So Why do Princes Matter ? (from Bosworth)

(I thought I should change the name of this thread and damn, I knew I should
have stayed as a lurker - LOL).

Hi Marie

No, I haven't read the article about Edward II although from your synopsis I
wouldn't argue with the basic premise - if the public thinks the King is dead
then to all intents and purposes he is and, of course, in general terms, the
same would hold true for Edward V.

But why would Richard have killed the sons when there were healthy daughters
around ? The problem is that we found find it hard to credit just how
"sexist" (to us a horribly anachronistic term) the system was in the 15th C. In
Precedent there had been only one attempt at a Queen ruling England, or at least
of the daughter of a King trying to take the throne for her and her husband.
The precedent is that of Matilda who was the acknowledged heir of the King and
married to a powerful, albeit foreign, noblemen. The country rejected her
utterly and her claim was only kept in being by her (illegitimate) brother - even
when she "won" the war the Crown still bypassed her and went to her son.

The daughters of Edward IV would have suffered from a similar prejudice I
would venture to suggest. They would have been very useful and powerful as wives
to cement political alliances and to bring Edward V help but the thought of
them either ruling themselves or passing the crown to their husbands seem to
have been not considered - after all when Henry VII married Elizabeth of York
he was still rejected by many die hard Yorkists and still retained a fear of
Yorkist pretenders even though he was married to the (by then surely) eldest
surviving child of Edward IV. Likewise Henry VIII retained the same paranoia
(witness the Earl of Warwick) vis a vis rebellions despite being himself the
direct male heir of Edward IV. And his incredible paranoia regarding a male heir
of his own body amply demonstrates what contemporaries thought of the chances
of the female line - even if they were to be proved just so wrong in
Elizabeth. The attitudes towards the husband of the Queen is also shown in the Court
and Country's opinions of Philip of Spain, Mary's husband.

Richard would undoubtedly have been aware that the daughters were probably
only a threat as props to their brothers - this the sons were the danger.

Now a lot of this is pure hypothesis, Richard sadly didn't leave a personal
or political diary, but whilst it is entirely possible that Richard could have
kept the Princes alive and simply allowed the rumours of their death, the way
that is suggested may have happened with Edward II, one is forced to wonder
why he would take that dangerous route. My guess is that he was afraid that if
either brother fell into the hands of the Woodville faction then England would
return to the chaos and war of a decade earlier (had this happened I guess we
would be talking about the murder of Richard, Duke of Gloucester, by the
Woodvilles). Such a fear would not seem unreasonable since we know that Edward
IV, Henry VII, and Henry VIII all had it as well.

To keep the two brothers imprisoned, even with a rumour of their death
commonly believed, would be to take too many risks of their escape or rescue -
servants are not renowned for their ability to keep secrets and with TWO brothers
all risks get doubled. I think Richard cared too much for England and had seen
too much bloodletting to take the risk of the return of Civil War and, no
matter how unpalatable it may be to us (and indeed may have been for him, we
cannot know) the logical solution is simply to dispose of the risk, which, if he
did, I for one do not blame him for considering the morals of the time. (Why
does no-one ever blame King John for doing exactly the same thing by the way ?
Is it because he is the "hero" of a Shakespeare play and not the "villain".
Sorry just a thought.).

Anyway that's my ramblings - I don't think Richard thought the daughters of
Edward IV to be a danger.

*Goes back to lurking now*

Stephen Ede-Borrett

--- In , EDEBORRETT@a... wrote:
> (I thought I should change the name of this thread and damn, I knew
I should
> have stayed as a lurker - LOL).
>
> Hi Marie
>
> No, I haven't read the article about Edward II although from your
synopsis I
> wouldn't argue with the basic premise - if the public thinks the
King is dead
> then to all intents and purposes he is and, of course, in general
terms, the
> same would hold true for Edward V.
>
> But why would Richard have killed the sons when there were healthy
daughters
> around ? The problem is that we found find it hard to credit just
how
> "sexist" (to us a horribly anachronistic term) the system was in
the 15th C. In
> Precedent there had been only one attempt at a Queen ruling
England, or at least
> of the daughter of a King trying to take the throne for her and her
husband.
> The precedent is that of Matilda who was the acknowledged heir of
the King and
> married to a powerful, albeit foreign, noblemen. The country
rejected her
> utterly and her claim was only kept in being by her (illegitimate)
brother - even
> when she "won" the war the Crown still bypassed her and went to her
son.
>
> The daughters of Edward IV would have suffered from a similar
prejudice I
> would venture to suggest. They would have been very useful and
powerful as wives
> to cement political alliances and to bring Edward V help but the
thought of
> them either ruling themselves or passing the crown to their
husbands seem to
> have been not considered


I did not make this claim lightly. There was, I seem to recall, a
window of only about a week between Edward's old servants being paid
off and Richard's discovering a plot to smuggle their sisters abroad
to marry foreign hopefuls; he immediately reacted by having the
sanctuary surrounded by an armed guard. That leaves only a very short
window in which Richard could have naively killed the Princes
believing their sisters to be of no political significance.
Besides, this still leaves the question of Warwick.



- after all when Henry VII married Elizabeth of York
> he was still rejected by many die hard Yorkists and still retained
a fear of
> Yorkist pretenders even though he was married to the (by then
surely) eldest
> surviving child of Edward IV.

There were two branches of Yorkist, of course: Edwardians and
Ricardians. Many of the die-hards who opposed Henry VII were of the
latter sort and almost certainly did not believe in the legitimacy of
Edward IV's offspring, and quite possibly not the legitimacy of
Edward IV himself. Other Yorkists with Edwardian sympathies were
sufficiently unsure that Elizabeth was Edward's eldest surviving
child to be willing to throw in their lot with 'Perkin Warbeck'.


Likewise Henry VIII retained the same paranoia
> (witness the Earl of Warwick)

I just did. He was in completely different position via-a-vis Henry
than he was vis-a-vis Richard: ie after the reversal of Titulus
Regius (and particularly after the birth of Prince Arthur) the
Princes would have stood between Henry and the throne, but not
Warwick. I put it to you that the danger to Henry from Warwick lay
not so much in sexism causing people to reject Elizabeth's
credentials as queen (even by the standards of the day, her son would
have been regarded as Edward IV's heir), but in many people's
continued belief that there was something wrong with Edward's line
per se.
However, in taking the throne Richard had leapfrogged not only
Edward's issue but also Clarence's. This surely made Warwick as much
of an immediate threat as were the princes. And indeed, Mancini tells
us that he very quickly sent for Warwick and placed him in his wife's
household.


vis a vis rebellions despite being himself the
> direct male heir of Edward IV. And his incredible paranoia
regarding a male heir
> of his own body amply demonstrates what contemporaries thought of
the chances
> of the female line - even if they were to be proved just so wrong
in
> Elizabeth. The attitudes towards the husband of the Queen is also
shown in the Court
> and Country's opinions of Philip of Spain, Mary's husband.
>
> Richard would undoubtedly have been aware that the daughters were
probably
> only a threat as props to their brothers - this the sons were the
danger.
>
> Now a lot of this is pure hypothesis, Richard sadly didn't leave a
personal
> or political diary, but whilst it is entirely possible that Richard
could have
> kept the Princes alive and simply allowed the rumours of their
death, the way
> that is suggested may have happened with Edward II, one is forced
to wonder
> why he would take that dangerous route. My guess is that he was
afraid that if
> either brother fell into the hands of the Woodville faction then
England would
> return to the chaos and war of a decade earlier (had this happened
I guess we
> would be talking about the murder of Richard, Duke of Gloucester,
by the
> Woodvilles). Such a fear would not seem unreasonable since we know
that Edward
> IV, Henry VII, and Henry VIII all had it as well.
>
> To keep the two brothers imprisoned, even with a rumour of their
death
> commonly believed, would be to take too many risks of their escape
or rescue -
> servants are not renowned for their ability to keep secrets and
with TWO brothers
> all risks get doubled. I think Richard cared too much for England
and had seen
> too much bloodletting to take the risk of the return of Civil War

But he did not show the princes to be dead, so exactly what happened
was a rebellion to restore them.


and, no
> matter how unpalatable it may be to us


Bill, I'm really not indulging in wishful thinking. I find this is
one of those problems where, when I haven't examined the evidence for
a long while, Richard's guilt appears more obvious (my world doesn't
fall down, by the way). Then, when I do start to scrutinise the
period again in detail, the problems start to reveal themselves.

There is for instance Elizabeth Woodville. As now seems clear,
Buckingham's Rebellion was never about putting Henry Tudor on the
throne. This really was later tudor propaganda. Therefore Elizabeth
Woodville's agreement to let him marry Elizabeth, supposedly made
before the rebellion broke, is also fiction. When Henry made his
promise to marry her the Christmas following, we do not hear of
Elizabeth making a similar promise at Westminster, do we? It appears
to have been a unilateral marriage vow taken by Henry (backed up by
male members of the Woodville family who had joined him). That it was
never supported by the matriarch in England, Elizabeth Woodville, I
surmise from:
a) Elizabeth of York 's NOT making a similar vow
b) Elizabeth Woodville giving her daughters into Richard's keeping
three months later
c) Elizabeth Woodville's writing to Dorset telling him to leave tudor
and make his peace with Richard.
If my analysis is correct, this all suggests that Elizabeth Woodville
was far from convinced that Richard had killed her sons. Her apparent
dalliance with Yorkist rebels in 1486/7, seen in this context, also
makes a lot more sense.

Marie

Just to clarify an apparent discrepancy in my argument:

The plot to smuggle the girls abroad was so that they would be free
to make a claim SHOULD ANYTHING HAPPEN TO THEIR BROTHERS. It has
never been put in any other terms. Their existence abroad, and with
powerful husbands, would have hopefully ensured that Richard would
not harm their brothers.

Henry Tudor was a different matter. He seems from the beginning to
have made his promise on the basis that Elizabeth was her father's
heir and he was going to come over, oust Richard and make her his
queen. This rather different scenario would have presented a mortal
threat to the boys if either of them was still alive.

Marie

> To keep the two brothers imprisoned, even with a rumour of their death
> commonly believed, would be to take too many risks of their escape or rescue -
> servants are not renowned for their ability to keep secrets and with TWO
> brothers all risks get doubled. I think Richard cared too much for England
and had seen too much bloodletting to take the risk of the return of Civil
War and, no matter how unpalatable it may be to us (and indeed may have been
for him, we cannot know) the logical solution is simply to dispose of the
risk, which, if he did, I for one do not blame him for considering the
morals of the time.

But why does he not copy the example of his brother if he killed them and
display the bodies so all know they are dead? No point killing them if
nobody knows they are dead. They remain as much a threat if nobody knows.
Edward killed Henry VI then displayed his body and thatof his son in St
Pauls so all knew that they were dead. Killing them and keeping it secret
benefitted only Richard's enemies.
Then there were Clarence's children, who would be above Richard if the
attainder were reversed. So kill them too. Did he? No. He kept them safe and
happy as he did the daughters of Edward once they came out of sanctuary.
No, Richard did not kill them. No point without he told everyone that the so
called threats to his peace were no more.

(Why
> does no-one ever blame King John for doing exactly the same thing by the way ?
> Is it because he is the "hero" of a Shakespeare play and not the "villain".

because John had a son who succeeded him. Because Arthur was unknown in
England, and because everyone preferred John who was named heir by his
brother Richard, and was a grown man, which Arthur was not. Oh, and Arthur
had a mother detested by ALL the nobility.
Paul