Why did Richard order the younger prince to be removed from sanctuar

My understanding is that it was in order that he could attend his brother at his coronation. The absence of QE and the girls wasn't important because they wouldn't have been involved in the procession anyway.

Was there not also a danger that if the Woodvilles smuggled him out of Sanctuary they could have gone on to use him as a rallying point or even crown him? Eileen

Further to my last post..could Richard of Shrewsbury have been used as a rallying point even while he was in sanctuary?
Another point ..what was it that led EW to hand him over. She could have stood her ground...Richard was hardly going to send in a force to drag the boy out?

Eileen wrote:Was there not also a danger that if the Woodvilles smuggled him out of Sanctuary they could have gone on to use him as a rallying point or even crown him?
Marie:Perhaps as a rallying point against Richard, but at this point Edward V was still king and his mother would never have just cast him aside.

Eileen:Another point ..what was it that led EW to hand him over. She could have stood her ground...Richard was hardly going to send in a force to drag the boy out?
Marie:This is, of course, exactly what we are told Richard had threatened to do, on the grounds that he was too young to be criminally responsible therefore could not claim sanctuary.

Eileen wrote: Further to my last post..could Richard of Shrewsbury have been used as a rallying point even while he was in sanctuary? Doug here: It would certainly appear, to me anyway, that there were deep divisions amongst the ruling class! Which, whether the king was Edward V or Richard III, likely wouldn't be all that good for the peace of the realm. Eileen concluded: Another point ..what was it that led EW to hand him over. She could have stood her ground...Richard was hardly going to send in a force to drag the boy out? Doug here: I don't believe that EW kept her son with her as a shield against physical violence against herself, but was using him to protect herself against possible legal action/s by Richard, or the Council. FWIW, and it's only my opinion, but I rather think EW handed her son over because he was no longer necessary for her own protection against any legal actions Richard might instigate against her because of her involvement/acquiescence in the plans made after the death of Edward IV to circumvent the provisions of Edward's will. We do know there was a plot/plan to have Edward crowned and a Royal Council set up and running before Richard arrived in London. I find it extremely difficult to imagine how carrying out such a plan could be imagined without EW's participation or, at the very least, agreement. Which, or so it seems to me, might very well also be how Richard would have viewed it. I'm not certain exactly which laws may have been violated but, by failing even try and warn Richard of what was being planned, I don't doubt EW may have laid herself open to various charges  should Richard want to push it. We know that plan fizzled when Edward's progress from Wales to London was overtaken by Richard at Stony Stratford in Buckinghamshire. While we don't exactly what took place at Stony Stratford, we do know that something occurred that resulted in the arrest of Rivers and Vaughn. There are also intimations that some sort of ambush against Richard was planned. Regardless of whether the ambush was intended merely to sequester Richard or to physically harm him, EW would likely have good reason to fear a charge initiated by Richard of misprision of treason against the Protector/Constable; again, presuming she had knowledge of what was planned, but failed to try and warn Richard. IOW, EW's fears for the safety of her son were merely a public smokescreen used to to justify her necessity in seeking sanctuary. After all, no matter how much of his honor Archbishop Bourchier pledged, once Richard of Shrewsbury was out of sanctuary, he was completely at the mercy of his uncle. If EW had really been that worried about her son's safety, she would never have allowed him to leave sanctuary at Westminster. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Eileen wrote :

"Further to my last post..could Richard of Shrewsbury have been used as a rallying point even while he was in sanctuary?
"Another point ..what was it that led EW to hand him over. She could have stood her ground...Richard was hardly going to send in a force to drag the boy out?"

Carol responds:

At the time Richard of Shrewsbury was handed over, plans were still being made for a (delayed) coronation of his brother--and that was after Hastings had been executed. I suspect that "Prince" Richard himself was eager to join his brother (even though he didn't know him well) and escape from the confinement of sanctuary with his mother and sisters (and their female servants). His pleas may have helped to persuade his mother. In any case, EW had nothing to fear from Richard of Gloucester and no reason to fear that he would harm either nephew. Had she feared harm to her younger son, she certainly would not have handed him over.

All this suggests that (our) Richard had made no move to take the crown, though an investigation of the Eleanor Talbot/Butler story must have been in the works. The petition was not presented to Richard by the Three Estates until at least a week later (not sure of the exact dates here). Richard may have been playing it safe--having R of S available for his brother's coronation if it took place but also taking him out of his mother's hands just in case it didn't.

But it was the persuasion of a bishop that convinced EW. Richard would never have resorted to drag a child (or woman) from sanctuary.

I have a feeling that EW's daughters envied their brother and wished they could be released, too!

Carol

Where did you get the information that the younger prince was titled, Richard 'of Shrewsbury?' I always thought he was Duke of York?

Yes, that's my understanding also

Well, due to the climate - which almost seemed like a culture - of plotting or scheming that was very much prevalent, it seemed the safest idea. He could be used as a focus for kidnapping and rebellion. It wasn't long after the Hastings episode.
It's unfortunate that the hostage idea is conveniently or simplistically used as another shade to blacken Richard's character and reputation, still persistently argued by the anti-Richard crowd: 'Starkas' (Starkey) and others.

Dave wrote: Where did you get the information that the younger prince was titled, Richard 'of Shrewsbury?' I always thought he was Duke of York? Doug here: To prevent any misunderstanding, we tend to refer to Richard III's nephew Richard, whose grandfather was Richard, Duke of York, by the place of his birth  Shrewsbury.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Well, that clarifies the situation. Thanks for your input.

davetheslave wrote:

"Yes, that's my understanding also."

Carol responds:

Hi, Dave. Can you make it clear which post (and whose) you're responding to? Otherwise, it's difficult to follow threads in this forum

Thanks,
Carol