Alison Weir's Elizabeth of York

Alas, the forum search doesn't work for me, but was it ever discussed what Alison Weir's big 'revelation' about Richard and Elizabeth of York turned out to be, in her new biography of EoY?

I haven't read the book, and doubt I ever will... but I'm curious to know whether that so-called 'revelation' was any revelation at all (I'm guessing it wasn't).
Pansy

No I don't and haven't read it. But according to the write-up Elizabeth schemed to seduce murderer Richard and then Henry as well! There is a lovely review which starts at 'what stage does biography become pointless.....'. It can't have been a great revelation because even the most gushing reviewers say it's more about EOY's clothes and that Thomas Penn tells us more. Now as Thomas Penn starts his proper biography of Henry VII just before she dies, I don't think Weir can be telling us very much. H.

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 21:41, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
Alas, the forum search doesn't work for me, but was it ever discussed what Alison Weir's big 'revelation' about Richard and Elizabeth of York turned out to be, in her new biography of EoY?
I haven't read the book, and doubt I ever will... but I'm curious to know whether that so-called 'revelation' was any revelation at all (I'm guessing it wasn't).
Pansy

Weir's revelation, I expect its one of her usual inventions to denigrate Richard. I for one will not be reading it.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> No I don't and haven't read it. But according to the write-up Elizabeth schemed to seduce murderer Richard and then Henry as well! There is a lovely review which starts at 'what stage does biography become pointless.....'. It can't have been a great revelation because even the most gushing reviewers say it's more about EOY's clothes and that Thomas Penn tells us more. Now as Thomas Penn starts his proper biography of Henry VII just before she dies, I don't think Weir can be telling us very much. H.
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 21:41, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>  
> Alas, the forum search doesn't work for me, but was it ever discussed what Alison Weir's big 'revelation' about Richard and Elizabeth of York turned out to be, in her new biography of EoY?
>
> I haven't read the book, and doubt I ever will... but I'm curious to know whether that so-called 'revelation' was any revelation at all (I'm guessing it wasn't).
>
> Pansy
>

I flicked through a copy. A couple of things stand out - at the beginning she talks about TWOTR and says (which) '...contemporaries called the Cousins' War....' A bit later on she talks about the discovery of Richard's remains and says '...explore implications of his being found to be the "crouchback" of the so-called propagandists."
So on the basis of these two quotes, I don't think I shall be rushing to read it.
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
No I don't and haven't read it. But according to the write-up Elizabeth schemed to seduce murderer Richard and then Henry as well! There is a lovely review which starts at 'what stage does biography become pointless.....'. It can't have been a great revelation because even the most gushing reviewers say it's more about EOY's clothes and that Thomas Penn tells us more. Now as Thomas Penn starts his proper biography of Henry VII just before she dies, I don't think Weir can be telling us very much. H.

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 21:41, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
Alas, the forum search doesn't work for me, but was it ever discussed what Alison Weir's big 'revelation' about Richard and Elizabeth of York turned out to be, in her new biography of EoY?
I haven't read the book, and doubt I ever will... but I'm curious to know whether that so-called 'revelation' was any revelation at all (I'm guessing it wasn't).
Pansy

Alison Weir is giving a talk at the Richard III Exhibition when it visits Sudeley Castle after being in Gloucester. It's not far from me, but I will not be making the effort. Who on earth decided to ask her? Maybe she'll get a good Head-butting! Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:13 AM To: Subject: Re: Alison Weir's Elizabeth of York

No I don't and haven't read it. But according to the write-up Elizabeth schemed to seduce murderer Richard and then Henry as well! There is a lovely review which starts at 'what stage does biography become pointless.....'. It can't have been a great revelation because even the most gushing reviewers say it's more about EOY's clothes and that Thomas Penn tells us more. Now as Thomas Penn starts his proper biography of Henry VII just before she dies, I don't think Weir can be telling us very much. H.

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 21:41, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
Alas, the forum search doesn't work for me, but was it ever discussed what Alison Weir's big 'revelation' about Richard and Elizabeth of York turned out to be, in her new biography of EoY? I haven't read the book, and doubt I ever will... but I'm curious to know whether that so-called 'revelation' was any revelation at all (I'm guessing it wasn't). Pansy

She will be upset though that some who give her 4 and 5 stars refer to her as primarily a writer of fiction. And, come to think of it, that's about right!

On Wednesday, 12 February 2014, 10:26, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
I flicked through a copy. A couple of things stand out - at the beginning she talks about TWOTR and says (which) '...contemporaries called the Cousins' War....' A bit later on she talks about the discovery of Richard's remains and says '...explore implications of his being found to be the "crouchback" of the so-called propagandists."
So on the basis of these two quotes, I don't think I shall be rushing to read it.
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
No I don't and haven't read it. But according to the write-up Elizabeth schemed to seduce murderer Richard and then Henry as well! There is a lovely review which starts at 'what stage does biography become pointless.....'. It can't have been a great revelation because even the most gushing reviewers say it's more about EOY's clothes and that Thomas Penn tells us more. Now as Thomas Penn starts his proper biography of Henry VII just before she dies, I don't think Weir can be telling us very much. H.

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 21:41, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
Alas, the forum search doesn't work for me, but was it ever discussed what Alison Weir's big 'revelation' about Richard and Elizabeth of York turned out to be, in her new biography of EoY?
I haven't read the book, and doubt I ever will... but I'm curious to know whether that so-called 'revelation' was any revelation at all (I'm guessing it wasn't).
Pansy

M/s Weir obviously doesn't understand the difference between scoliosis and kyphosis and has not listened to people who know better than her that Richard's scoliosis would not have been apparent during his lifetime.
Mary

I think even worse is the fact that she doesn't know the difference between history and journalism, to employ the distinction that Alan Bennett used in 'The History Boys'...

Trouble is, she's not the only person who gets things wrong, and publications aren't even consistent in how they relate the facts. The 'Telegraph' today has an article from the science editor saying that the discovery the body confirmed the hunchback stories, yet an opinion piece in the same edition went out of its way to say that scoliosis is *not* a hunchback.

Anyway, I wonder if we don't get too hung up on the whole scoliosis / kyphosis thing? I know it's significant with regard to the Tudor sources battle-ground, but it's a very arcane distinction for someone outside the subject. Perhaps better to stress Richard was a good king because of good governance, rather than because he wasn't stacked up with an "envious mountain" on his back...

Jonathan
From: "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 February 2014, 12:19
Subject: Re: Alison Weir's Elizabeth of York

M/s Weir obviously doesn't understand the difference between scoliosis and kyphosis and has not listened to people who know better than her that Richard's scoliosis would not have been apparent during his lifetime.
Mary

It's just soooooooo tedious. I was going to Sudely as it's the nearest place to me but I really don want to have to see this woman....Still she can't be there every day...can she? Eileen

Just avoid April 4th! She'll rook you for £12 as well. It's only £10 for the preview night in Gloucester, and less than that for the rest of the time. http://www.sudeleycastle.co.uk/exhibitions/richard-iii-returns-sudeley-castle-gardens/ I wonder what she thinks of >>>>(snip) Esteemed historian Alison Weir, whose early modern fictional works are among the most popular in the UK.<<<< Hmm. I suppose it means her later stuff is a load of cods! And her non-fiction burblings you can forget altogether! Tee hee. Fingers crossed for Sparky. luvs Sandra =^..^= From: eileenbates147@... Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:59 PM To: Subject: Re: Alison Weir's Elizabeth of York

It's just soooooooo tedious. I was going to Sudely as it's the nearest place to me but I really don want to have to see this woman....Still she can't be there every day...can she? Eileen

She writes non-fiction? She might think she does.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
Sent: 12 February 2014 13:13
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Alison Weir's Elizabeth of York

Just avoid April 4th! She’ll rook you for £12 as well. It’s only £10 for the preview night in Gloucester , and less than that for the rest of the time.

http://www.sudeleycastle.co.uk/exhibitions/richard-iii-returns-sudeley-castle-gardens/

I wonder what she thinks of >>>>(snip) Esteemed historian Alison Weir, whose early modern fictional works are among the most popular in the UK. <<<<

Hmm. I suppose it means her later stuff is a load of cods! And her non-fiction burblings you can forget altogether! Tee hee.

Fingers crossed for Sparky.

luvs

Sandra

=^..^=

From: eileenbates147@...

Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:59 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Alison Weir's Elizabeth of York

It's just soooooooo tedious. I was going to Sudely as it's the nearest place to me but I really don want to have to see this woman....Still she can't be there every day...can she? Eileen

thanks for that Sandra...I'll check out the dates...Eileen

Either that, or go on that day and call her on some of her misstatements.
Gilda


On Feb 12, 2014, at 8:12 AM, SandraMachin wrote:


Just avoid April 4th! She'll rook you for £12 as well. It's only £10 for the preview night in Gloucester, and less than that for the rest of the time.http://www.sudeleycastle.co.uk/exhibitions/richard-iii-returns-sudeley-castle-gardens/ I wonder what she thinks of >>>>(snip) Esteemed historian Alison Weir, whose early modern fictional works are among the most popular in the UK.<<<<Hmm. I suppose it means her later stuff is a load of cods! And her non-fiction burblings you can forget altogether! Tee hee. Fingers crossed for Sparky. luvsSandra=^..^= From: [email protected]: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:59 PMTo: Subject: Re: Alison Weir's Elizabeth of York

It's just soooooooo tedious. I was going to Sudely as it's the nearest place to me but I really don want to have to see this woman....Still she can't be there every day...can she? Eileen

I've only read Weir's *Princes in the Tower.* But if More reads like backstairs gossip, Weir reads like she's spitting venom in relation to Richard.

I forget who it was who said it -- author or someone here -- but they suggested she and/or Hicks both write as if Richard had personally offended them. I think it may be another case where what someone believes about Richard reveals more about that person than it does about Richard.

Did Jung ever analyze the EvilKing! archetype? Because I often think what Weir is venomizing is her own inner archetype.

~Weds

I was horrified at the venom Alison Weir directed at Richard in the Princes in the Tower. Her logic was all over the place and even facts that were favourable to him were construed to make him look like a monster. Also, she based so much of her argument around the 'bits of rag and velvet' with the bones, with no reference to whether it was true or how it may have got there. Hasn't she ever heard of 'chain of evidence.' That book turned me off Alison Weir, which makes me wonder why is listed as recommended reading on the society's website.
http://www.richardiii.net/2_5_0_riii_controversy.php

Nico

Nico....might it be a good idea to read books by authors such as Weir so that you will be able to judge whether such said authors are indeed venomous and thus be able to decide how much credence can be given to their theories. For example I am pleased that I read Hicks' Anne Neville book so that I could get the 'feel' of him....and I was able to conclude quite a lot from this....sadly that he really does not like Richard at all and thus his perception is coloured by this dislike which I find baffling for a historian for surely they should be unbiased. You can then feel free to discard book into trash can or give it to a charity shop where it might earn a little bit for the charity.....of course if you have an open fire you can always use it for fuel. :0) Eileen

Gilda wrote:
"Either that, or go on that day and call her [Alison Weir] on some of her misstatements."
Carol responds:
I strongly second Gilda's suggestion. Why turn down the opportunity to publicly show up Alison Weir? Remember, her supposedly newfound source for "Princes in the Tower" turned out to be Sir Thomas More! By all means, if you can, read her book, find misstatements, and find a source that definitively refutes her. Just being challenged in public will embarrass her, but to be proven wrong before a large audience might shut her up. Or so we can hope. And if those of you who have the opportunity pass it up, her audience, or portions of it, will be convinced that she's a historian and her nonsensical ideas are facts.
Carol

I was horrified at the venom Alison Weir directed at Richard in the Princes in the Tower. Her logic was all over the place and even facts that were favourable to him were construed to make him look like a monster. Also, she based so much of her argument around the 'bits of rag and velvet' with the bones, with no reference to whether it was true or how it may have got there. Hasn't she ever heard of 'chain of evidence.' That book turned me off Alison Weir, which makes me wonder why is listed as recommended reading on the society's website.

http://www.richardiii.net/2_5_0_riii_controversy.php

Nico

I was horrified by the venom that Alison Weir directed at Richard in "The Princes in the Tower." Her logic was all over the place, and even facts that could have been favourable were turned against him to make him look like a monster. Also, she framed so much of her argument around the fact that 'bits of rag and velvet' were found with the bones (no consideration it was true or not, or how it got there). Clearly she had never heard of 'chain of evidence.' That book really turned me off Alison Weir, so I was really surprised to find on the recommended reading list on the society's website. Does anyone know why it is listed?
http://www.richardiii.net/2_5_0_riii_controversy.php

Nico

Eileen... I'm not suggesting that nobody should read that particular book by Alison Weir. I'm just puzzled as to why the Richard III Society would give a book that is extremely anti-Richard III the oxygen of publicity on its website, when there are much better books on the subject. Of course it is good to read a variety of opinions, but since the society aims at rehabilitating Richard's reputation, why promote a book that panders to all the worst cliches about him? Perhaps the book list should be updated to include some newer material like the recent Josephine Wilkinson book.

I agree with you that Hicks good for some things, and I'll credit Alison Weir with having an engaging writing style. It certainly wasn't a boring book at all, but having read it I do think it was venomous in that she lt her dislike of Richard get in the way of the reasoned analysis that the subject called for.

Nico


---In , <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

Nico....might it be a good idea to read books by authors such as Weir so that you will be able to judge whether such said authors are indeed venomous and thus be able to decide how much credence can be given to their theories. For example I am pleased that I read Hicks' Anne Neville book so that I could get the 'feel' of him....and I was able to conclude quite a lot from this....sadly that he really does not like Richard at all and thus his perception is coloured by this dislike which I find baffling for a historian for surely they should be unbiased. You can then feel free to discard book into trash can or give it to a charity shop where it might earn a little bit for the charity.....of course if you have an open fire you can always use it for fuel. :0) Eileen

Nico wrote:
I was horrified at the venom Alison Weir directed at Richard in the Princes in the Tower. Her logic was all over the place and even facts that were favourable to him were construed to make him look like a monster. Also, she based so much of her argument around the 'bits of rag and velvet' with the bones, with no reference to whether it was true or how it may have got there. Hasn't she ever heard of 'chain of evidence.' That book turned me off Alison Weir, which makes me wonder why is listed as recommended reading on the society's website."

Carol responds:
Hi, Nico. I agree with you about Alison Weir. May I recommend Audrey Williamson as an antidote? To be fair, the Society lists Weir's book under "further reading," not "recommended reading." I think they're trying to be objective and acknowledge that there are (at least) two sides to the debate. They want people to read both sides and make up their own minds, as you did.
Carol

Oh yes Nico I understood you were not suggesting that....I cannot find my message now as to what I exactly said but Im sorry if you thought I was suggesting that. I do agree with what you are saying actually and another example I found even stranger was the inclusion of an article by Prof Hicks re Anne Neville on the society's old web site which had erroneous quotes about the pre-contract which I think has now, hopefully been removed and replaced by a far superior one written by Marie on the subject.
Eileen

Thanks Carol, I read the Audrey Williamson book and it was excellent.

Nico, Alison Weir may have been used as a source for the Society website article on the Princes in the Tower because she was adamant that James Tyrrell had murdered them because there is documentary evidence to show that he was in London on 3rd of September 1483, when Weir says they were killed. However, there is some evidence to suggest that they were alive and well in the Tower on the 8th of September when Tyrrell was back in Yorkshire. I am not sure of the sources on this but I think that it has been discussed on here in the past. Also there is an excellent review of her book on the Princes in the Ricardian. It was written by Peter Hammond, now one of the Presidents of the Society, just after the book was published. When her book was published Weir wrote letters to all the newspapers saying that she had found a new source for the story of the Princes which proved that Richard had definitely murdered them. Her new source? Thomas More. You can imagine that Peter told it as it was and that More was certainly not a new source and had been discredited

I'm beginning to think Alison Weir is Philippa Gregory with a slightly posher-seeming writing style.

All I needed to know about Weir as a serious historian is that she still believes Richard was planning to marry his niece, utterly ignoring not only Richard's own heated denials, but the discovery in Portugese archives of the marriage negotiations that would have seen his niece married off to Manuel while her uncle wed Joanna.

Tamara

Nico wrote:

Thanks Carol, I read the Audrey Williamson book and it was excellent.

Carol responds:
I'm glad you enjoyed it. Unfortunately, she died in 1986 and isn't around to write more books. The closest thing to her is Annette Carson. Have you read "Richard III: The Maligned King," which I also recommend? (The first chapter, about the possible poisoning of Edward IV by the Woodvilles, gets the book off to a rather shaky start, but the rest of it is quite good. And that seemingly wild theory actually has more basis than one might think. We need to explore all possibilities if we hope to find the truth.)

Carol

Thanks Carol,
That is sad about Audrey Williamson. Its a shame she didn't write more books. I liked the Royal Blood by Bertram Fields a lot too. I haven't read Annette Carson's book yet, except for a couple of chapters in the bookstore, but it was good any that is one I will be buying. ... Nico

Thanks Carol,
That is sad about Audrey Williamson. Its a shame she didn't write more books. I liked the Royal Blood by Bertram Fields a lot too. I haven't read Annette Carson's book yet, except for a couple of chapters in the bookstore, but it was good any that is one I will be buying. ... Nico

Mary, I'm pleased to hear about the Peter Hammond review of the Alison Weir book. I'll have a look to see if I can find it in one of the online editions of the Ricardian. If you find the reference to the Princes being alive on September 8th, please post. Meanwhile, I'll have a look for it too.

Actually, I'll be giving Alison Weir another chance with the Elizabeth of York book. At least, as far as I know anyway, she doesn't hate her subject this time, so maybe she'll be better. It is hard to find anything that captures the Elizabeth/Henry relationship, so I'll see what she comes up with. If I think its worth reading, I'll post a review. It will be a while though, as there is a long waiting list at the library for this one, since I don't fancy buying it. That's the problem with Alison Weir, she has high volume sales, a huge following and a lot of people don't question her views. Tamara, you have a point with the comparison with Phillippa Gregory. I'd say the same about her.

Nico

Nico






---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Nico wrote:

Thanks Carol, I read the Audrey Williamson book and it was excellent.

Carol responds:
I'm glad you enjoyed it. Unfortunately, she died in 1986 and isn't around to write more books. The closest thing to her is Annette Carson. Have you read "Richard III: The Maligned King," which I also recommend? (The first chapter, about the possible poisoning of Edward IV by the Woodvilles, gets the book off to a rather shaky start, but the rest of it is quite good. And that seemingly wild theory actually has more basis than one might think. We need to explore all possibilities if we hope to find the truth.)

Carol

Thanks Carol,
That is sad about Audrey Williamson. Its a shame she didn't write more books. I liked the Royal Blood by Bertram Fields a lot too. I haven't read Annette Carson's book yet, except for a couple of chapters in the bookstore, but it was good any that is one I will be buying. ... Nico

My messages do not seem to be going through, hope this does:

Mary, I'm pleased to hear about the Peter Hammond review of the Alison Weir book. I'll have a look to see if I can find it in one of the online editions of the Ricardian. If you find the reference to the Princes being alive on September 8th, please post. Meanwhile, I'll have a look for it too.

Actually, I'll be giving Alison Weir another chance with the Elizabeth of York book. At least, as far as I know anyway, she doesn't hate her subject this time, so maybe she'll be better. It is hard to find anything that captures the Elizabeth/Henry relationship, so I'll see what she comes up with. If I think its worth reading, I'll post a review. It will be a while though, as there is a long waiting list at the library for this one, since I don't fancy buying it. That's the problem with Alison Weir, she has high volume sales, a huge following and a lot of people don't question her views. Tamara, you have a point with the comparison with Phillippa Gregory. I'd say the same about her.

Nico

I think there was a discussion on this forum a few months back about the Princes being alive after 3rd September 1483. It may have been Mancini or the Croyland Chronicler who reported them being alive on 8th Sept 1483. I am sure someone on the Forum will remember or know. Possibly Annette has mentioned it in her book, I'll see if I can find it.Mary

Thanks Mary, I'll also try to search past messages and see what I can find. For some reason my posts aren't showing up. I don't know what is going on with yahoo. Nico



On Sunday, 16 February 2014, 18:19, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
I think there was a discussion on this forum a few months back about the Princes being alive after 3rd September 1483. It may have been Mancini or the Croyland Chronicler who reported them being alive on 8th Sept 1483. I am sure someone on the Forum will remember or know. Possibly Annette has mentioned it in her book, I'll see if I can find it.Mary

Thanks Carol,
That is sad about Audrey Williamson. Its a shame she didn't write more books. I liked the Royal Blood by Bertram Fields a lot too. I haven't read Annette Carson's book yet, except for a couple of chapters in the bookstore, but it was good any that is one I will be buying. ... I hope this goes through. I tried to post before, but yahoo keeps losing my messages. Nico

Mary wrote:

"I think there was a discussion on this forum a few months back about the Princes being alive after 3rd September 1483. It may have been Mancini or the Croyland Chronicler who reported them being alive on 8th Sept 1483. I am sure someone on the Forum will remember or know. Possibly Annette has mentioned it in her book, I'll see if I can find it."

Carol responds:

Forgive me if someone else has answered this question. It's now impossible to check the entire thread to see what others have said before responding. The Croyland chronicler, speaking in reference to the supposes "second coronation" (actually, the investiture of EoM as Prince of Wales), which we know occurred on September 8, 1483, writes:

"in the meantime, and while these things were going on, the two sons of king Edward before-named remained in the Tower of London, in the custody of certain persons appointed for that purpose." He goes on to talk of men in the Southern counties "murmuring" and forming "confederacies" to rescue the boys from this "captivity."

In other words, the boys were known to be in the Tower at the time of the investiture. Unlike Mancini, he says nothing that I can find about their being placed deeper in the Tower, but he does say that a watch was placed around Westminster Abbey to thwart similar plots to rescue (read "kidnap") Edward IV's daughters. The next paragraph mentions that a rumor about the boys' supposed death "was spread" that the boys had died a violent death, but "it was uncertain how." The chronicler indicates that the rebellion switched its focus to Henry Tudor and says nothing more about the boys, but it seems clear that he doesn't believe the rumor.
http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=522

I strongly suggest that anyone unfamiliar with the Croyland Chronicle read parts VI through VIII at least (1471 through 1485) in the very clear, modern translation available from the American RIII Society's site:
http://www.r3.org/on-line-library-text-essays/crowland-chronicle/

Bear in mind that this is the "official" version of events with an anti-Richard bias but (except for the blather about the angelic Henry Tudor being sent by God to deliver England from evil) not a pro-Lancastrian one. The chronicler (technically the third continuator) is an example of what I call and Edwardian Yorkist--pro-Edward and his sons, anti-Richard--though not, of course, involved in the fighting. Why he resorts to a sickening panegyric of Tudor at the end while simultaneously noting that the treatment of Richard's body was not exactly humane is anybody's guess. (I thought that he also deplored the backdating of Henry's reign--"Oh, Go! What security shall our kings have in the day of battle!") but I can't find the line in this text.)

Anyway, those of us who believe that Richard was neither a tyrant nor a usurper need to know what we're up against since many historians place too much faith in the Croyland Chronicle. (We can be glad, at least, that the chronicler never accuses Richard of killing his nephews; he only reports the rumor.)

Carol, hoping that this lengthy message posts in its entirety

Thanks Carol, that does make it clearer. The link to the Croyland Chronicle is excellent and quite user friendly. Nico



On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 18:30, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Mary wrote:

"I think there was a discussion on this forum a few months back about the Princes being alive after 3rd September 1483. It may have been Mancini or the Croyland Chronicler who reported them being alive on 8th Sept 1483. I am sure someone on the Forum will remember or know. Possibly Annette has mentioned it in her book, I'll see if I can find it."

Carol responds:

Forgive me if someone else has answered this question. It's now impossible to check the entire thread to see what others have said before responding. The Croyland chronicler, speaking in reference to the supposes "second coronation" (actually, the investiture of EoM as Prince of Wales), which we know occurred on September 8, 1483, writes:

"in the meantime, and while these things were going on, the two sons of king Edward before-named remained in the Tower of London, in the custody of certain persons appointed for that purpose." He goes on to talk of men in the Southern counties "murmuring" and forming "confederacies" to rescue the boys from this "captivity."

In other words, the boys were known to be in the Tower at the time of the investiture. Unlike Mancini, he says nothing that I can find about their being placed deeper in the Tower, but he does say that a watch was placed around Westminster Abbey to thwart similar plots to rescue (read "kidnap") Edward IV's daughters. The next paragraph mentions that a rumor about the boys' supposed death "was spread" that the boys had died a violent death, but "it was uncertain how." The chronicler indicates that the rebellion switched its focus to Henry Tudor and says nothing more about the boys, but it seems clear that he doesn't believe the rumor.
http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=522

I strongly suggest that anyone unfamiliar with the Croyland Chronicle read parts VI through VIII at least (1471 through 1485) in the very clear, modern translation available from the American RIII Society's site:
http://www.r3.org/on-line-library-text-essays/crowland-chronicle/

Bear in mind that this is the "official" version of events with an anti-Richard bias but (except for the blather about the angelic Henry Tudor being sent by God to deliver England from evil) not a pro-Lancastrian one. The chronicler (technically the third continuator) is an example of what I call and Edwardian Yorkist--pro-Edward and his sons, anti-Richard--though not, of course, involved in the fighting. Why he resorts to a sickening panegyric of Tudor at the end while simultaneously noting that the treatment of Richard's body was not exactly humane is anybody's guess. (I thought that he also deplored the backdating of Henry's reign--"Oh, Go! What security shall our kings have in the day of battle!") but I can't find the line in this text.)

Anyway, those of us who believe that Richard was neither a tyrant nor a usurper need to know what we're up against since many historians place too much faith in the Croyland Chronicle. (We can be glad, at least, that the chronicler never accuses Richard of killing his nephews; he only reports the rumor.)

Carol, hoping that this lengthy message posts in its entirety