Here we go!

Channel 4 television here in the UK begins it's celebrations of the up
coming events in Leiocester with a prime time hour long prgramme
entitled "Richard III: The Princes in the Tower." The blurb reads - "Did
Richard III really kill his nephews so that he could be king? A stellar
cast of experts including David Starkey and Philippa Gregory set out to
finally uncover the truth."
It it wasn't so sad I'd laugh.
Starkey and that fiction writer? Experts on Richard?
"finally uncover the truth", something real experts have been trying to
do for centuries! Perhaps Philippa has written the script! God forbid!
I will watch. Fortunately I won't be in front of my own tv set so I can
throw things, which I am certain I will want to!
Paul

We'll bring some nice, over-ripe tomatoes from the Western Hemi, Paul...and a big rubber squeegee for clean up, after.
Judy Loyaulte me lie

ÿ Think that's a foregone conclusion then, Paul. With those two deciding, the answer is obvious that he is guilty (even though we know otherwise)! I'll be thinking about you while I'm hurling things at my own TV screen! And I'm certain that I won't hear most of it because I will be shouting abuse at the pair of them. Sharon ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] To: Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 7:08 PM Subject: Here we go!

Channel 4 television here in the UK begins it's celebrations of the up
coming events in Leiocester with a prime time hour long prgramme
entitled "Richard III: The Princes in the Tower." The blurb reads - "Did
Richard III really kill his nephews so that he could be king? A stellar
cast of experts including David Starkey and Philippa Gregory set out to
finally uncover the truth."
It it wasn't so sad I'd laugh.
Starkey and that fiction writer? Experts on Richard?
"finally uncover the truth", something real experts have been trying to
do for centuries! Perhaps Philippa has written the script! God forbid!
I will watch. Fortunately I won't be in front of my own tv set so I can
throw things, which I am certain I will want to!
Paul

I wonder if they even manage to "prove" there was a crime.
Doubt it.
I'll try to throw facts at the screen as if I were in the studio with them.
Paul


On 14/03/2015 20:58, 'Sharon Feely' 43118@... [] wrote:
ÿ Think that's a foregone conclusion then, Paul. With those two deciding, the answer is obvious that he is guilty (even though we know otherwise)!   I'll be thinking about you while I'm hurling things at my own TV screen! And I'm certain that I won't hear most of it because I will be shouting abuse at the pair of them.   Sharon     ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] To: Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 7:08 PM Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Here we go!
 

Channel 4 television here in the UK begins it's celebrations of the up
coming events in Leiocester with a prime time hour long prgramme
entitled "Richard III: The Princes in the Tower." The blurb reads - "Did
Richard III really kill his nephews so that he could be king? A stellar
cast of experts including David Starkey and Philippa Gregory set out to
finally uncover the truth."
It it wasn't so sad I'd laugh.
Starkey and that fiction writer? Experts on Richard?
"finally uncover the truth", something real experts have been trying to
do for centuries! Perhaps Philippa has written the script! God forbid!
I will watch. Fortunately I won't be in front of my own tv set so I can
throw things, which I am certain I will want to!
Paul

You know on reconsideration I don't agree. Forget for a moment who's the 'better' historian. Who's the most popular with the great general public; not the public like us, but those who say 'The Other Boleyn Girl' is the real story of Anne Boleyn and prefer 'The Tudors' to 'Wolf Hall'? We should be glad PG (briefed no doubt by Baldwin) is pro - and she has to be, her novels say he didn't do it. And her novels are best-sellers. Starkey doesn't come over well in any sort of argument; he becomes arrogant and very unlovable particularly towards women. People, yes the great lovely British people who know more about the football league than Winston Churchill, who have seen TWQ and Richard's handsome reconstructed face (not with that blond hair) will want to believe PG. After all, who but us have heard of Hicks and his like? So I'm positive because what matters is that 'people' re-assess and like Richard. And I reckon they will. H
From: "'Sharon Feely' 43118@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 14 March 2015, 20:58
Subject: Re: Here we go!

ÿ Think that's a foregone conclusion then, Paul. With those two deciding, the answer is obvious that he is guilty (even though we know otherwise)! I'll be thinking about you while I'm hurling things at my own TV screen! And I'm certain that I won't hear most of it because I will be shouting abuse at the pair of them. Sharon ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] To: Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 7:08 PM Subject: Here we go!
Channel 4 television here in the UK begins it's celebrations of the up
coming events in Leiocester with a prime time hour long prgramme
entitled "Richard III: The Princes in the Tower." The blurb reads - "Did
Richard III really kill his nephews so that he could be king? A stellar
cast of experts including David Starkey and Philippa Gregory set out to
finally uncover the truth."
It it wasn't so sad I'd laugh.
Starkey and that fiction writer? Experts on Richard?
"finally uncover the truth", something real experts have been trying to
do for centuries! Perhaps Philippa has written the script! God forbid!
I will watch. Fortunately I won't be in front of my own tv set so I can
throw things, which I am certain I will want to!
Paul

I've never posted on here but I have always thought there was a possibility Richard had the princes killed. Surely with the uncertainty that surrounded that time it would have been the sensible thing to do to provide stability.
People were executed at the drop of a hat. To ensure a secure Monarchy it would have been a sensible thing to do. It doesn't make me think any worse of him. Needs must and while there is no firm evidence either way it is something that needs to be considered.
Gillian

Hi Gillian, welcome! So if it was Richard's aim to get rid of them, and as you say, they were ruthless times, why didn't he tell people he did it and display them? He could have made out they'd had an accident and died. Then there could be no more rebellions in their cause. Edward did just that with Henry VI. And the same argument applies to Henry VII supposedly having them killed or knowing their whereabouts. No point in doing in unless it's to put an end to speculation and alternative support. Which is where the pro-killing argument falls over. H (it doesn't affect my support either, but there is no logic in doing it clandestinely)
From: "gillian.schifreen@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 15 March 2015, 10:52
Subject: Re: Here we go!

I've never posted on here but I have always thought there was a possibility Richard had the princes killed. Surely with the uncertainty that surrounded that time it would have been the sensible thing to do to provide stability.
People were executed at the drop of a hat. To ensure a secure Monarchy it would have been a sensible thing to do. It doesn't make me think any worse of him. Needs must and while there is no firm evidence either way it is something that needs to be considered.
Gillian

As somebody pointed out yesterday, what would be the point ofr Richard if he told nobody about it? The only point would be to remove the threat forever, give out they died of a fever or something. But that he said nothing proves his innocence to me. And then, they were his brother's children, the brother he adored.
Paul


On 15/03/2015 10:52, gillian.schifreen@... [] wrote:
I've never posted on here but I have always thought there was a possibility Richard had the princes killed.  Surely with the uncertainty that surrounded that time it would have been the sensible thing to do to provide stability. 
People were executed at the drop of a hat.  To ensure a secure Monarchy it would have been a sensible thing to do.  It doesn't make me think any worse of him.  Needs must and while there is no firm evidence either way it is something that needs to be considered.
Gillian

If Richard smuggled the boys to Burgundy he would have to keep quiet about it. What would be the point of sending them away for their own safety and then telling everyone where they were? I think that it is very possible that he sent them away for their own safety.Also two people who would have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth were absent from the country at that time - James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton. In Tudor times both are connected to the either the murder of the Princes, James Tyrell or the supposed plot to put the " imposter Perkin Warbeck" on the throne, Edward Brampton. You have to look at all the evidence to try to discover what happened not just accept that Richard definitely murdered the Princes. There is no evidence to support that view other than they went missing in his reign. On the other hand there are lots of bits of evidence that could support the view that they were smuggled abroad. Unfortunately they are only small pieces of a big jigsaw.
People (trads) seem to forget that there was a plot to "rescue" the boys in July 1483 and I think someone called John Welles was responsible. Interestingly possibly the very same family that Hilary was talking about in her post.
Mary

Didn't know about the Welles connection to that Mary. Shows that many heads are always better than one! H
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 15 March 2015, 15:08
Subject: Re: Here we go!

If Richard smuggled the boys to Burgundy he would have to keep quiet about it. What would be the point of sending them away for their own safety and then telling everyone where they were? I think that it is very possible that he sent them away for their own safety.Also two people who would have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth were absent from the country at that time - James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton. In Tudor times both are connected to the either the murder of the Princes, James Tyrell or the supposed plot to put the " imposter Perkin Warbeck" on the throne, Edward Brampton. You have to look at all the evidence to try to discover what happened not just accept that Richard definitely murdered the Princes. There is no evidence to support that view other than they went missing in his reign. On the other hand there are lots of bits of evidence that could support the view that they were smuggled abroad. Unfortunately they are only small pieces of a big jigsaw.
People (trads) seem to forget that there was a plot to "rescue" the boys in July 1483 and I think someone called John Welles was responsible. Interestingly possibly the very same family that Hilary was talking about in her post.
Mary

I think we must keep an open mind on the subject of whether Richard had the princes killed or not.
I like to think he didn't personally, but until we can unearth evidence either way no one can say with certainty what happened.
We are his supporters here but we mustn't be biased against any real evidence, of which there is precious little.

JessFrom: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 15/03/2015 12:00
To:
Subject: Re: Here we go!

Hi Gillian, welcome! So if it was Richard's aim to get rid of them, and as you say, they were ruthless times, why didn't he tell people he did it and display them? He could have made out they'd had an accident and died. Then there could be no more rebellions in their cause. Edward did just that with Henry VI. And the same argument applies to Henry VII supposedly having them killed or knowing their whereabouts. No point in doing in unless it's to put an end to speculation and alternative support. Which is where the pro-killing argument falls over. H (it doesn't affect my support either, but there is no logic in doing it clandestinely)
From: "gillian.schifreen@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 15 March 2015, 10:52
Subject: Re: Here we go!

I've never posted on here but I have always thought there was a possibility Richard had the princes killed. Surely with the uncertainty that surrounded that time it would have been the sensible thing to do to provide stability.
People were executed at the drop of a hat. To ensure a secure Monarchy it would have been a sensible thing to do. It doesn't make me think any worse of him. Needs must and while there is no firm evidence either way it is something that needs to be considered.
Gillian

Mary wrote :

"If Richard smuggled the boys to Burgundy he would have to keep quiet about it. What would be the point of sending them away for their own safety and then telling everyone where they were? I think that it is very possible that he sent them away for their own safety.Also two people who would have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth were absent from the country at that time - James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton. In Tudor times both are connected to the either the murder of the Princes, James Tyrell or the supposed plot to put the " imposter Perkin Warbeck" on the throne, Edward Brampton. You have to look at all the evidence to try to discover what happened not just accept that Richard definitely murdered the Princes. There is no evidence to support that view other than they went missing in his reign. On the other hand there are lots of bits of evidence that could support the view that they were smuggled abroad. Unfortunately they are only small pieces of a big jigsaw." [snip]

Carol responds:

I don't think Gillian said that he "definitely murdered" them, only that we should consider the possibility (which most of us have done and rejected the idea). A few additional points to add to your post (which, except as noted, I agree with). First, Richard was already king when the boys disappeared. He didn't need their deaths (as is so often claimed), nor did he "seize" or "usurp" the throne (as Hicks, Starkey, et al. take for granted)--he was elected king on the basis of Edward V's illegitimacy and his own qualifications (among other considerations specified in Titulus Regius).

At the time of the boys' disappearance, he was secure on his throne, in part because he had an heir and in part because of the support he received at that time from Northumberland and even Lord Stanley. The rumor (spread by the Tudor faction) that his nephews were dead did not cause widespread rebellion. The so-called Buckingham rebellion was quickly and easily put down. The following January he had a very successful Parliament, which passed Titulus Regius (its wording essentially unchanged from that of the petition by the Three Estates, with Edward ex-V very much alive but barred from the throne by illegitimacy). All of Richard's reforms except the banning of benevolences survived into the next reign.

But disaster struck in 1484 with the death of his son (uncomfortably close to the anniversary of Edward IV's death but not actually *on* April 9 as is so often claimed). Without an heir and with a sickly wife unlikely to produce another, Richard was much less secure. The death of his wife (and that ill-timed eclipse) struck another blow. The rumor factory (whether centered on France or on MB and Morton or both) went to work, claiming (falsely) that he intended to marry his niece, Elizabeth of York (which would have undercut his own legitimacy as king given that his claim made her illegitimate)--we know that he had other marriage plans for both himself and for her. The rumor of the "murder" of his nephews may also have been resurrected at this time, though there's no indication of its being widespread in England at this time.

On the topic of Richard's supposed unpopularity, mentioned in another post, I don't think that Richard ever actually became "unpopular"--only the same people who had rebelled in 1483 (or engineered that rebellion) ever actually hated him--but it may have looked to the populace as if God had turned against him, punishing him with the death of his wife and child, and the same "logic" would have applied with his defeat and death at Bosworth. Certainly, Tudor played the "God is on our side" card. Why Northumberland, who had supported Richard early in his reign, sat out the battle we don't know (Tudor, after all, had him imprisoned); Lord Stanley, with his divided loyalties, also sat out the battle, and his brother William was an Edwardian Yorkist who supported Tudor by default in the hope that he would marry EoY. (He seems to have believed at that time that the nephews were dead, as did all the Edwardian Yorkists who supported Tudor, but later changed his mind and supported Perkin Warbeck.)

My apologies for straying from the topic. My original point (supplementing yours and responding to Gillian) was that Richard didn't need to murder his nephews to strengthen his claim, which was, in fact, quite strong by the standards of the day, whatever we may think now of the logic behind Titulus Regius. Nor would he have risked his popularity at the beginning of his reign by committing a sin that would have robbed him of all hope of the heaven he so strongly believed in. But sending his nephews to safety in Burgundy (where his sister and her son-in-law, Maximillian, his staunch allies, would have kept them safely out of the hands of Tudor supporters or even Yorkists who wished to restore E 5) made perfect sense after the attempts to "rescue" them from the Tower.

Gillian, there *is* evidence to support that possibility (see Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson), but it is not, of course, definitive. And I meant to mention that the story of Tyrell's confession (presented by Bacon as a fact and spread from him to most biographies of Richard, even Kendall's) derives from Sir Thomas More and has no basis in fact.

Carol

Just two or three minor points Carol. Firstly, it could be claimed that both Henry IV and Edward were secure on their thrones but they publicly chose to take out the opposition to avoid future strife - there is clear logic in that, as long as you make sure people know you've done it and not many gasps of horror seem to have been recorded. So at the first rumbles of dissent, be they engineered or not, it would be logical for Richard to get the boys out of the way (ie dead) and to make people aware that he'd done so. The fact that he didn't claim to have done so would point to the fact that he actually hadn't - just as he later failed to contain MB or Morton. As Paul says, there is evidence that he was strongly attached to Edward, so to do so would be a big step, perhaps one too far. Secondly, we really don't know about Northumberland but he was married to a Herbert and his children later married Spencers and Fitzalans - all Tudor supporters in the south. It's my point about the North gradually drifting south in economic sympathy because of the wool trade. They were no longer so reliable to the Yorkist dynasty. Finally, it's Skidmore (and several others including Horrox) who claim that Richard was unpopular from the start. If the rumour machine (started by both MB and Louis) was at work he probably was and London, who knew Edward so well (he'd hardly left it in years) would certainly be tentative about quickly embracing the northerner Richard. Like all new regimes in politics today you have to see how things turn out and Richard didn't have much time to make a mark. H
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 15 March 2015, 16:42
Subject: Re: Here we go!


Mary wrote :

"If Richard smuggled the boys to Burgundy he would have to keep quiet about it. What would be the point of sending them away for their own safety and then telling everyone where they were? I think that it is very possible that he sent them away for their own safety.Also two people who would have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth were absent from the country at that time - James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton. In Tudor times both are connected to the either the murder of the Princes, James Tyrell or the supposed plot to put the " imposter Perkin Warbeck" on the throne, Edward Brampton. You have to look at all the evidence to try to discover what happened not just accept that Richard definitely murdered the Princes. There is no evidence to support that view other than they went missing in his reign. On the other hand there are lots of bits of evidence that could support the view that they were smuggled abroad. Unfortunately they are only small pieces of a big jigsaw." [snip]

Carol responds:

I don't think Gillian said that he "definitely murdered" them, only that we should consider the possibility (which most of us have done and rejected the idea). A few additional points to add to your post (which, except as noted, I agree with). First, Richard was already king when the boys disappeared. He didn't need their deaths (as is so often claimed), nor did he "seize" or "usurp" the throne (as Hicks, Starkey, et al. take for granted)--he was elected king on the basis of Edward V's illegitimacy and his own qualifications (among other considerations specified in Titulus Regius).

At the time of the boys' disappearance, he was secure on his throne, in part because he had an heir and in part because of the support he received at that time from Northumberland and even Lord Stanley. The rumor (spread by the Tudor faction) that his nephews were dead did not cause widespread rebellion. The so-called Buckingham rebellion was quickly and easily put down. The following January he had a very successful Parliament, which passed Titulus Regius (its wording essentially unchanged from that of the petition by the Three Estates, with Edward ex-V very much alive but barred from the throne by illegitimacy). All of Richard's reforms except the banning of benevolences survived into the next reign.

But disaster struck in 1484 with the death of his son (uncomfortably close to the anniversary of Edward IV's death but not actually *on* April 9 as is so often claimed). Without an heir and with a sickly wife unlikely to produce another, Richard was much less secure. The death of his wife (and that ill-timed eclipse) struck another blow. The rumor factory (whether centered on France or on MB and Morton or both) went to work, claiming (falsely) that he intended to marry his niece, Elizabeth of York (which would have undercut his own legitimacy as king given that his claim made her illegitimate)--we know that he had other marriage plans for both himself and for her. The rumor of the "murder" of his nephews may also have been resurrected at this time, though there's no indication of its being widespread in England at this time.

On the topic of Richard's supposed unpopularity, mentioned in another post, I don't think that Richard ever actually became "unpopular"--only the same people who had rebelled in 1483 (or engineered that rebellion) ever actually hated him--but it may have looked to the populace as if God had turned against him, punishing him with the death of his wife and child, and the same "logic" would have applied with his defeat and death at Bosworth. Certainly, Tudor played the "God is on our side" card. Why Northumberland, who had supported Richard early in his reign, sat out the battle we don't know (Tudor, after all, had him imprisoned); Lord Stanley, with his divided loyalties, also sat out the battle, and his brother William was an Edwardian Yorkist who supported Tudor by default in the hope that he would marry EoY. (He seems to have believed at that time that the nephews were dead, as did all the Edwardian Yorkists who supported Tudor, but later changed his mind and supported Perkin Warbeck.)

My apologies for straying from the topic. My original point (supplementing yours and responding to Gillian) was that Richard didn't need to murder his nephews to strengthen his claim, which was, in fact, quite strong by the standards of the day, whatever we may think now of the logic behind Titulus Regius. Nor would he have risked his popularity at the beginning of his reign by committing a sin that would have robbed him of all hope of the heaven he so strongly believed in. But sending his nephews to safety in Burgundy (where his sister and her son-in-law, Maximillian, his staunch allies, would have kept them safely out of the hands of Tudor supporters or even Yorkists who wished to restore E 5) made perfect sense after the attempts to "rescue" them from the Tower.

Gillian, there *is* evidence to support that possibility (see Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson), but it is not, of course, definitive. And I meant to mention that the story of Tyrell's confession (presented by Bacon as a fact and spread from him to most biographies of Richard, even Kendall's) derives from Sir Thomas More and has no basis in fact.

Carol

Hard to know how the political news got about in those days.
We are so used to TV, radio, the internet, books and newspapers that it is difficult to imagine just getting the news of the day, what the king was doing etc, by word of mouth, or by a letter if you, or someone you knew could read.
How did one know what was gossip and what was authentically news?
How could you tell what was a reliable source?
Really, the scope to make things up and say they were true was limitless.
Monks could often read and write, and some.members of the upper classes, but that does not give one a view of what the majority of the population as a cross section thought.
I, personally would take any expressed view that Richard was unpopular, or popular for that matter, with a large pinch of salt.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Here we go!
Sent: Sun, Mar 15, 2015 10:32:46 PM

 

Just two or three minor points Carol. Firstly, it could be claimed that both Henry IV and Edward were secure on their thrones but they publicly chose to take out the opposition to avoid future strife - there is clear logic in that, as long as you make sure people know you've done it and not many gasps of horror seem to have been recorded. So at the first rumbles of dissent, be they engineered or not, it would be logical for Richard to get the boys out of the way (ie dead) and to make people aware that he'd done so. The fact that he didn't claim to have done so would point to the fact that he actually hadn't - just as he later failed to contain MB or Morton. As Paul says, there is evidence that he was strongly attached to Edward, so to do so would be a big step, perhaps one too far. Secondly, we really don't know about Northumberland but he was married to a Herbert and his children later married Spencers and Fitzalans - all Tudor supporters in the south. It's my point about the North gradually drifting south in economic sympathy because of the wool trade. They were no longer so reliable to the Yorkist dynasty. Finally, it's Skidmore (and several others including Horrox) who claim that Richard was unpopular from the start. If the rumour machine (started by both MB and Louis) was at work he probably was and London, who knew Edward so well (he'd hardly left it in years)  would certainly be tentative about quickly embracing the northerner Richard. Like all new regimes in politics today you have to see how things turn out and Richard didn't have much time to make a mark. H
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 15 March 2015, 16:42
Subject: Re: Here we go!

 
Mary wrote :

"If Richard smuggled the boys to Burgundy he would have to keep quiet about it. What would be the point of sending them away for their own safety and then telling everyone where they were?  I think that it is very possible that he sent them away for their own safety.Also two people who would have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth were absent from the country at that time - James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton. In Tudor times both are connected to the either the murder of the Princes, James Tyrell or the supposed plot to put the " imposter Perkin Warbeck" on the throne, Edward Brampton. You have to look at all the evidence to try to discover what happened not just accept that Richard definitely murdered the Princes. There is no evidence to support that view other than they went missing in his reign. On the other hand there are lots of bits of evidence that could support the view that they were smuggled abroad. Unfortunately they are only small pieces of a big jigsaw." [snip]

Carol responds:

I don't think Gillian said that he "definitely murdered" them, only that we should consider the possibility (which most of us have done and rejected the idea). A few additional points to add to your post (which, except as noted, I agree with). First, Richard was already king when the boys disappeared. He didn't need their deaths (as is so often claimed), nor did he "seize" or "usurp" the throne (as Hicks, Starkey, et al. take for granted)--he was elected king on the basis of Edward V's illegitimacy and his own qualifications (among other considerations specified in Titulus Regius).

At the time of the boys' disappearance, he was secure on his throne, in part because he had an heir and in part because of the support he received at that time from Northumberland and even Lord Stanley. The rumor (spread by the Tudor faction) that his nephews were dead did not cause widespread rebellion. The so-called Buckingham rebellion was quickly and easily put down. The following January he had a very successful Parliament, which passed Titulus Regius (its wording essentially unchanged from that of the petition by the Three Estates, with Edward ex-V very much alive but barred from the throne by illegitimacy). All of Richard's reforms except the banning of benevolences survived into the next reign.

But disaster struck in 1484 with the death of his son (uncomfortably close to the anniversary of Edward IV's death but not actually *on* April 9 as is so often claimed). Without an heir and with a sickly wife unlikely to produce another, Richard was much less secure. The death of his wife (and that ill-timed eclipse) struck another blow. The rumor factory (whether centered on France or on MB and Morton or both) went to work, claiming (falsely) that he intended to marry his niece, Elizabeth of York (which would have undercut his own legitimacy as king given that his claim made her illegitimate)--we know that he had other marriage plans for both himself and for her. The rumor of the "murder" of his nephews may also have been resurrected at this time, though there's no indication of its being widespread in England at this time.

On the topic of Richard's supposed unpopularity, mentioned in another post, I don't think that Richard ever actually became "unpopular"--only the same people who had rebelled in 1483 (or engineered that rebellion) ever actually hated him--but it may have looked to the populace as if God had turned against him, punishing him with the death of his wife and child, and the same "logic" would have applied with his defeat and death at Bosworth. Certainly, Tudor played the "God is on our side" card. Why Northumberland, who had supported Richard early in his reign, sat out the battle we don't know (Tudor, after all, had him imprisoned); Lord Stanley, with his divided loyalties, also sat out the battle, and his brother William was an Edwardian Yorkist who supported Tudor by default in the hope that he would marry EoY. (He seems to have believed at that time that the nephews were dead, as did all the Edwardian Yorkists who supported Tudor, but later changed his mind and supported Perkin Warbeck.)

My apologies for straying from the topic. My original point (supplementing yours and responding to Gillian) was that Richard didn't need to murder his nephews to strengthen his claim, which was, in fact, quite strong by the standards of the day, whatever we may think now of the logic behind Titulus Regius. Nor would he have risked his popularity at the beginning of his reign by committing a sin that would have robbed him of all hope of the heaven he so strongly believed in. But sending his nephews to safety in Burgundy (where his sister and her son-in-law, Maximillian, his staunch allies, would have kept them safely out of the hands of Tudor supporters or even Yorkists who wished to restore E 5) made perfect sense after the attempts to "rescue" them from the Tower.

Gillian, there *is* evidence to support that possibility (see Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson), but it is not, of course, definitive. And I meant to mention that the story of Tyrell's confession (presented by Bacon as a fact and spread from him to most biographies of Richard, even Kendall's) derives from Sir Thomas More and has no basis in fact.

Carol

Hilary wrote:

"Just two or three minor points Carol. Firstly, it could be claimed that both Henry IV and Edward were secure on their thrones but they publicly chose to take out the opposition to avoid future strife - there is clear logic in that, as long as you make sure people know you've done it and not many gasps of horror seem to have been recorded. So at the first rumbles of dissent, be they engineered or not, it would be logical for Richard to get the boys out of the way (ie dead) and to make people aware that he'd done so. The fact that he didn't claim to have done so would point to the fact that he actually hadn't - just as he later failed to contain MB or Morton. As Paul says, there is evidence that he was strongly attached to Edward, so to do so would be a big step, perhaps one too far."

Carol responds:

I agree with you. *Even though* he was secure on his throne (in 1483 and early 1484, at least) and despite the rumbles of dissent (a raid or two on the Tower, the devastating news of Buckingham's treachery), he *didn't* announce their deaths, as he would certainly have done if he'd had them killed (the whole point of such a murder being to make it known that they were dead). Therefore, as you say, it's most unlikely that he did it. (He may, however, have sent them to safety or attempted to do so as the Tyrell-related evidence suggests.)

Carol