Greg. And if you apply them to Eleanor Butler then there's also a surprising lack of hard fact (sorry JAH) Are there any documents of the 1460s which hint that Edward had a relationship with her?Where and when did it take place? (I know JAH says she may have petitioned Edward about her lands but such petitioning was usually done by or with an attorney - where was he in all this?)Why did her family never say anything - this damaged her good name? (Humphrey was knighted by HT, Eleanor Mowbray had been deprived of the Norfolk lands by Edward but neither said a thing for or against)?Where was the local gossip? Like the Tower, I just can't think that Morton et al were so efficient that they could wipe out every bit of evidence and gossip. When I went to Leicester recently a lady there, nothing to do with Richard, said 'we've known in Leicester for centuries that Richard was there - people were just too mean to dig him up' Surely someone in the East End of London has an oral tradition of the princes' story or someone who knew the Talbots picked up some gossip about Eleanor. It's all extremely odd. H.

On Friday, 24 January 2014, 23:31, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
Thanks Carol for all this information.The more research that is done the closer we will come to the truth.Richard was a good man.
Kathryn x

--- In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Greg wrote:
>
> Richard III Society Forum - Discussion area for 15th 16th century history " Who was first to find that the boys were gone?<snip>"
>
> Carol responds:
>
> As I said in another post, essentially the answers to your questions are "no one" and "nothing." Tyrell's supposed confession is almost certainly Sir Thomas More's invention.
>
> Here's what we do know. (I may add speculations along the way, but you'll recognize them as such by the hedge words like "possibly" and "apparently.") Warning: This post will be long and you may need to click reply and the three dots to read the whole thing.
>
> Richard, in his role as Protector, took Edward V from the control of the Woodvilles and brought him safely to London. Edward was at first lodged in a bishop's palace, but the council voted unanimously to move him to the royal apartments in the Tower, traditional lodgings for a king before he was crowned and also conveniently close to the council chamber, which was also in the Tower.
>
> After the death of Hastings, the Archbishop of Canterbury persuaded Elizabeth Woodville to let her younger son, Richard, Duke of York, join his brother in the Tower. A witness reports a friendly meeting between Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and his nephew.
>
> One source reports that the boys were seen playing and shooting in the Tower at various times during the mayor's year of 1483, which ended, I believe, in October.
>
> In late June, the Three Estates presented their petition to Richard declaring the boys illegitimate because of the precontract (previous marriage) between Edward IV and Eleanor Butler and asking Richard to accept the kingship. He does so.
>
> On July 6, Richard and Anne are crowned. Later in the month, he begins his progress northward.
>
> On July 29, Richard sent his letter to Chancellor Russell about "the fact of an enterprise," apparently an attempt to "rescue" the boys from the Tower though other sources say it was an attempt to "rescue" their sisters from sanctuary. Apparently, there was another "rescue" attempt involving a relative of Margaret Beaufort's and deliberately set fires for which I don't have a date. Both attempts were unsuccessful and the would-be perpetrators executed.
>
> On September 8, Edward of Middleham is invested as Prince of Wales. At about this time, according to the Croyland Chronicle, Richard's nephews are moved deeper into the Tower under strong security.
>
> On October 12, Richard sends a letter to the chancellor about the treachery of Buckingham, whose rebellion shocks and astounds him.
>
> At about the same time, rumors arise (presumably deliberately spread among the dissident Yorkists by Tudor supporters or Buckingham) that the boys have been killed in some unknown way by unnamed persons. The focus of the rebellion shifts from restoring Edward V to making Tudor king (conditional upon his marriage to EoY).
>
> Richard, with aid from the weather, easily puts down the rebellion and executes Buckingham but says nothing, then or later, about his nephews. Tudor returns to Brittany.
>
> In December, Mancini completes his report to Angelo Cato in which he records having heard a rumor that the older nephew, Edward, has been killed but states clearly that he can't confirm it. He says nothing about the younger boy's being included in the rumor.
>
> The rumor surfaces in France (I think in January?), presented as fact. Almost certainly, this speech is simply anti-English propaganda.
>
> Tudor begins circulating propaganda calling himself the rightful king and Richard a usurper and murderer. Richard retaliates with petitions against Tudor calling attention to the illegitimacy on both sides of his family.
>
> August 22, 1485. Richard is killed at Bosworth. Henry calls himself king and backdates his reign by a day to make Richard and the men who fought for him traitors.
>
> Soon afterward, Henry seizes Elizabeth of York and Edward of Warwick, putting both in his mother's custody. He arrests Bishop Stillington, author of Titulus Regius. His attainder of Richard accuses him of tyranny, usurpation, and "shedding of infants blood" (no apostrophe) but no more specific accusation. He pardons Stillington, apparently so that he doesn't have to defend Titulus Regius, and makes sure that Titulus Regius is repealed unread, the original destroyed and all copies ordered to be burned. No precis is left on the Parliament Rolls. The brief explanation of the repeal refers to Richard's "tyranny" and calls TR a "malicious lie," but says nothing about the precontract or the "princes," who are nevertheless legitimized, along with EoY, but the repeal. By implication, Edward V is the rightful king of England.
>
> Henry makes sure that his claim is primarily by right of conquest and secondarily by right of his supposed Lancastrian heritage (the bill making Henry VI a rightful king and not a usurper calls Tudor Henry VI's nephew). He reluctantly marries EoY as promised but ignores her claim (now stronger than his) and does not crown her until months later when she is pregnant with his heir.
>
> About the time of Prince Arthur's death and the surfacing of Perkin Warbeck, Henry authorizes a tomb and memorial plaque for Richard in which he does not accuse him of murdering the "princes" and implies that he was the rightful king.
>
> May 6, 1502 (nearly seven years later)--Sir James Tyrell is executed for aiding a Yorkist pretender, Edmund de la Pole.
>
> Rumors apparently circulate that Tyrell murdered the "princes" for Richard III.
>
> Ca. 1514--More invents his detailed story of the smothering, burial, and reburial of the princes, ostensibly based on Tyrell's confession.
>
> Later, Francis Bacon adds to the confusion by stating that More's story is based on what "the king {Henry} gave out." Henry, however, clearly "gave out" nothing.
>
> Sorry this is so detailed, but it should show that what we know about the supposed deaths of the "Princes" is absolutely nothing. It appears that Henry also knew nothing. The bones in the urn also tell us nothing, but that's a topic for another post.
>
> Carol
>

There is a possible reason why Eleanor nor her family spoke out. Eleanor was barren and kings need heirs. Elizabeth Woodville was particularly fertile and produced the necessary heirs. Perhaps Eleanor decided that she would not 'rock the boat' as it were.
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>

Your questions are very good though Greg. And if you apply them to Eleanor Butler then there's also a surprising lack of hard fact (sorry JAH) Are there any documents of the 1460s which hint that Edward had a relationship with her?Where and when did it take place? (I know JAH says she may have petitioned Edward about her lands but such petitioning was usually done by or with an attorney - where was he in all this?)Why did her family never say anything - this damaged her good name? (Humphrey was knighted by HT, Eleanor Mowbray had been deprived of the Norfolk lands by Edward but neither said a thing for or against)?Where was the local gossip? Like the Tower, I just can't think that Morton et al were so efficient that they could wipe out every bit of evidence and gossip. When I went to Leicester recently a lady there, nothing to do with Richard, said 'we've known in Leicester for centuries that Richard was there - people were just too mean to dig him up' Surely someone in the East End of London has an oral tradition of the princes' story or someone who knew the Talbots picked up some gossip about Eleanor. It's all extremely odd. H.

On Friday, 24 January 2014, 23:31, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
Thanks Carol for all this information.The more research that is done the closer we will come to the truth.Richard was a good man.
Kathryn x

--- In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Greg wrote:
>
> Richard III Society Forum - Discussion area for 15th 16th century history " Who was first to find that the boys were gone?<snip>"
>
> Carol responds:
>
> As I said in another post, essentially the answers to your questions are "no one" and "nothing." Tyrell's supposed confession is almost certainly Sir Thomas More's invention.
>
> Here's what we do know. (I may add speculations along the way, but you'll recognize them as such by the hedge words like "possibly" and "apparently.") Warning: This post will be long and you may need to click reply and the three dots to read the whole thing.
>
> Richard, in his role as Protector, took Edward V from the control of the Woodvilles and brought him safely to London. Edward was at first lodged in a bishop's palace, but the council voted unanimously to move him to the royal apartments in the Tower, traditional lodgings for a king before he was crowned and also conveniently close to the council chamber, which was also in the Tower.
>
> After the death of Hastings, the Archbishop of Canterbury persuaded Elizabeth Woodville to let her younger son, Richard, Duke of York, join his brother in the Tower. A witness reports a friendly meeting between Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and his nephew.
>
> One source reports that the boys were seen playing and shooting in the Tower at various times during the mayor's year of 1483, which ended, I believe, in October.
>
> In late June, the Three Estates presented their petition to Richard declaring the boys illegitimate because of the precontract (previous marriage) between Edward IV and Eleanor Butler and asking Richard to accept the kingship. He does so.
>
> On July 6, Richard and Anne are crowned. Later in the month, he begins his progress northward.
>
> On July 29, Richard sent his letter to Chancellor Russell about "the fact of an enterprise," apparently an attempt to "rescue" the boys from the Tower though other sources say it was an attempt to "rescue" their sisters from sanctuary. Apparently, there was another "rescue" attempt involving a relative of Margaret Beaufort's and deliberately set fires for which I don't have a date. Both attempts were unsuccessful and the would-be perpetrators executed.
>
> On September 8, Edward of Middleham is invested as Prince of Wales. At about this time, according to the Croyland Chronicle, Richard's nephews are moved deeper into the Tower under strong security.
>
> On October 12, Richard sends a letter to the chancellor about the treachery of Buckingham, whose rebellion shocks and astounds him.
>
> At about the same time, rumors arise (presumably deliberately spread among the dissident Yorkists by Tudor supporters or Buckingham) that the boys have been killed in some unknown way by unnamed persons. The focus of the rebellion shifts from restoring Edward V to making Tudor king (conditional upon his marriage to EoY).
>
> Richard, with aid from the weather, easily puts down the rebellion and executes Buckingham but says nothing, then or later, about his nephews. Tudor returns to Brittany.
>
> In December, Mancini completes his report to Angelo Cato in which he records having heard a rumor that the older nephew, Edward, has been killed but states clearly that he can't confirm it. He says nothing about the younger boy's being included in the rumor.
>
> The rumor surfaces in France (I think in January?), presented as fact. Almost certainly, this speech is simply anti-English propaganda.
>
> Tudor begins circulating propaganda calling himself the rightful king and Richard a usurper and murderer. Richard retaliates with petitions against Tudor calling attention to the illegitimacy on both sides of his family.
>
> August 22, 1485. Richard is killed at Bosworth. Henry calls himself king and backdates his reign by a day to make Richard and the men who fought for him traitors.
>
> Soon afterward, Henry seizes Elizabeth of York and Edward of Warwick, putting both in his mother's custody. He arrests Bishop Stillington, author of Titulus Regius. His attainder of Richard accuses him of tyranny, usurpation, and "shedding of infants blood" (no apostrophe) but no more specific accusation. He pardons Stillington, apparently so that he doesn't have to defend Titulus Regius, and makes sure that Titulus Regius is repealed unread, the original destroyed and all copies ordered to be burned. No precis is left on the Parliament Rolls. The brief explanation of the repeal refers to Richard's "tyranny" and calls TR a "malicious lie," but says nothing about the precontract or the "princes," who are nevertheless legitimized, along with EoY, but the repeal. By implication, Edward V is the rightful king of England.
>
> Henry makes sure that his claim is primarily by right of conquest and secondarily by right of his supposed Lancastrian heritage (the bill making Henry VI a rightful king and not a usurper calls Tudor Henry VI's nephew). He reluctantly marries EoY as promised but ignores her claim (now stronger than his) and does not crown her until months later when she is pregnant with his heir.
>
> About the time of Prince Arthur's death and the surfacing of Perkin Warbeck, Henry authorizes a tomb and memorial plaque for Richard in which he does not accuse him of murdering the "princes" and implies that he was the rightful king.
>
> May 6, 1502 (nearly seven years later)--Sir James Tyrell is executed for aiding a Yorkist pretender, Edmund de la Pole.
>
> Rumors apparently circulate that Tyrell murdered the "princes" for Richard III.
>
> Ca. 1514--More invents his detailed story of the smothering, burial, and reburial of the princes, ostensibly based on Tyrell's confession.
>
> Later, Francis Bacon adds to the confusion by stating that More's story is based on what "the king {Henry} gave out." Henry, however, clearly "gave out" nothing.
>
> Sorry this is so detailed, but it should show that what we know about the supposed deaths of the "Princes" is absolutely nothing. It appears that Henry also knew nothing. The bones in the urn also tell us nothing, but that's a topic for another post.
>
> Carol
>

Good point. I wonder if Eleanor had become pregnant might history had turned out very different and probably a lot better.

Of course there are many possible reasons Eleanor kept quiet. If Edward had tired of her and dumped her it would have taken an extremely brave woman to step forward and claim she was the true wife of Edward if it was something he patently did not want.

Perhaps she was not well at that stage even...another reason for not rocking the boat.

Was she simply ashamed, mortified that she had been conned into Edward's bed. Clearly she was very pious. Did her very piousness have some impact on her decision to keep mouth very much shut.

Did she and Edward discuss the situation amicably...did he talk her around and perhaps buy her off in some way. Some sort of deal?

Maybe it was none of these...still it's fun to speculate.....Eileen

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> There is a possible reason why Eleanor nor her family spoke out.  Eleanor was barren and kings need heirs.  Elizabeth Woodville was particularly fertile and produced the necessary heirs.  Perhaps Eleanor decided that she would not 'rock the boat' as it were.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> 
>
>
>
>  
> Your questions are very good though Greg. And if you apply them to Eleanor Butler then there's also a surprising lack of hard fact (sorry JAH)
>  
> Are there any documents of the 1460s which hint that Edward had a relationship with her?
> Where and when did it take place? (I know JAH says she may have petitioned Edward about her lands but such petitioning was usually done by or with an attorney - where was he in all this?)
> Why did her family never say anything - this damaged her good name? (Humphrey was knighted by HT, Eleanor Mowbray had been deprived of the Norfolk lands by Edward but neither said a thing for or against)?
> Where was the local gossip?
>  
> Like the Tower, I just can't think that Morton et al were so efficient that they could wipe out every bit of evidence and gossip. When I went to Leicester recently a lady there, nothing to do with Richard, said 'we've known in Leicester for centuries that Richard was there - people were just too mean to dig him up' Surely someone in the East End of London has an oral tradition of the princes' story or someone who knew the Talbots picked up some gossip about Eleanor. It's all extremely odd. H. 
>
>
>
> On Friday, 24 January 2014, 23:31, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
>  
> Thanks Carol for all this information.The more research that is done the closer we will come to the truth.Richard was a good man.
> Kathryn x
>
> --- In , <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Greg wrote:
> >
> > Richard III Society Forum - Discussion area for 15th 16th century history " Who was first to find that the boys were gone?<snip>"
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > As I said in another post, essentially the answers to your questions are "no one" and "nothing." Tyrell's supposed confession is almost certainly Sir Thomas More's invention.
> >
> > Here's what we do know. (I may add speculations along the way, but you'll recognize them as such by the hedge words like "possibly" and "apparently.") Warning: This post will be long and you may need to click reply and the three dots to read the whole thing.
> >
> > Richard, in his role as Protector, took Edward V from the control of the Woodvilles and brought him safely to London. Edward was at first lodged in a bishop's palace, but the council voted unanimously to move him to the royal apartments in the Tower, traditional lodgings for a king before he was crowned and also conveniently close to the council chamber, which was also in the Tower.
> >
> > After the death of Hastings, the Archbishop of Canterbury persuaded Elizabeth Woodville to let her younger son, Richard, Duke of York, join his brother in the Tower. A witness reports a friendly meeting between Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and his nephew.
> >
> > One source reports that the boys were seen playing and shooting in the Tower at various times during the mayor's year of 1483, which ended, I believe, in October.
> >
> > In late June, the Three Estates presented their petition to Richard declaring the boys illegitimate because of the precontract (previous marriage) between Edward IV and Eleanor Butler and asking Richard to accept the kingship. He does so.
> >
> > On July 6, Richard and Anne are crowned. Later in the month, he begins his progress northward.
> >
> > On July 29, Richard sent his letter to Chancellor Russell about "the fact of an enterprise," apparently an attempt to "rescue" the boys from the Tower though other sources say it was an attempt to "rescue" their sisters from sanctuary. Apparently, there was another "rescue" attempt involving a relative of Margaret Beaufort's and deliberately set fires for which I don't have a date. Both attempts were unsuccessful and the would-be perpetrators executed.
> >
> > On September 8, Edward of Middleham is invested as Prince of Wales. At about this time, according to the Croyland Chronicle, Richard's nephews are moved deeper into the Tower under strong security.
> >
> > On October 12, Richard sends a letter to the chancellor about the treachery of Buckingham, whose rebellion shocks and astounds him.
> >
> > At about the same time, rumors arise (presumably deliberately spread among the dissident Yorkists by Tudor supporters or Buckingham) that the boys have been killed in some unknown way by unnamed persons. The focus of the rebellion shifts from restoring Edward V to making Tudor king (conditional upon his marriage to EoY).
> >
> > Richard, with aid from the weather, easily puts down the rebellion and executes Buckingham but says nothing, then or later, about his nephews. Tudor returns to Brittany.
> >
> > In December, Mancini completes his report to Angelo Cato in which he records having heard a rumor that the older nephew, Edward, has been killed but states clearly that he can't confirm it. He says nothing about the younger boy's being included in the rumor.
> >
> > The rumor surfaces in France (I think in January?), presented as fact. Almost certainly, this speech is simply anti-English propaganda.
> >
> > Tudor begins circulating propaganda calling himself the rightful king and Richard a usurper and murderer. Richard retaliates with petitions against Tudor calling attention to the illegitimacy on both sides of his family.
> >
> > August 22, 1485. Richard is killed at Bosworth. Henry calls himself king and backdates his reign by a day to make Richard and the men who fought for him traitors.
> >
> > Soon afterward, Henry seizes Elizabeth of York and Edward of Warwick, putting both in his mother's custody. He arrests Bishop Stillington, author of Titulus Regius. His attainder of Richard accuses him of tyranny, usurpation, and "shedding of infants blood" (no apostrophe) but no more specific accusation. He pardons Stillington, apparently so that he doesn't have to defend Titulus Regius, and makes sure that Titulus Regius is repealed unread, the original destroyed and all copies ordered to be burned. No precis is left on the Parliament Rolls. The brief explanation of the repeal refers to Richard's "tyranny" and calls TR a "malicious lie," but says nothing about the precontract or the "princes," who are nevertheless legitimized, along with EoY, but the repeal. By implication, Edward V is the rightful king of England.
> >
> > Henry makes sure that his claim is primarily by right of conquest and secondarily by right of his supposed Lancastrian heritage (the bill making Henry VI a rightful king and not a usurper calls Tudor Henry VI's nephew). He reluctantly marries EoY as promised but ignores her claim (now stronger than his) and does not crown her until months later when she is pregnant with his heir.
> >
> > About the time of Prince Arthur's death and the surfacing of Perkin Warbeck, Henry authorizes a tomb and memorial plaque for Richard in which he does not accuse him of murdering the "princes" and implies that he was the rightful king.
> >
> > May 6, 1502 (nearly seven years later)--Sir James Tyrell is executed for aiding a Yorkist pretender, Edmund de la Pole.
> >
> > Rumors apparently circulate that Tyrell murdered the "princes" for Richard III.
> >
> > Ca. 1514--More invents his detailed story of the smothering, burial, and reburial of the princes, ostensibly based on Tyrell's confession.
> >
> > Later, Francis Bacon adds to the confusion by stating that More's story is based on what "the king {Henry} gave out." Henry, however, clearly "gave out" nothing.
> >
> > Sorry this is so detailed, but it should show that what we know about the supposed deaths of the "Princes" is absolutely nothing. It appears that Henry also knew nothing. The bones in the urn also tell us nothing, but that's a topic for another post.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Dear Hilary,

> Are there any documents of the 1460s which hint that Edward had a relationship with her?
> Where and when did it take place? (I know JAH says she may have petitioned Edward about her lands but such petitioning was usually done by or with an attorney - where was he in all this?)
> Why did her family never say anything - this damaged her good name? ... Surely someone in the East End of London has an oral tradition of the princes' story or someone who knew the Talbots picked up some gossip about Eleanor. It's all extremely odd. H. << I suppose I need to research this before responding, but I'm not able to get to my sources, so sorry if there is a mistake here. But, I believe Dr. P. Hancock in his book about the individuals involved in the events leading up to Richard's taking the throne (can't recall the title-sorry)found possible connections in that Catesby his father were family acquaintances with Eleanor Butler's Talbot relations and were lawyers to the family being proximate neighbors in that area of the country. Dr. Hancock's theory is that Catesby could have played a signifcant role in the exposure of the pre-contract as much as Bishop Stillington, who may only have confirmed what Catesby revealed - as I recall. Dr. H's view of the importance of Catesby to Richard is indicated in the gifts/power given Catesby and possibly the cat's quick execution by Henry Tudor. Need to double check this and will get back as time permits. Virginia -----Original Message-----
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 9:10 am
Subject: Re: Princes Evidence? (Was Digest Number 4788)

Good point. I wonder if Eleanor had become pregnant might history had turned out very different and probably a lot better.

Of course there are many possible reasons Eleanor kept quiet. If Edward had tired of her and dumped her it would have taken an extremely brave woman to step forward and claim she was the true wife of Edward if it was something he patently did not want.

Perhaps she was not well at that stage even...another reason for not rocking the boat.

Was she simply ashamed, mortified that she had been conned into Edward's bed. Clearly she was very pious. Did her very piousness have some impact on her decision to keep mouth very much shut.

Did she and Edward discuss the situation amicably...did he talk her around and perhaps buy her off in some way. Some sort of deal?

Maybe it was none of these...still it's fun to speculate.....Eileen

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> There is a possible reason why Eleanor nor her family spoke out. Â Eleanor was barren and kings need heirs. Â Elizabeth Woodville was particularly fertile and produced the necessary heirs. Â Perhaps Eleanor decided that she would not 'rock the boat' as it were.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>Â
>
>
>
> Â
> Your questions are very good though Greg. And if you apply them to Eleanor Butler then there's also a surprising lack of hard fact (sorry JAH)
> Â
> Are there any documents of the 1460s which hint that Edward had a relationship with her?
> Where and when did it take place? (I know JAH says she may have petitioned Edward about her lands but such petitioning was usually done by or with an attorney - where was he in all this?)
> Why did her family never say anything - this damaged her good name? (Humphrey was knighted by HT, Eleanor Mowbray had been deprived of the Norfolk lands by Edward but neither said a thing for or against)?
> Where was the local gossip?
> Â
> Like the Tower, I just can't think that Morton et al were so efficient that they could wipe out every bit of evidence and gossip. When I went to Leicester recently a lady there, nothing to do with Richard, said 'we've known in Leicester for centuries that Richard was there - people were just too mean to dig him up' Surely someone in the East End of London has an oral tradition of the princes' story or someone who knew the Talbots picked up some gossip about Eleanor. It's all extremely odd. H.Â
>
>
>
> On Friday, 24 January 2014, 23:31, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Thanks Carol for all this information.The more research that is done the closer we will come to the truth.Richard was a good man.
> Kathryn x
>
> --- In , <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Greg wrote:
> >
> > Richard III Society Forum - Discussion area for 15th 16th century history " Who was first to find that the boys were gone?<snip>"
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > As I said in another post, essentially the answers to your questions are "no one" and "nothing." Tyrell's supposed confession is almost certainly Sir Thomas More's invention.
> >
> > Here's what we do know. (I may add speculations along the way, but you'll recognize them as such by the hedge words like "possibly" and "apparently.") Warning: This post will be long and you may need to click reply and the three dots to read the whole thing.
> >
> > Richard, in his role as Protector, took Edward V from the control of the Woodvilles and brought him safely to London. Edward was at first lodged in a bishop's palace, but the council voted unanimously to move him to the royal apartments in the Tower, traditional lodgings for a king before he was crowned and also conveniently close to the council chamber, which was also in the Tower.
> >
> > After the death of Hastings, the Archbishop of Canterbury persuaded Elizabeth Woodville to let her younger son, Richard, Duke of York, join his brother in the Tower. A witness reports a friendly meeting between Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and his nephew.
> >
> > One source reports that the boys were seen playing and shooting in the Tower at various times during the mayor's year of 1483, which ended, I believe, in October.
> >
> > In late June, the Three Estates presented their petition to Richard declaring the boys illegitimate because of the precontract (previous marriage) between Edward IV and Eleanor Butler and asking Richard to accept the kingship. He does so.
> >
> > On July 6, Richard and Anne are crowned. Later in the month, he begins his progress northward.
> >
> > On July 29, Richard sent his letter to Chancellor Russell about "the fact of an enterprise," apparently an attempt to "rescue" the boys from the Tower though other sources say it was an attempt to "rescue" their sisters from sanctuary. Apparently, there was another "rescue" attempt involving a relative of Margaret Beaufort's and deliberately set fires for which I don't have a date. Both attempts were unsuccessful and the would-be perpetrators executed.
> >
> > On September 8, Edward of Middleham is invested as Prince of Wales. At about this time, according to the Croyland Chronicle, Richard's nephews are moved deeper into the Tower under strong security.
> >
> > On October 12, Richard sends a letter to the chancellor about the treachery of Buckingham, whose rebellion shocks and astounds him.
> >
> > At about the same time, rumors arise (presumably deliberately spread among the dissident Yorkists by Tudor supporters or Buckingham) that the boys have been killed in some unknown way by unnamed persons. The focus of the rebellion shifts from restoring Edward V to making Tudor king (conditional upon his marriage to EoY).
> >
> > Richard, with aid from the weather, easily puts down the rebellion and executes Buckingham but says nothing, then or later, about his nephews. Tudor returns to Brittany.
> >
> > In December, Mancini completes his report to Angelo Cato in which he records having heard a rumor that the older nephew, Edward, has been killed but states clearly that he can't confirm it. He says nothing about the younger boy's being included in the rumor.
> >
> > The rumor surfaces in France (I think in January?), presented as fact. Almost certainly, this speech is simply anti-English propaganda.
> >
> > Tudor begins circulating propaganda calling himself the rightful king and Richard a usurper and murderer. Richard retaliates with petitions against Tudor calling attention to the illegitimacy on both sides of his family.
> >
> > August 22, 1485. Richard is killed at Bosworth. Henry calls himself king and backdates his reign by a day to make Richard and the men who fought for him traitors.
> >
> > Soon afterward, Henry seizes Elizabeth of York and Edward of Warwick, putting both in his mother's custody. He arrests Bishop Stillington, author of Titulus Regius. His attainder of Richard accuses him of tyranny, usurpation, and "shedding of infants blood" (no apostrophe) but no more specific accusation. He pardons Stillington, apparently so that he doesn't have to defend Titulus Regius, and makes sure that Titulus Regius is repealed unread, the original destroyed and all copies ordered to be burned. No precis is left on the Parliament Rolls. The brief explanation of the repeal refers to Richard's "tyranny" and calls TR a "malicious lie," but says nothing about the precontract or the "princes," who are nevertheless legitimized, along with EoY, but the repeal. By implication, Edward V is the rightful king of England.
> >
> > Henry makes sure that his claim is primarily by right of conquest and secondarily by right of his supposed Lancastrian heritage (the bill making Henry VI a rightful king and not a usurper calls Tudor Henry VI's nephew). He reluctantly marries EoY as promised but ignores her claim (now stronger than his) and does not crown her until months later when she is pregnant with his heir.
> >
> > About the time of Prince Arthur's death and the surfacing of Perkin Warbeck, Henry authorizes a tomb and memorial plaque for Richard in which he does not accuse him of murdering the "princes" and implies that he was the rightful king.
> >
> > May 6, 1502 (nearly seven years later)--Sir James Tyrell is executed for aiding a Yorkist pretender, Edmund de la Pole.
> >
> > Rumors apparently circulate that Tyrell murdered the "princes" for Richard III.
> >
> > Ca. 1514--More invents his detailed story of the smothering, burial, and reburial of the princes, ostensibly based on Tyrell's confession.
> >
> > Later, Francis Bacon adds to the confusion by stating that More's story is based on what "the king {Henry} gave out." Henry, however, clearly "gave out" nothing.
> >
> > Sorry this is so detailed, but it should show that what we know about the supposed deaths of the "Princes" is absolutely nothing. It appears that Henry also knew nothing. The bones in the urn also tell us nothing, but that's a topic for another post.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Pamela,just a thought........maybe Edward and Eleanor were in a relationship before Edward was King and for whatever reason it didn't work out or wasn't such a good idea afterwards when he was King.He might be expected to marry higher but then just fell for Elizabeth Woodville.Eleanor does seem to have been wronged though if there was a marriage and Edward did seem to have made a habit of this!(why does his grandson also spring to mind?)
Kathryn x


--- In , fairerichard3@... wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Hilary,
>
> > Are there any documents of the 1460s which hint that Edward had a relationship with her?
> > Where and when did it take place? (I know JAH says she may have petitioned Edward about her lands but such petitioning was usually done by or with an attorney - where was he in all this?)
> > Why did her family never say anything - this damaged her good name?
> ...
> Surely someone in the East End of London has an oral tradition of the princes' story or someone who knew the Talbots picked up some gossip about Eleanor. It's all extremely odd. H. <<
>
> I suppose I need to research this before responding, but I'm not able to get to my sources, so sorry if there is a mistake here. But, I believe Dr. P. Hancock in his book about the individuals involved in the events leading up to Richard's taking the throne (can't recall the title-sorry)found possible connections in that Catesby his father were family acquaintances with Eleanor Butler's Talbot relations and were lawyers to the family being proximate neighbors in that area of the country. Dr. Hancock's theory is that Catesby could have played a signifcant role in the exposure of the pre-contract as much as Bishop Stillington, who may only have confirmed what Catesby revealed - as I recall. Dr. H's view of the importance of Catesby to Richard is indicated in the gifts/power given Catesby and possibly the cat's quick execution by Henry Tudor. Need to double check this and will get back as time permits.
>
> Virginia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 9:10 am
> Subject: Re: Princes Evidence? (Was Digest Number 4788)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Good point. I wonder if Eleanor had become pregnant might history had turned out very different and probably a lot better.
>
> Of course there are many possible reasons Eleanor kept quiet. If Edward had tired of her and dumped her it would have taken an extremely brave woman to step forward and claim she was the true wife of Edward if it was something he patently did not want.
>
> Perhaps she was not well at that stage even...another reason for not rocking the boat.
>
> Was she simply ashamed, mortified that she had been conned into Edward's bed. Clearly she was very pious. Did her very piousness have some impact on her decision to keep mouth very much shut.
>
> Did she and Edward discuss the situation amicably...did he talk her around and perhaps buy her off in some way. Some sort of deal?
>
> Maybe it was none of these...still it's fun to speculate.....Eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >
> > There is a possible reason why Eleanor nor her family spoke out. Â Eleanor was barren and kings need heirs. Â Elizabeth Woodville was particularly fertile and produced the necessary heirs. Â Perhaps Eleanor decided that she would not 'rock the boat' as it were.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>Â
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Your questions are very good though Greg. And if you apply them to Eleanor Butler then there's also a surprising lack of hard fact (sorry JAH)
> > Â
> > Are there any documents of the 1460s which hint that Edward had a relationship with her?
> > Where and when did it take place? (I know JAH says she may have petitioned Edward about her lands but such petitioning was usually done by or with an attorney - where was he in all this?)
> > Why did her family never say anything - this damaged her good name? (Humphrey was knighted by HT, Eleanor Mowbray had been deprived of the Norfolk lands by Edward but neither said a thing for or against)?
> > Where was the local gossip?
> > Â
> > Like the Tower, I just can't think that Morton et al were so efficient that they could wipe out every bit of evidence and gossip. When I went to Leicester recently a lady there, nothing to do with Richard, said 'we've known in Leicester for centuries that Richard was there - people were just too mean to dig him up' Surely someone in the East End of London has an oral tradition of the princes' story or someone who knew the Talbots picked up some gossip about Eleanor. It's all extremely odd. H.Â
> >
> >
> >
> > On Friday, 24 January 2014, 23:31, "kathryng56@" <kathryng56@> wrote:
> >
> > Â
> > Thanks Carol for all this information.The more research that is done the closer we will come to the truth.Richard was a good man.
> > Kathryn x
> >
> > --- In , <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Greg wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard III Society Forum - Discussion area for 15th 16th century history " Who was first to find that the boys were gone?<snip>"
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > As I said in another post, essentially the answers to your questions are "no one" and "nothing." Tyrell's supposed confession is almost certainly Sir Thomas More's invention.
> > >
> > > Here's what we do know. (I may add speculations along the way, but you'll recognize them as such by the hedge words like "possibly" and "apparently.") Warning: This post will be long and you may need to click reply and the three dots to read the whole thing.
> > >
> > > Richard, in his role as Protector, took Edward V from the control of the Woodvilles and brought him safely to London. Edward was at first lodged in a bishop's palace, but the council voted unanimously to move him to the royal apartments in the Tower, traditional lodgings for a king before he was crowned and also conveniently close to the council chamber, which was also in the Tower.
> > >
> > > After the death of Hastings, the Archbishop of Canterbury persuaded Elizabeth Woodville to let her younger son, Richard, Duke of York, join his brother in the Tower. A witness reports a friendly meeting between Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and his nephew.
> > >
> > > One source reports that the boys were seen playing and shooting in the Tower at various times during the mayor's year of 1483, which ended, I believe, in October.
> > >
> > > In late June, the Three Estates presented their petition to Richard declaring the boys illegitimate because of the precontract (previous marriage) between Edward IV and Eleanor Butler and asking Richard to accept the kingship. He does so.
> > >
> > > On July 6, Richard and Anne are crowned. Later in the month, he begins his progress northward.
> > >
> > > On July 29, Richard sent his letter to Chancellor Russell about "the fact of an enterprise," apparently an attempt to "rescue" the boys from the Tower though other sources say it was an attempt to "rescue" their sisters from sanctuary. Apparently, there was another "rescue" attempt involving a relative of Margaret Beaufort's and deliberately set fires for which I don't have a date. Both attempts were unsuccessful and the would-be perpetrators executed.
> > >
> > > On September 8, Edward of Middleham is invested as Prince of Wales. At about this time, according to the Croyland Chronicle, Richard's nephews are moved deeper into the Tower under strong security.
> > >
> > > On October 12, Richard sends a letter to the chancellor about the treachery of Buckingham, whose rebellion shocks and astounds him.
> > >
> > > At about the same time, rumors arise (presumably deliberately spread among the dissident Yorkists by Tudor supporters or Buckingham) that the boys have been killed in some unknown way by unnamed persons. The focus of the rebellion shifts from restoring Edward V to making Tudor king (conditional upon his marriage to EoY).
> > >
> > > Richard, with aid from the weather, easily puts down the rebellion and executes Buckingham but says nothing, then or later, about his nephews. Tudor returns to Brittany.
> > >
> > > In December, Mancini completes his report to Angelo Cato in which he records having heard a rumor that the older nephew, Edward, has been killed but states clearly that he can't confirm it. He says nothing about the younger boy's being included in the rumor.
> > >
> > > The rumor surfaces in France (I think in January?), presented as fact. Almost certainly, this speech is simply anti-English propaganda.
> > >
> > > Tudor begins circulating propaganda calling himself the rightful king and Richard a usurper and murderer. Richard retaliates with petitions against Tudor calling attention to the illegitimacy on both sides of his family.
> > >
> > > August 22, 1485. Richard is killed at Bosworth. Henry calls himself king and backdates his reign by a day to make Richard and the men who fought for him traitors.
> > >
> > > Soon afterward, Henry seizes Elizabeth of York and Edward of Warwick, putting both in his mother's custody. He arrests Bishop Stillington, author of Titulus Regius. His attainder of Richard accuses him of tyranny, usurpation, and "shedding of infants blood" (no apostrophe) but no more specific accusation. He pardons Stillington, apparently so that he doesn't have to defend Titulus Regius, and makes sure that Titulus Regius is repealed unread, the original destroyed and all copies ordered to be burned. No precis is left on the Parliament Rolls. The brief explanation of the repeal refers to Richard's "tyranny" and calls TR a "malicious lie," but says nothing about the precontract or the "princes," who are nevertheless legitimized, along with EoY, but the repeal. By implication, Edward V is the rightful king of England.
> > >
> > > Henry makes sure that his claim is primarily by right of conquest and secondarily by right of his supposed Lancastrian heritage (the bill making Henry VI a rightful king and not a usurper calls Tudor Henry VI's nephew). He reluctantly marries EoY as promised but ignores her claim (now stronger than his) and does not crown her until months later when she is pregnant with his heir.
> > >
> > > About the time of Prince Arthur's death and the surfacing of Perkin Warbeck, Henry authorizes a tomb and memorial plaque for Richard in which he does not accuse him of murdering the "princes" and implies that he was the rightful king.
> > >
> > > May 6, 1502 (nearly seven years later)--Sir James Tyrell is executed for aiding a Yorkist pretender, Edmund de la Pole.
> > >
> > > Rumors apparently circulate that Tyrell murdered the "princes" for Richard III.
> > >
> > > Ca. 1514--More invents his detailed story of the smothering, burial, and reburial of the princes, ostensibly based on Tyrell's confession.
> > >
> > > Later, Francis Bacon adds to the confusion by stating that More's story is based on what "the king {Henry} gave out." Henry, however, clearly "gave out" nothing.
> > >
> > > Sorry this is so detailed, but it should show that what we know about the supposed deaths of the "Princes" is absolutely nothing. It appears that Henry also knew nothing. The bones in the urn also tell us nothing, but that's a topic for another post.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>

I actually agree with all this and as you say it is fun to speculate. The person who surprises me most is Elizabeth Mowbray, who after the death of her daughter and the loss of the Mowbray lands to John Howard, actually had little to lose by speaking out to defend a sister she so clearly loved. The rest of the Talbots seem so deep in Lancaster; I wouldn't trust them an inch. I supposed when you think about it, like the remnants of the Beauchamps, there must have been many who yearned after the good old days when we were winning victories in France.Richard Beauchamp was a legend, Old Talbot was a legend; it must have been difficult coming down to earth with skirmishes in Blore Heath etc after the glories of Agincourt. I blame Edward for all of this - but I bet if we had film of him we'd fall for him, just as we're still fascinated by JFK even though we know all his faults. H

On Sunday, 26 January 2014, 20:31, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
Pamela,just a thought........maybe Edward and Eleanor were in a relationship before Edward was King and for whatever reason it didn't work out or wasn't such a good idea afterwards when he was King.He might be expected to marry higher but then just fell for Elizabeth Woodville.Eleanor does seem to have been wronged though if there was a marriage and Edward did seem to have made a habit of this!(why does his grandson also spring to mind?)
Kathryn x

--- In , fairerichard3@... wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Hilary,
>
> > Are there any documents of the 1460s which hint that Edward had a relationship with her?
> > Where and when did it take place? (I know JAH says she may have petitioned Edward about her lands but such petitioning was usually done by or with an attorney - whereà was he in all this?)
> > Why did her family never say anything - this damaged her good name?
> ...
> Surely someone in the East End of London has an oralà tradition of the princes' story or someone who knew the Talbots picked up some gossip about Eleanor. It's all extremely odd. H.à <<
>
> I suppose I need to research this before responding, but I'm not able to get to my sources, so sorry if there is a mistake here. But, I believe Dr. P. Hancock in his book about the individuals involved in the events leading up to Richard's taking the throne (can't recall the title-sorry)found possible connections in that Catesby his father were family acquaintances with Eleanor Butler's Talbot relations and were lawyers to the family being proximate neighbors in that area of the country. Dr. Hancock's theory is that Catesby could have played a signifcant role in the exposure of the pre-contract as much as Bishop Stillington, who may only have confirmed what Catesby revealed - as I recall. Dr. H's view of the importance of Catesby to Richard is indicated in the gifts/power given Catesby and possibly the cat's quick execution by Henry Tudor. Need to double check this and will get back as time permits.
>
> Virginia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 9:10 am
> Subject: Re: Princes Evidence? (Was Digest Number 4788)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Good point. I wonder if Eleanor had become pregnant might history had turned out very different and probably a lot better.
>
> Of course there are many possible reasons Eleanor kept quiet. If Edward had tired of her and dumped her it would have taken an extremely brave woman to step forward and claim she was the true wife of Edward if it was something he patently did not want.
>
> Perhaps she was not well at that stage even...another reason for not rocking the boat.
>
> Was she simply ashamed, mortified that she had been conned into Edward's bed. Clearly she was very pious. Did her very piousness have some impact on her decision to keep mouth very much shut.
>
> Did she and Edward discuss the situation amicably...did he talk her around and perhaps buy her off in some way. Some sort of deal?
>
> Maybe it was none of these...still it's fun to speculate.....Eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >
> > There is a possible reason why Eleanor nor her family spoke out. Ã Eleanor was barren and kings need heirs. Ã Elizabeth Woodville was particularly fertile and produced the necessary heirs. Ã Perhaps Eleanor decided that she would not 'rock the boat' as it were.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>Ã
> >
> >
> >
> > Ã
> > Your questions are very good though Greg. And if you apply them to Eleanor Butler then there's also a surprising lack of hard fact (sorry JAH)
> > Ã
> > Are there any documents of the 1460s which hint that Edward had a relationship with her?
> > Where and when did it take place? (I know JAH says she may have petitioned Edward about her lands but such petitioning was usually done by or with an attorney - whereà was he in all this?)
> > Why did her family never say anything - this damaged her good name? (Humphrey was knighted by HT, Eleanor Mowbray had been deprivedà of the Norfolk lands by Edward but neither said a thing for or against)?
> > Where was the localà gossip?
> > Ã
> > Like the Tower, I just can't think that Morton et al were so efficient that they could wipe out every bit of evidence and gossip. When I went to Leicester recently a lady there, nothing to do with Richard, said 'we've known in Leicester for centuries that Richard was there - people were just too mean to dig him up' Surely someone in the East End of London has an oralà tradition of the princes' story or someone who knew the Talbots picked up some gossip about Eleanor. It's all extremely odd. H.Ã
> >
> >
> >
> > On Friday, 24 January 2014, 23:31, "kathryng56@" <kathryng56@> wrote:
> >
> > Ã
> > Thanks Carol for all this information.The more research that is done the closer we will come to the truth.Richard was a good man.
> > Kathryn x
> >
> > --- In , <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Greg wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard III Society Forum - Discussion area for 15th 16th century history " Who was first to find that the boys were gone?<snip>"
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > As I said in another post, essentially the answers to your questions are "no one" and "nothing." Tyrell's supposed confession is almost certainly Sir Thomas More's invention.
> > >
> > > Here's what we do know. (I may add speculations along the way, but you'll recognize them as such by the hedge words like "possibly" and "apparently.") Warning: This post will be long and you may need to click reply and the three dots to read the whole thing.
> > >
> > > Richard, in his role as Protector, took Edward V from the control of the Woodvilles and brought him safely to London. Edward was at first lodged in a bishop's palace, but the council voted unanimously to move him to the royal apartments in the Tower, traditional lodgings for a king before he was crowned and also conveniently close to the council chamber, which was also in the Tower.
> > >
> > > After the death of Hastings, the Archbishop of Canterbury persuaded Elizabeth Woodville to let her younger son, Richard, Duke of York, join his brother in the Tower. A witness reports a friendly meeting between Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and his nephew.
> > >
> > > One source reports that the boys were seen playing and shooting in the Tower at various times during the mayor's year of 1483, which ended, I believe, in October.
> > >
> > > In late June, the Three Estates presented their petition to Richard declaring the boys illegitimate because of the precontract (previous marriage) between Edward IV and Eleanor Butler and asking Richard to accept the kingship. He does so.
> > >
> > > On July 6, Richard and Anne are crowned. Later in the month, he begins his progress northward.
> > >
> > > On July 29, Richard sent his letter to Chancellor Russell about "the fact of an enterprise," apparently an attempt to "rescue" the boys from the Tower though other sources say it was an attempt to "rescue" their sisters from sanctuary. Apparently, there was another "rescue" attempt involving a relative of Margaret Beaufort's and deliberately set fires for which I don't have a date. Both attempts were unsuccessful and the would-be perpetrators executed.
> > >
> > > On September 8, Edward of Middleham is invested as Prince of Wales. At about this time, according to the Croyland Chronicle, Richard's nephews are moved deeper into the Tower under strong security.
> > >
> > > On October 12, Richard sends a letter to the chancellor about the treachery of Buckingham, whose rebellion shocks and astounds him.
> > >
> > > At about the same time, rumors arise (presumably deliberately spread among the dissident Yorkists by Tudor supporters or Buckingham) that the boys have been killed in some unknown way by unnamed persons. The focus of the rebellion shifts from restoring Edward V to making Tudor king (conditional upon his marriage to EoY).
> > >
> > > Richard, with aid from the weather, easily puts down the rebellion and executes Buckingham but says nothing, then or later, about his nephews. Tudor returns to Brittany.
> > >
> > > In December, Mancini completes his report to Angelo Cato in which he records having heard a rumor that the older nephew, Edward, has been killed but states clearly that he can't confirm it. He says nothing about the younger boy's being included in the rumor.
> > >
> > > The rumor surfaces in France (I think in January?), presented as fact. Almost certainly, this speech is simply anti-English propaganda.
> > >
> > > Tudor begins circulating propaganda calling himself the rightful king and Richard a usurper and murderer. Richard retaliates with petitions against Tudor calling attention to the illegitimacy on both sides of his family.
> > >
> > > August 22, 1485. Richard is killed at Bosworth. Henry calls himself king and backdates his reign by a day to make Richard and the men who fought for him traitors.
> > >
> > > Soon afterward, Henry seizes Elizabeth of York and Edward of Warwick, putting both in his mother's custody. He arrests Bishop Stillington, author of Titulus Regius. His attainder of Richard accuses him of tyranny, usurpation, and "shedding of infants blood" (no apostrophe) but no more specific accusation. He pardons Stillington, apparently so that he doesn't have to defend Titulus Regius, and makes sure that Titulus Regius is repealed unread, the original destroyed and all copies ordered to be burned. No precis is left on the Parliament Rolls. The brief explanation of the repeal refers to Richard's "tyranny" and calls TR a "malicious lie," but says nothing about the precontract or the "princes," who are nevertheless legitimized, along with EoY, but the repeal. By implication, Edward V is the rightful king of England.
> > >
> > > Henry makes sure that his claim is primarily by right of conquest and secondarily by right of his supposed Lancastrian heritage (the bill making Henry VI a rightful king and not a usurper calls Tudor Henry VI's nephew). He reluctantly marries EoY as promised but ignores her claim (now stronger than his) and does not crown her until months later when she is pregnant with his heir.
> > >
> > > About the time of Prince Arthur's death and the surfacing of Perkin Warbeck, Henry authorizes a tomb and memorial plaque for Richard in which he does not accuse him of murdering the "princes" and implies that he was the rightful king.
> > >
> > > May 6, 1502 (nearly seven years later)--Sir James Tyrell is executed for aiding a Yorkist pretender, Edmund de la Pole.
> > >
> > > Rumors apparently circulate that Tyrell murdered the "princes" for Richard III.
> > >
> > > Ca. 1514--More invents his detailed story of the smothering, burial, and reburial of the princes, ostensibly based on Tyrell's confession.
> > >
> > > Later, Francis Bacon adds to the confusion by stating that More's story is based on what "the king {Henry} gave out." Henry, however, clearly "gave out" nothing.
> > >
> > > Sorry this is so detailed, but it should show that what we know about the supposed deaths of the "Princes" is absolutely nothing. It appears that Henry also knew nothing. The bones in the urn also tell us nothing, but that's a topic for another post.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>