'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Hello !

I'm new here, and I've very glad I've found that group. I've started to browse among the topics, and I'm impressed by the huge amount of scholarly knowledge here ! I'm sure I'll find answers to the many questions I have !

Like many others, my interest in Richard began when I read J. Tey's 'Daughter of time'. From then, I've read a lot of books about him, novels and scholarly works alike. For a start, I chose mostly 'ricardian' authors, but now I'm reading David Horspool's rather neutral, and very interesting biography : 'Richard III, a ruler and his reputation'. I enjoyed it because he always quotes his sources and discuss their reliability. Too many historians seem to take the Crowland chronicle and Mancini at face value. Horspool has also a rather lucid point of view about the fact that in the controversy concerning Richard's guilt in his nephews' (probable) death, most scholars consider very likely that Richard did it, whereas 'gifted amateurs' (as Horspool calls them) are convinced that he didn't. For him, it's because historians are used to deal with the gaps in their sources and to rely on probabilities to reconstruct the facts, whereas the 'amateurs' want clear answers. But probabilities are not facts.

Most of the time, Horspool is well aware of that. Yet on the subject of Buckingham, his account disappointed me by being as shortsighted as any of the one-sided point of views he had previously denounced. He quotes two sources involving Buckingham in the death of the children. I knew already about the first one, found in the College of Heralds annals : "this yer King Edward the Vth, lae callyd Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the IIII sonys, wer put to deyth in the vise of the duke of Buckingham". But I didn't know about the second one, which is also contemporary of the facts, as it is "probably written in 1485" according to Horspool himself. And that text, found in a genealogy, says that the children were "snatched from the light of the world with the advice of the Duke of Buckingham".

But once he has quoted these two texts, Horspool simply dismiss them, saying that they just reflect what 'some citizen thought had happened to the boys'. Yet, these are the only two strictly contemporary sources making a (rather) clear statement about what happened to the princes. Mancini (as dubious a witness as he is, being on the payroll of a french bishop) says he doesn't know what happened. So wouldn't it be worth asking why these two different, yet strictly contemporary texts make the same statement ? Why involving precisely Buckingham, if he had nothing to do with the prince's disappearance ?

Do you know if, apart from the novelists any scholar (or 'gifted amateur' with strong historical knowledge) ever tried to find some answers ?

Hello !

I'm new here, and I've very glad I've found that group. I've started to browse among the topics, and I'm impressed by the huge amount of scholarly knowledge here ! I'm sure I'll find answers to the many questions I have ! 

Like many others, my interest in Richard began when I read J. Tey's 'Daughter of time'. From then, I've read a lot of books about him, novels and scholarly works alike. For a start, I chose mostly 'ricardian' authors, but now I'm reading David Horspool's rather neutral, and very interesting biography : 'Richard III, a ruler and his reputation'. I enjoyed it because he always quotes his sources and discuss their reliability. Too many historians seem to take the Crowland chronicle and Mancini at face value. Horspool has also a rather lucid point of view about the fact that in the controversy concerning Richard's guilt in his nephews' (probable) death, most scholars consider very likely that Richard did it, whereas 'gifted amateurs' (as Horspool calls them) are convinced that he didn't. For him, it's because historians are used to deal with the gaps in their sources and to rely on probabilities to reconstruct the facts, whereas the 'amateurs' want clear answers. But probabilities are not facts. 

Most of the time, Horspool is well aware of that. Yet on the subject of Buckingham, his account disappointed me by being as shortsighted as any of the one-sided point of views he had previously denounced. He quotes two sources involving Buckingham in the death of the children. I knew already about the first one, found in the College of Heralds annals : "this yer King Edward the Vth, lae callyd Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the IIII sonys, wer put to deyth in the vise of the duke of Buckingham". But I didn't know about the second one, which is also contemporary of the facts, as it is "probably written in 1485" according to Horspool himself. And that text, found in a genealogy, says that the children were "snatched from the light of the world with the advice of the Duke of Buckingham".

But once he has quoted these two texts, Horspool simply dismiss them, saying that they just reflect what 'some citizen thought had happened to the boys'. Yet, these are the only two strictly contemporary sources making a (rather) clear statement about what happened to the princes. Mancini (as dubious a witness as he is, being on the payroll of a french bishop) says he doesn't know what happened. So wouldn't it be worth asking why these two different, yet strictly contemporary texts make the same statement ? Why involving precisely Buckingham, if he had nothing to do with the prince's disappearance ?

Do you know if, apart from the novelists any scholar (or 'gifted amateur' with strong historical knowledge) ever tried to find some answers ?

Hello !

I'm new here, and I've very glad I've found that group. I've started to browse among the topics, and I'm impressed by the huge amount of scholarly knowledge here ! I'm sure I'll find answers to the many questions I have ! 

Like many others, my interest in Richard began when I read J. Tey's 'Daughter of time'. From then, I've read a lot of books about him, novels and scholarly works alike. For a start, I chose mostly 'ricardian' authors, but now I'm reading David Horspool's rather neutral, and very interesting biography : 'Richard III, a ruler and his reputation'. I enjoyed it because he always quotes his sources and discuss their reliability. Too many historians seem to take the Crowland chronicle and Mancini at face value. Horspool has also a rather lucid point of view about the fact that in the controversy concerning Richard's guilt in his nephews' (probable) death, most scholars consider very likely that Richard did it, whereas 'gifted amateurs' (as Horspool calls them) are convinced that he didn't. For him, it's because historians are used to deal with the gaps in their sources and to rely on probabilities to reconstruct the facts, whereas the 'amateurs' want clear answers. But probabilities are not facts. 

Most of the time, Horspool is well aware of that. Yet on the subject of Buckingham, his account disappointed me by being as shortsighted as any of the one-sided point of views he had previously denounced. He quotes two sources involving Buckingham in the death of the children. I knew already about the first one, found in the College of Heralds annals : "this yer King Edward the Vth, lae callyd Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the IIII sonys, wer put to deyth in the vise of the duke of Buckingham". But I didn't know about the second one, which is also contemporary of the facts, as it is "probably written in 1485" according to Horspool himself. And that text, found in a genealogy, says that the children were "snatched from the light of the world with the advice of the Duke of Buckingham".

But once he has quoted these two texts, Horspool simply dismiss them, saying that they just reflect what 'some citizen thought had happened to the boys'. Yet, these are the only two strictly contemporary sources making a (rather) clear statement about what happened to the princes. Mancini (as dubious a witness as he is, being on the payroll of a french bishop) says he doesn't know what happened. So wouldn't it be worth asking why these two different, yet strictly contemporary texts make the same statement ? Why involving precisely Buckingham, if he had nothing to do with the prince's disappearance ?

Do you know if, apart from the novelists any scholar (or 'gifted amateur' with strong historical knowledge) ever tried to find some answers ?

I hope Philippa Langley will succeed in her researches. And why not,considering how much had been achieved untill now : the finding of the TItulus Regius, the body of Richard himself...On the net I've found the text of the genealogy  Horspool told about. It's a genealogy of the kings of England, ending with Richard III. The latin is easy to translate. The author is convinced that the princes are dead, and that Richard put them to death with the advice of Buckingham. It leads tu suppose that in the other contemporary document, the journal from some London citizen found in the College of arms manuscript, 'vice' means 'advice' and not 'device' after all. I thought these documents could help Richard's case (if the word used in the latin text could have meant 'device', if Richard wasn't accused directly) but obviously they can't. Of course, one can imagine that there was a rumor of Buckingham having committed the crime, and that the people could not believe, as it's still the case now, that he had done it without Richard's orders. And there is also the possibility that the rumor was false altogether (from some of my recent reading, it seems that it's not completely ridiculous to believe that Perkin Warbeck was really Richard of York ?). So in fact, Horspool was both objective and cautious. I only regret he didn't quote the latin text and I had to search for it. In every book I read, there is some partial point of view, a partial use of the sources. Horspool is, so far, the most thorough that have found, but still not enough for my curiosity about the question.I suppose that Richard's excellent previous record and the fact that the murder of the princes was not among the charges of Henri VII's indictment of him are still the best proofs against his culpability (back to Josephine Tey, then).By the way, how do the historians convinced that 'Richard did it' answer to that objection: the absence of the accusation of having murdered his nephew in Henry VII's first charges against his predecessor ? Do you know if they have any convincing explanation for that ?

Barnfield’s post is among the “Files” here, but is linked to in this article:

https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/richard-and-incest/

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 03 June 2017 13:42
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Firstly, we have no evidence they died in the Tower. Secondly, those famous bones have never been DNA tested or carbon dated. Buried ten feet down? It would take a week digging a grave that deep, and nobody noticed and told Henry Tudor?

The reason Richard continues to be accused is that it is the last charge against him that hasn't been disproved. Richard has to be the bad guy, in my opinion, because the Royal family is descended from Elizabeth of York. If she is illegitimate, then the whole line is now illegitimate on both sides.

On Jun 3, 2017 7:21 AM, "romanenemo" <[email protected]> wrote:

I hope Philippa Langley will succeed in her researches. And why not,considering how much had been achieved untill now : the finding of the TItulus Regius, the body of Richard himself...

On the net I've found the text of the genealogy Horspool told about. It's a genealogy of the kings of England , ending with Richard III. The latin is easy to translate. The author is convinced that the princes are dead, and that Richard put them to death with the advice of Buckingham. It leads tu suppose that in the other contemporary document, the journal from some London citizen found in the College of arms manuscript, 'vice' means 'advice' and not 'device' after all. I thought these documents could help Richard's case (if the word used in the latin text could have meant 'device', if Richard wasn't accused directly) but obviously they can't. Of course, one can imagine that there was a rumor of Buckingham having committed the crime, and that the people could not believe, as it's still the case now, that he had done it without Richard's orders. And there is also the possibility that the rumor was false altogether (from some of my recent reading, it seems that it's not completely ridiculous to believe that Perkin Warbeck was really Richard of York ?). So in fact, Horspool was both objective and cautious. I only regret he didn't quote the latin text and I had to search for it. In every book I read, there is some partial point of view, a partial use of the sources. Horspool is, so far, the most thorough that have found, but still not enough for my curiosity about the question.

I suppose that Richard's excellent previous record and the fact that the murder of the princes was not among the charges of Henri VII's indictment of him are still the best proofs against his culpability (back to Josephine Tey, then).

By the way, how do the historians convinced that 'Richard did it' answer to that objection: the absence of the accusation of having murdered his nephew in Henry VII's first charges against his predecessor ? Do you know if they have any convincing explanation for that ?

I  do think there are two other things to be taken into account. If you want someone dead for political reasons you make sure everyone knows they are dead. You want people to see them dead so that no ghosts can ever be conjured up. This happened in the case of Edward II (though even that is now disputed), Richard II, Henry VI and even Richard himself. No point in having them dead and not confirm it - it just fuels rumour and unrest. That's without the fact that they'd actually been declared illegitimate and had no claim anyway.
But secondly, the argument that convinces me (and the jury in the 1980s 'trial') is that there was an heir who was alive and being cared for very well by Richard and that was Warwick. Yes, he was at that point attainted, but if Richard wanted to get rid of all rivals he would have had to have got rid of Warwick too. Why go to the trouble of removing too illegitimate claimants when one legitimate one was still alive? It takes little to lift an attainder and all would agree that in no way could Warwick have been culpable for his father's crimes. H

From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 3 June 2017, 12:17
Subject: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

  I hope Philippa Langley will succeed in her researches. And why not,considering how much had been achieved untill now : the finding of the TItulus Regius, the body of Richard himself...On the net I've found the text of the genealogy  Horspool told about. It's a genealogy of the kings of England, ending with Richard III. The latin is easy to translate. The author is convinced that the princes are dead, and that Richard put them to death with the advice of Buckingham. It leads tu suppose that in the other contemporary document, the journal from some London citizen found in the College of arms manuscript, 'vice' means 'advice' and not 'device' after all. I thought these documents could help Richard's case (if the word used in the latin text could have meant 'device', if Richard wasn't accused directly) but obviously they can't. Of course, one can imagine that there was a rumor of Buckingham having committed the crime, and that the people could not believe, as it's still the case now, that he had done it without Richard's orders. And there is also the possibility that the rumor was false altogether (from some of my recent reading, it seems that it's not completely ridiculous to believe that Perkin Warbeck was really Richard of York ?). So in fact, Horspool was both objective and cautious. I only regret he didn't quote the latin text and I had to search for it. In every book I read, there is some partial point of view, a partial use of the sources. Horspool is, so far, the most thorough that have found, but still not enough for my curiosity about the question.I suppose that Richard's excellent previous record and the fact that the murder of the princes was not among the charges of Henri VII's indictment of him are still the best proofs against his culpability (back to Josephine Tey, then).By the way, how do the historians convinced that 'Richard did it' answer to that objection: the absence of the accusation of having murdered his nephew in Henry VII's first charges against his predecessor ? Do you know if they have any convincing explanation for that ?

I hope Philippa Langley will succeed in her researches. And why not,considering how much had been achieved untill now : the finding of the TItulus Regius, the body of Richard himself...On the net I've found the text of the genealogy Horspool told about. It's a genealogy of the kings of England, ending with Richard III. The latin is easy to translate. The author is convinced that the princes are dead, and that Richard put them to death with the advice of Buckingham. It leads tu suppose that in the other contemporary document, the journal from some London citizen found in the College of arms manuscript, 'vice' means 'advice' and not 'device' after all. I thought these documents could help Richard's case (if the word used in the latin text could have meant 'device', if Richard wasn't accused directly) but obviously they can't. Of course, one can imagine that there was a rumor of Buckingham having committed the crime, and that the people could not believe, as it's still the case now, that he had done it without Richard's orders. And there is also the possibility that the rumor was false altogether (from some of my recent reading, it seems that it's not completely ridiculous to believe that Perkin Warbeck was really Richard of York ?). So in fact, Horspool was both objective and cautious. I only regret he didn't quote the latin text and I had to search for it. In every book I read, there is some partial point of view, a partial use of the sources. Horspool is, so far, the most thorough that have found, but still not enough for my curiosity about the question.I suppose that Richard's excellent previous record and the fact that the murder of the princes was not among the charges of Henri VII's indictment of him are still the best proofs against his culpability (back to Josephine Tey, then).By the way, how do the historians convinced that 'Richard did it' answer to that objection: the absence of the accusation of having murdered his nephew in Henry VII's first charges against his predecessor ? Do you know if they have any convincing explanation for that ?

Why exactly should we trust Horspool's assessment about those sources you mention? To really know whether or not to trust a given source, I'm afraid it's not good enough to take some "professional" historian's word for it. You need to know what is the actual evidence regarding the dating, the qualifications of the person writing (was he, or rarely she, in a position to know what s/he's reporting) and why was a document written.

A J

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:58 AM, romanenemo@... [] <> wrote:

Hello !

I'm new here, and I've very glad I've found that group. I've started to browse among the topics, and I'm impressed by the huge amount of scholarly knowledge here ! I'm sure I'll find answers to the many questions I have !

Like many others, my interest in Richard began when I read J. Tey's 'Daughter of time'. From then, I've read a lot of books about him, novels and scholarly works alike. For a start, I chose mostly 'ricardian' authors, but now I'm reading David Horspool's rather neutral, and very interesting biography : 'Richard III, a ruler and his reputation'. I enjoyed it because he always quotes his sources and discuss their reliability. Too many historians seem to take the Crowland chronicle and Mancini at face value. Horspool has also a rather lucid point of view about the fact that in the controversy concerning Richard's guilt in his nephews' (probable) death, most scholars consider very likely that Richard did it, whereas 'gifted amateurs' (as Horspool calls them) are convinced that he didn't. For him, it's because historians are used to deal with the gaps in their sources and to rely on probabilities to reconstruct the facts, whereas the 'amateurs' want clear answers. But probabilities are not facts.

Most of the time, Horspool is well aware of that. Yet on the subject of Buckingham, his account disappointed me by being as shortsighted as any of the one-sided point of views he had previously denounced. He quotes two sources involving Buckingham in the death of the children. I knew already about the first one, found in the College of Heralds annals : "this yer King Edward the Vth, lae callyd Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the IIII sonys, wer put to deyth in the vise of the duke of Buckingham". But I didn't know about the second one, which is also contemporary of the facts, as it is "probably written in 1485" according to Horspool himself. And that text, found in a genealogy, says that the children were "snatched from the light of the world with the advice of the Duke of Buckingham".

But once he has quoted these two texts, Horspool simply dismiss them, saying that they just reflect what 'some citizen thought had happened to the boys'. Yet, these are the only two strictly contemporary sources making a (rather) clear statement about what happened to the princes. Mancini (as dubious a witness as he is, being on the payroll of a french bishop) says he doesn't know what happened. So wouldn't it be worth asking why these two different, yet strictly contemporary texts make the same statement ? Why involving precisely Buckingham, if he had nothing to do with the prince's disappearance ?

Do you know if, apart from the novelists any scholar (or 'gifted amateur' with strong historical knowledge) ever tried to find some answers ?

There are indeed some clues about this. Espacially if Perkin Warbeck was really Richard of York. Why would Margaret have supported an impostor's claim, even to get revenge against Henry VII ? The fact that he was under the protection of Sir Edward Brampton is also in favor of the theory.But to explain how he had survived and suddenly reappeared, Perkin Warbeck apparently said (I read it on wikipedia) that his older brother had been killed, and that he had been spared by the (unknown) murderers 'because of his innocence', in exchange of the promise of not revealing his identity for several years. Isn't such a story rather unlikely ? Why would anyone take the risk (at least for his immortal soul) to kill the heir of the throne only to spare the other one ? And if Perkin Warbck was an impostor, why didn't Margaret ever produce the real princes to support their claim, if they were hidden in Burgundy ? 

Hello !

I'm new here, and I've very glad I've found that group. I've started to browse among the topics, and I'm impressed by the huge amount of scholarly knowledge here ! I'm sure I'll find answers to the many questions I have !

Like many others, my interest in Richard began when I read J. Tey's 'Daughter of time'. From then, I've read a lot of books about him, novels and scholarly works alike. For a start, I chose mostly 'ricardian' authors, but now I'm reading David Horspool's rather neutral, and very interesting biography : 'Richard III, a ruler and his reputation'. I enjoyed it because he always quotes his sources and discuss their reliability. Too many historians seem to take the Crowland chronicle and Mancini at face value. Horspool has also a rather lucid point of view about the fact that in the controversy concerning Richard's guilt in his nephews' (probable) death, most scholars consider very likely that Richard did it, whereas 'gifted amateurs' (as Horspool calls them) are convinced that he didn't. For him, it's because historians are used to deal with the gaps in their sources and to rely on probabilities to reconstruct the facts, whereas the 'amateurs' want clear answers. But probabilities are not facts.

Most of the time, Horspool is well aware of that. Yet on the subject of Buckingham, his account disappointed me by being as shortsighted as any of the one-sided point of views he had previously denounced. He quotes two sources involving Buckingham in the death of the children. I knew already about the first one, found in the College of Heralds annals : "this yer King Edward the Vth, lae callyd Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the IIII sonys, wer put to deyth in the vise of the duke of Buckingham". But I didn't know about the second one, which is also contemporary of the facts, as it is "probably written in 1485" according to Horspool himself. And that text, found in a genealogy, says that the children were "snatched from the light of the world with the advice of the Duke of Buckingham".

But once he has quoted these two texts, Horspool simply dismiss them, saying that they just reflect what 'some citizen thought had happened to the boys'. Yet, these are the only two strictly contemporary sources making a (rather) clear statement about what happened to the princes. Mancini (as dubious a witness as he is, being on the payroll of a french bishop) says he doesn't know what happened. So wouldn't it be worth asking why these two different, yet strictly contemporary texts make the same statement ? Why involving precisely Buckingham, if he had nothing to do with the prince's disappearance ?

Do you know if, apart from the novelists any scholar (or 'gifted amateur' with strong historical knowledge) ever tried to find some answers ?

In a letter dated from Andermund, 8 ka. Sept. 1493, Richard/Perkin wrote to Queen Isabella of Spain. The letter has been quoted occasionally online, but tracking it down to the original is something of a challenge. It is now in the British Museum's collection, acquired in 1843 as part of the Egerton MSS [List of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum in the years MDCCCXXXVIMDCCCXL. By order of the Trustees, London, MDCCCXLIII]. There is a photo of it in Ian Arthurson's The Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy & one available at this link - https://www.granger.com/popuppreview.asp?image=0524395

Both images are too small to read, although it does look as if the letter was written in Latin.

Ann Wroe, in her The Perfect Prince, discusses the contents and highlights certain of the Latin words used, but doesn't seem to have provided the full text, either in Latin or in English translation.

What is available online is a translation offered by Sir Frederic Madden in his Documents relating to Perkin Warbeck, with Remarks on his History, published in 1837. Madden began by noting that the letter was written by a secretary, in very indifferent Latin and signed Richard with the epithet of Plantagenet, second son of the late King Edward.' He further regretted the loss of the seal, since it would have been interesting to know what arms were assumed by Perkin at this stage of his career. *

Madden's rendering of Perkin's letter into English includes this account (which, by the way, is repeated verbatim, and uncredited, by Arthurson; pp 82-83 in my paperback edition of his work]

Whereas the Prince of Wales, eldest son of Edward formerly King of England, of pious memory, my dearest lord and father, was miserably put to death, and I myself, then nearly nine years of age, was also delivered to a certain lord to be killed, it pleased the Divine Clemency, that that lord, having compassion on my innocence, preserved me alive and in safety; first, however, causing me to swear on the holy sacrament, that to no one should I disclose my name, origin, or family, until a certain number of years had passed. He sent me therefore abroad, with two persons, who should watch over and take charge of me; and thus, I, an orphan, bereaved of my royal father and brother, an exile from my kingdom, and deprived of country, inheritance and fortune, a fugitive in the midst of extreme perils, led my miserable life, in fear, and weeping, and grief, and for the space of nearly eight years lay hid in divers provinces. At length, one of those who had charge of me being dead, and the other returned to his country, and never afterwards seen, scarcely had I emerged from childhood, alone and without means, I remained for a time in the kingdom of Portugal, and thence sailed to Ireland, where being recognised by the illustrious lords, the Earls of Desmond and Kildare, my cousins, as also by other noblemen of the island, I was received with great joy and honour.

Originally, I had supposed there might be some merit in speculating about who the players in this story were supposed to have been, and when exactly it might have taken place. On second thought, I wonder how accurate the translation is, as it seems to have a very Victorian flavor to it, especially in comparison to documents already quoted from King Richard's lifetime. It also seems anachronistic that a son of Edward IV would speak of scarcely having emerged from childhood at the age of 18, when his father had become king at the age of 18, his brother Edward V at age 15 was expected to be able to rule independently soon after being crowned, and his uncles, George (certainly) and Richard (almost certainly) assumed their majority at the age of 16.

A J

I did what I could on that matter, that is I googled 'College of arms manuscripts', and I foudn that website http://www.aim25.com/cats/153/ 19836.htm

Hello !

I'm new here, and I've very glad I've found that group. I've started to browse among the topics, and I'm impressed by the huge amount of scholarly knowledge here ! I'm sure I'll find answers to the many questions I have ! 

Like many others, my interest in Richard began when I read J. Tey's 'Daughter of time'. From then, I've read a lot of books about him, novels and scholarly works alike. For a start, I chose mostly 'ricardian' authors, but now I'm reading David Horspool's rather neutral, and very interesting biography : 'Richard III, a ruler and his reputation'. I enjoyed it because he always quotes his sources and discuss their reliability. Too many historians seem to take the Crowland chronicle and Mancini at face value. Horspool has also a rather lucid point of view about the fact that in the controversy concerning Richard's guilt in his nephews' (probable) death, most scholars consider very likely that Richard did it, whereas 'gifted amateurs' (as Horspool calls them) are convinced that he didn't. For him, it's because historians are used to deal with the gaps in their sources and to rely on probabilities to reconstruct the facts, whereas the 'amateurs' want clear answers. But probabilities are not facts. 

Most of the time, Horspool is well aware of that. Yet on the subject of Buckingham, his account disappointed me by being as shortsighted as any of the one-sided point of views he had previously denounced. He quotes two sources involving Buckingham in the death of the children. I knew already about the first one, found in the College of Heralds annals : "this yer King Edward the Vth, lae callyd Preince Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the IIII sonys, wer put to deyth in the vise of the duke of Buckingham". But I didn't know about the second one, which is also contemporary of the facts, as it is "probably written in 1485" according to Horspool himself. And that text, found in a genealogy, says that the children were "snatched from the light of the world with the advice of the Duke of Buckingham".

But once he has quoted these two texts, Horspool simply dismiss them, saying that they just reflect what 'some citizen thought had happened to the boys'. Yet, these are the only two strictly contemporary sources making a (rather) clear statement about what happened to the princes. Mancini (as dubious a witness as he is, being on the payroll of a french bishop) says he doesn't know what happened. So wouldn't it be worth asking why these two different, yet strictly contemporary texts make the same statement ? Why involving precisely Buckingham, if he had nothing to do with the prince's disappearance ?

Do you know if, apart from the novelists any scholar (or 'gifted amateur' with strong historical knowledge) ever tried to find some answers ?

Yes. I chose that book because some readers critics said that it was objective. And I enjoyed reading a well documented academic work that was in agreement with the image offre Richard I had from my ricardians reading. But the end is indeed disappointing, Horspool doesn't really face the issues and draws too hasty and shematic conclusions. But of course it is the mots difficult part.

Yes. I chose that book because some readers critics said that it was objective. And I enjoyed reading a well documented academic work that was in agreement with the image offre Richard I had from my ricardians reading. But the end is indeed disappointing, Horspool doesn't really face the issues and draws too hasty and shematic conclusions. But of course it is the mots difficult part.

Thank you, Doug, for that detailed account. I find your hypothesis that Buckingham spread the rumor of the children's death to seize the crown himself very interesting. And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. And it's clear that anyone who started the rumor wanted to lay the crime at Richard's feet. But I tend to think that Buckingham actually killed the children.

Perkin's account of his survival and escape from the Tower are often dismissed as lacking in credibility. However, I'm not convinced that they undermine him completely. Anne Wroe mentioned a detachment in the description of Edward's murder that suggests a lack of first hand knowledge, but there are several possible explanations. One could be that he was removed from the Tower quickly, but did not personally see the murder and was told about it later. It may have been true or simply a ruse to frighten a 9 year old boy into swearing to silence, while Edward was removed separately (and perhaps told something similar), since the plan would be to keep the boys apart to avoid them eventually plotting together. It could also be a cover for the fact that he knew Edward was not dead, but had chosen not to pursue a quest for the throne, or Margaret had considered Edward unsuitable for whatever reason and chosen Richard because she thought he would make a better King.

AJ made an interesting point about 'Richard's' age - ie. that 18 wasn't all that young back then. There is some truth to that in relation to the nobility, who often had to assume adult responsibilities at a young age. However they also enjoyed considerable wealth and support. That wasn't the case with other social classes and most 18 year old boys would have still been doing their apprenticeships, and probably would be 'emerging from childhood.' If 'Richard' had lost his position on the social scale, and had been working as a page, his perception of the transition to being an adult would have more in common with people from the middle class. Also, he could be referring to his guardians abandoning him, which occurred much earlier before he went to Portugal.

Ian Arthurson wrote an excellent book of on 15th century foreign policy, but it assumes that the Perkin's confession was genuine and not taken under duress. It is true that the Werbeques existed, but that doesn't prove that they were his biological parents. As far as this particular book is concerned, the focus is the analysis of the politics of the time, so Perkins actual identity is less important. Anne Wroe makes a good case for questioning the official story, but wasn't 100% certain whether he was Richard or an illegitimate member of the House of York - although she leans in favour of the latter focusing on a boy who was in Margaret's guardianship from 1487-1485. Diana Kleyn wrote in favour of Perkin being Richard. Wroe may have put too much emphasis on Perkin's size. He may have been smaller than Edward IV, but most people were and not everyone is the same height as their parents.
I have always been intrigued by Margaret's ward, who could be relevant or a complete red herring. I have even wondered if he was actually Lambert Simnel. However, I do not believe that Margaret would back a complete imposter. Even if the male figures had the cynical approach suggested by Arthurson, her emotional attachment to the House of York was too deep to sully it by handing the throne to someone completely unrelated. Actually, there isn't really one particular thing that convinces me that Perkin wasn't telling the truth, so on this one I would say I was about 70% in his favour and 30%, an illegitimate Yorkist.
Nico





On Sunday, 4 June 2017, 15:10, romanenemo <[email protected]> wrote:


Thank you for that interesting summary of the available knowledge about Perkin Warbeck Hilary.
I think that if he was an impostor, the fact that Margaret supported him shows that she didn't know what had happened to the children either. And that they were probably dead. There was no staunchest supporter of the yorkist cause than Margaret. Why would anyone having the children under their care not contact Margaret, at least after Richard's death, even if they were not hidden in Burgundy ?Or, if they were hidden somewhere else, why didn't they reappear in Burgundy to claim the throne, as Perkin Warbeck did ?
And considering the two texts contemporary to Richard's reign (the text from the journal of some London citizen and the genealogy)showing that there were already rumors about the children's death during Richard's reign, if they had been alive, Richard would have shown them to prove it.
On another hand, as Tey points at, Richard was far from stupid and if he had killed the children or if they had died under his care, he would have shown the bodies.And there is the lack of official accusation from Henry vii as well.
It is as if the situation concerning the children had no longer been under Richard's control when the rumors started. Will we ever know what happened

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :"Nevertheless it was not her meaning, nor no more was it the meaning of any of the better and sager sort that favoured this enterprise and knew the secret, that this disguised idol should possess the crown; but at his peril to make way to the overthrow of the King; and that done, they had their several hopes and ways."

Besides, there is no proof at all that Bacon was right. It's more likely that greedy Henry saw the conspiracy as an opportunity  of laying hands on Elizabeth's possessions.
All we can assume about Elizabeth's knowledge concerning the fate of her two sons is that it's rather unlikely that she considered Richard as her sons' murderer, else would she have come out of sanctuary and allowed her daughters to go to his court ? But even that is not sure. After all, he'd actually killed another of her sons, Richard Grey. There are stronger reasons against Richard's guilt than this one.
Reading an account of Simnel's adventure, I read that at the news of the rebellion, Henry had shown the real Warwick in public to prove that Simnel was an impostor. Apparently he was not affraid he would be spirited away. Why didn't Richard do the same, or something similar, to stop the rumors of the princes' death ? He didn't, therefore they had to be dead.
Concerning the fate of the princes, Margaret's attitude is more interesting that Elizabeth's. That she supported both Simnel and Warbeck seems to show that she didn't know what had happened to the boys, that she hoped that they were still alive. She was apparently ready to believe anyone giving her good news. That could support the idea of a shipwreck , for it would explain both the fact that Richard was unable to prove that the princes were still alive and yet that no one could be sure that they were dead. For if the princes had died of illness, or had been murdered by Buckingham, wouldn't Richard have found a way to let his sister know the truth ?
But of course, IMO, one can't dismiss the possibility that Margaret knew that the princes were dead, and yet supported the impostors out of pure hatred for Henry, who had taken the throne from her family and who had killed her last surviving brother, with whom she had grown up at Fotheringhay castle.The fact that Lincoln pretended that he had helped Simnel to escape could support that hypothesis, if Simnel was indeed an impostor. For would Lincoln have lied to his aunt on such a subject ?




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

Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive?  She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne.  

Thank you, Doug, for that detailed account. I find your hypothesis that Buckingham spread the rumor of the children's death to seize the crown himself very interesting. And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. And it's clear that anyone who started the rumor wanted to lay the crime at Richard's feet. But I tend to think that Buckingham actually killed the children.

The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters.   They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies. 
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours? 
Regards David 
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters.   They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies. 
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <[email protected]> wrote:
 

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :

The Archbishop of Caterbury was the supreme religious authority, not Stilington. The majority would have believed him, if not the people who had good reasons not to. Elizabeth Woodville also could have made a convincing statement. She had to know what Henry's victory would mean for her boys. Unless they were already dead.

    romanenemo wrote: Thank you, Doug, for that detailed account. I find your hypothesis that Buckingham spread the rumor of the children's death to seize the crown himself very interesting. And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. And it's clear that anyone who started the rumor wanted to lay the crime at Richard's feet. But I tend to think that Buckingham actually killed the children.   Doug here: You're welcome! I must add, however, that, while I have support for my views, what I posted is just that  my views. You wrote And indeed, maybe Buckingham thought that if he was successful quickly enough to get control of the situation before Henry could land, the crown might be his. I emphasized that one phrase because, as far as I know, the only references to Buckingham offering to support Tudor for the crown came after Henry became king; IOW, there's no reference contemporary with Buckingham's Rebellion to support the idea that Buckingham intended to step aside for anyone other than Edward V. Apparently there is a contemporary document from Buckingham requesting Tudor's aid, but that's certainly not the same as supporting Henry in a bid for the throne! For reasons I have trouble understanding, the fact that Henry Tudor could, and did, only make his claim to the throne based on the right of conquest, seems to be too often forgotten. Henry Stafford, OTOH, was the premier (if not only?) Royal Duke in England; presuming one ignores any such titles held by Richard and Richard's son. Stafford's descent from Edward III was completely legitimate. Unlike Henry's, which had required an Act of Parliament just to legitimize John of Gaunt's off-spring by his mistress. Nor in regards to Stafford were there any Royal caveats excepting to the royalty, such as there were for the Beauforts. My personal view is that it's extremely probable that the deaths of Edward and Richard were part of what Buckingham intended when he rebelled but, and again it's only my personal view, the plan misfired. romanenemo concluded: Of course, I'd like to believe that they didn't die. But if the children, or at lest Edward, was with his mother in 1484, if the other one was sent to Flanders, once again, why didn't King Richard prove to the public, one way of another, through a solemn declaration of someone trustworthy on that matter (such as the Archbishop or their mother) that the boys were still alive ? All the sources we have, reliable or not, contemporary or not, and above all the renewed alliance Lancast rer-Woodville, based upon Henry's promise to marry Elizabeth of York, show that the assumption that the princes were dead was very strong before and after Bosworth. And that assumption was deadly to Richard. If it had not been true, he'd have found a way to dispel the rumor.   Doug here: Perhaps the reason Richard never publicly showed the boys to be still alive in order to squelch rumors is because said rumors weren't widespread. There is something on the order of two or three contemporary sources for the rumors; one is in a speech by the equivalent of the French Prime Minister, there's the reference in the Croyland Chronicle and another reference seemingly entered as a later addition to another chronicle I think it's a chronicle, but I could be mistaken). The only reference that can definitely be determined to have been made during Richard's reign is the one by the Frenchman; the other two were written, as best can be determined, sometime after Bosworth when the fates of the two boys had assumed national importance. Basically what I'm saying is that the rumors weren't widespread, or at least not widespread enough for Richard to take official notice. I also have to admit that the idea that, because Henry pledged to marry Elizabeth of York, therefore he must have believed her brothers to be dead a non-starter. Henry's only shot at gaining the throne was via splitting Yorkist support for Richard. Henry couldn't marry Edward or Richard to accomplish that end, but he could, and eventually did, marry their sister. I've read, unfortunately I don't recall exactly where, that, between Bosworth and his marriage in January, 1486, Henry attempted to find a suitable foreign princess to marry, rather than carry out his pledge to marry Elizabeth. IOW, Henry vowed to marry Elizabeth as part of his efforts to gain the throne, but once he had the throne, his marriage to her was only because he'd not been able to acquire a foreign princess as a bride. In view of the lack of Woodville support for his invasion (presuming Hilary's researches are accurate  and they have been so far!), there was no special reason for Henry to carry out his earlier pledge except to meet the demands of the nobility that he do so. Another thing to remember is that Tudor's army consisted of French mercenaries and whatever Welsh troops he'd managed to gather in. Had Sir WIlliam Stanley not intervened as he did, or Northumberland been more active (to say the least) Richard would have won. Richard even had the option, prior to Bosworth of falling back  and joining those troops with him to an even larger number of supporters. That Richard failed to do so is, IMO, what doomed him and not any rumors. Doug  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

John Ashdown Hill and Annette Carson state that the rumours began in Brittany.
On Jun 6, 2017 12:21 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours?
Regards David
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters. They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies.
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <[email protected]> wrote:

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :

Now, Richard is betrayed on both flanks. Can I E assume that his escape routes surely had been cut off? Moving an army is a slow business and there may be no more difficult maneuver than strategic retreat. If Richard attempted to flee, which his brother, I think, would have he had a high risk of capture. I don't think his charge was an attempt to win.Kling Tudor would not have saved him. Stanley would have killed him and claimed the throne. I think Richard knew he was going to.his death and accepted it. If he could kill Tudor on the way so much the better.
On Jun 7, 2017 11:23 AM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:

RE rumours from Brittany Really???But then Ashdown-Hill says Edward IV was gay, Clarence was short and Edmund Beaufort fathered Edmund Tudor. Annette Carson says Henry Tudor's exile was self-imposed. 
I suspect that both are wrong in this. I would not consider contemporary books as sources - they must have quoted a source themselves... 
It would seem this may be used to portray a great external plot between Francis and Henry 
However it does not fit in with the sequence of events
Vergil says that Margaret heard of the deaths of the Princes and soon after thought of the deal with Elizabeth Woodville to get Henry home by making him king. 
We have the means by which Henry and Francis were informed in Brittany - Conway Guildford and Rameney sent separately by Margaret 
Also it would be illogical for Francis to be party to a false rumour, because his daughter was due to become Queen of England on her marriage to Edward V. Having spent 12 years holding Henry to obtain good terms from England, why throw it all away in favour of placing his captive on the throne through an invasion? 
While while starting rumours from a distance might be a good tactic for something that could not be disproved, like the parentage of Edward IV, it makes no sense for something that could easily be disproved by producing the Princes. And by what mechanism were the rumours transmitted? 
Lastly, in her book Josephine Wilkinson analyses the first occurrence of them, to point the finger at Margaret Beaufort. Although her logic is a bit suspect, in that she ignores the fact that Polydore Virgil says that the rumours were pre-existing. 


On 6 Jun 2017 5:39 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

John Ashdown Hill and Annette Carson state that the rumours began in Brittany. 
On Jun 6, 2017 12:21 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours? 
Regards David 
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:
 

The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters.   They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies. 
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <[email protected]> wrote:
 

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :

RE rumours from Brittany Really???But then Ashdown-Hill says Edward IV was gay, Clarence was short and Edmund Beaufort fathered Edmund Tudor. Annette Carson says Henry Tudor's exile was self-imposed. 
I suspect that both are wrong in this. I would not consider contemporary books as sources - they must have quoted a source themselves... 
It would seem this may be used to portray a great external plot between Francis and Henry 
However it does not fit in with the sequence of events
Vergil says that Margaret heard of the deaths of the Princes and soon after thought of the deal with Elizabeth Woodville to get Henry home by making him king. 
We have the means by which Henry and Francis were informed in Brittany - Conway Guildford and Rameney sent separately by Margaret 
Also it would be illogical for Francis to be party to a false rumour, because his daughter was due to become Queen of England on her marriage to Edward V. Having spent 12 years holding Henry to obtain good terms from England, why throw it all away in favour of placing his captive on the throne through an invasion? 
While while starting rumours from a distance might be a good tactic for something that could not be disproved, like the parentage of Edward IV, it makes no sense for something that could easily be disproved by producing the Princes. And by what mechanism were the rumours transmitted? 
Lastly, in her book Josephine Wilkinson analyses the first occurrence of them, to point the finger at Margaret Beaufort. Although her logic is a bit suspect, in that she ignores the fact that Polydore Virgil says that the rumours were pre-existing. 


On 6 Jun 2017 5:39 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

John Ashdown Hill and Annette Carson state that the rumours began in Brittany. 
On Jun 6, 2017 12:21 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours? 
Regards David 
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:
 

The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters.   They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies. 
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <[email protected]> wrote:
 

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :

About the rumors concerning the death of the children, here's the ones I know of :

RE rumours from Brittany Really??? But then Ashdown-Hill says Edward IV was gay, Clarence was short and Edmund Beaufort fathered Edmund Tudor. Annette Carson says Henry Tudor's exile was self-imposed.
I suspect that both are wrong in this. I would not consider contemporary books as sources - they must have quoted a source themselves...
It would seem this may be used to portray a great external plot between Francis and Henry
However it does not fit in with the sequence of events
Vergil says that Margaret heard of the deaths of the Princes and soon after thought of the deal with Elizabeth Woodville to get Henry home by making him king.
We have the means by which Henry and Francis were informed in Brittany - Conway Guildford and Rameney sent separately by Margaret
Also it would be illogical for Francis to be party to a false rumour, because his daughter was due to become Queen of England on her marriage to Edward V. Having spent 12 years holding Henry to obtain good terms from England, why throw it all away in favour of placing his captive on the throne through an invasion?
While while starting rumours from a distance might be a good tactic for something that could not be disproved, like the parentage of Edward IV, it makes no sense for something that could easily be disproved by producing the Princes. And by what mechanism were the rumours transmitted?
Lastly, in her book Josephine Wilkinson analyses the first occurrence of them, to point the finger at Margaret Beaufort. Although her logic is a bit suspect, in that she ignores the fact that Polydore Virgil says that the rumours were pre-existing.


On 6 Jun 2017 5:39 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <> wrote:

John Ashdown Hill and Annette Carson state that the rumours began in Brittany.
On Jun 6, 2017 12:21 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours?
Regards David
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters. They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies.
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <[email protected]> wrote:

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :

Yes, I think it was the English who taught the French to be very good at spreading rumours during the Hundred Years War? H

From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 6 June 2017, 17:21
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours?
Regards David
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <> wrote:
The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters. They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies.
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <[email protected]> wrote:
As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation : "Nevertheless it was not her meaning, nor no more was it the meaning of any of the better and sager sort that favoured this enterprise and knew the secret, that this disguised idol should possess the crown; but at his peril to make way to the overthrow of the King; and that done, they had their several hopes and ways."

Besides, there is no proof at all that Bacon was right. It's more likely that greedy Henry saw the conspiracy as an opportunity of laying hands on Elizabeth's possessions.
All we can assume about Elizabeth's knowledge concerning the fate of her two sons is that it's rather unlikely that she considered Richard as her sons' murderer, else would she have come out of sanctuary and allowed her daughters to go to his court ? But even that is not sure. After all, he'd actually killed another of her sons, Richard Grey. There are stronger reasons against Richard's guilt than this one.
Reading an account of Simnel's adventure, I read that at the news of the rebellion, Henry had shown the real Warwick in public to prove that Simnel was an impostor. Apparently he was not affraid he would be spirited away. Why didn't Richard do the same, or something similar, to stop the rumors of the princes' death ? He didn't, therefore they had to be dead.
Concerning the fate of the princes, Margaret's attitude is more interesting that Elizabeth's. That she supported both Simnel and Warbeck seems to show that she didn't know what had happened to the boys, that she hoped that they were still alive. She was apparently ready to believe anyone giving her good news. That could support the idea of a shipwreck , for it would explain both the fact that Richard was unable to prove that the princes were still alive and yet that no one could be sure that they were dead. For if the princes had died of illness, or had been murdered by Buckingham, wouldn't Richard have found a way to let his sister know the truth ?
But of course, IMO, one can't dismiss the possibility that Margaret knew that the princes were dead, and yet supported the impostors out of pure hatred for Henry, who had taken the throne from her family and who had killed her last surviving brother, with whom she had grown up at Fotheringhay castle. The fact that Lincoln pretended that he had helped Simnel to escape could support that hypothesis, if Simnel was indeed an impostor. For would Lincoln have lied to his aunt on such a subject ?




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

Why would Elizabeth Wydeville got involved in the Simnel plot, which led to her being sent to live out the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey if she had not believed that at least one of her sons were still alive? She would not have risked everything for the sake of George of Clarence's son especially with her own daughter on the throne.

Don't listen to Chroniclers. Edward probably was bisexual. He seemed to be an "anything goes type". At least John bases it in his itinerary. The book isn't out yet so how do.you know,?. I'm still waiting on hold for it. We know Katherine was a very lusty woman. It seems she had three affairs in a row before running off with Tudor. Vergil,? Tudor s propaganda chief? Seriously? Not me. I ignore them all now in favor of new evidence.

On Jun 7, 2017 12:19 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:

RE rumours from Brittany Really???But then Ashdown-Hill says Edward IV was gay, Clarence was short and Edmund Beaufort fathered Edmund Tudor. Annette Carson says Henry Tudor's exile was self-imposed.
I suspect that both are wrong in this. I would not consider contemporary books as sources - they must have quoted a source themselves...
It would seem this may be used to portray a great external plot between Francis and Henry
However it does not fit in with the sequence of events
Vergil says that Margaret heard of the deaths of the Princes and soon after thought of the deal with Elizabeth Woodville to get Henry home by making him king.
We have the means by which Henry and Francis were informed in Brittany - Conway Guildford and Rameney sent separately by Margaret
Also it would be illogical for Francis to be party to a false rumour, because his daughter was due to become Queen of England on her marriage to Edward V. Having spent 12 years holding Henry to obtain good terms from England, why throw it all away in favour of placing his captive on the throne through an invasion?
While while starting rumours from a distance might be a good tactic for something that could not be disproved, like the parentage of Edward IV, it makes no sense for something that could easily be disproved by producing the Princes. And by what mechanism were the rumours transmitted?
Lastly, in her book Josephine Wilkinson analyses the first occurrence of them, to point the finger at Margaret Beaufort. Although her logic is a bit suspect, in that she ignores the fact that Polydore Virgil says that the rumours were pre-existing.


On 6 Jun 2017 5:39 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

John Ashdown Hill and Annette Carson state that the rumours began in Brittany.
On Jun 6, 2017 12:21 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours?
Regards David
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:

The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters. They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies.
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <[email protected]> wrote:

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :

The only thing we can be sure of is that the boys disappeared and were never heard of again. Other than thats its pure speculation and second guessing what someone was thinking over 500 years ago. I fear we will never know.

RE rumours from Brittany Really??? But then Ashdown-Hill says Edward IV was gay, Clarence was short and Edmund Beaufort fathered Edmund Tudor. Annette Carson says Henry Tudor's exile was self-imposed.
I suspect that both are wrong in this. I would not consider contemporary books as sources - they must have quoted a source themselves...
It would seem this may be used to portray a great external plot between Francis and Henry
However it does not fit in with the sequence of events
Vergil says that Margaret heard of the deaths of the Princes and soon after thought of the deal with Elizabeth Woodville to get Henry home by making him king.
We have the means by which Henry and Francis were informed in Brittany - Conway Guildford and Rameney sent separately by Margaret
Also it would be illogical for Francis to be party to a false rumour, because his daughter was due to become Queen of England on her marriage to Edward V. Having spent 12 years holding Henry to obtain good terms from England, why throw it all away in favour of placing his captive on the throne through an invasion?
While while starting rumours from a distance might be a good tactic for something that could not be disproved, like the parentage of Edward IV, it makes no sense for something that could easily be disproved by producing the Princes. And by what mechanism were the rumours transmitted?
Lastly, in her book Josephine Wilkinson analyses the first occurrence of them, to point the finger at Margaret Beaufort. Although her logic is a bit suspect, in that she ignores the fact that Polydore Virgil says that the rumours were pre-existing.


On 6 Jun 2017 5:39 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <> wrote:

John Ashdown Hill and Annette Carson state that the rumours began in Brittany.
On Jun 6, 2017 12:21 PM, "daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:

What is your source for Brittany's being the source of the rumours?
Regards David
On 6 Jun 2017 1:45 p.m., "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

The rumours were invented in Brittany. Most people believed the boys were kept close somehere overseas. Richard is not Henry and makes different decisions. How many people actually knew what Edward looked like? Richard's enemies would just start another rumor that they were imposters. They didn't have to be dead. You have to bear in mind the possibility that anybody's public statements could be lies.
On Jun 6, 2017 8:22 AM, "romanenemo" <[email protected]> wrote:

As far as I know, Elizabeth's involvement in that plot is not sure. She just happened to have been sent in a convent by the time of the conspiracy. No contemporary source mentions her involvement. It's only Francis Bacon who linked the two events. Of course, it would have been odd for Elizabeth to risk everything for Warwick's sake, but Bacon doesn't say that she thought he was Richard of York. He has a completely different explanation :

- In January 1484 Guillaume de Rochefort, Lord Chancellor of France, urged the Estates General to "take warning" from the fate of the princes, as their own king, Charles VIII, was only 13.

That particular clue, IMO, is a very different matter.

Of course, the french government had supported the Lancastrian pretenders for quite a while, following a 'divide and rule' (or at least 'divide and keep the troubles outside') policy. It was in their interest to spread such a rumor against Richard, a potential enemy. If it is only a rumor, as Morton escaped on the continent in october 1483 I think, he could have been the source of it.

But at that date, so early in 1484, there was no conflict yet between Richard and France.

And above all, would a Chancelor, talking to the Estates General, report a mere rumor ? At the risk that it was proved to be a lie later ? It's much more likely that, for the sake of his own credibility, he would have checked the information first. And as Doug said, it was quite easy to check.

Of course, there is still the possibility that Richard would have hidden the boys. But if the Chancelor of France was talking about the princes' death to the Estates General, it was not a faint, provincial rumor. It was already a matter of state.

And as I said before, I find quite impossible to believe that Richard would have put the princes's safety, or the risk that they would be spirited away by the Woodville, above the possibility of clearing himself of such a dangerous accusation. Considering again the 'divide to rule' policy, it was much more in Richard's interest if there were two pretenders, Edward V and Henry, than just one.

And even if there was few of the Woodville party at Bosworth, there was at least Edward Woodville, who had taken shelter in Brittany and gave Henry some part of the english treasure. Would he have fought to make Henry king if he'd thought that his nephews were alive ?

Politically, it was really of the utmost interest for Richard to prove that his nephews were alive.

So I tend to go back to my previous point of view : the boys were actually dead in september, when Buckingham rebelled. As he probably rebelled for his own sake, it was absolutely in his interest to make the boys disappear. He did it !

I think JAH's best work was his Eleanor the Secret Queen. I think the weakest theory he ever put out was the heights of .Richard and George based on the Rous and Salisbury drawings which may not even have been drawn to scale. However he did also mention in his book, the Third Plantagenet, that the bones in the Clarence vault could not possibly be those of George and Isobel being the bones of people too old to be them. It's hardly JAH's fault if he gets misquoted by people who don't seem to have read the whole book but it's irritating when it leads to people making ludicrous statements.

I think JAH's best work was his Eleanor the Secret Queen. I think the weakest theory he ever put out was the heights of .Richard and George based on the Rous and Salisbury drawings which may not even have been drawn to scale. However he did also mention in his book, the Third Plantagenet, that the bones in the Clarence vault could not possibly be those of George and Isobel being the bones of people too old to be them. It's hardly JAH's fault if he gets misquoted by people who don't seem to have read the whole book but it's irritating when it leads to people making ludicrous statements.

I think that Henry was sensible enough not to imagine that Elizabeth would involve herself in a plot in favor of Clarence's son. And there is no source supporting the idea that Simnel was in fact Richard of York.

But Vicky did he not just say they slept in the same bed which is hardly the same as sleeping together in modern sense! That was something quite normal then. Like children sharing a bed. Paul


Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 8 juin 2017 à 13:42, vicki harris vickihnotb@... [] <> a écrit :

JAH explains society's attitude to same sex relationships in chapter 9 of his book The Private Life of Edward IV where he discusses Edward's relationship with his cousin Henry Beaufort which I had no idea about. I have all his books and thought The Last Days of Richard III and the fate of his DNA excellent

Get Outlook for Android
From: <> on behalf of cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <>
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 12:12:26 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs'

I think JAH's best work was his Eleanor the Secret Queen. I think the weakest theory he ever put out was the heights of .Richard and George based on the Rous and Salisbury drawings which may not even have been drawn to scale. However he did also mention in his book, the Third Plantagenet, that the bones in the Clarence vault could not possibly be those of George and Isobel being the bones of people too old to be them. It's hardly JAH's fault if he gets misquoted by people who don't seem to have read the whole book but it's irritating when it leads to people making ludicrous statements.

Gregory's Chronicle:

Doug wrote :There's no real evidence that the Woodvilles ever allied themselves to Tudor with the aim of assisting him in getting the throne. 

Romane here :But what then of Edward Woodville, who as on Henry's side at Bosworth ? He had to know what Henry taking the throne meant for the children. So he must bave believed that they were dead.
---In @ yahoogroups.com, <destama@...> wrote :

 Doug wrote:We do know that Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort were in communication while Elizabeth was in sanctuary and that, apparently, a proposal was made that Elizabeth of York was to marry Henry Tudor. However, considering the time frame when the original proposed match between Henry and Elizabeth was made, it's entirely probable that all that was intended was that Henry was to marry the sister of the re-enthroned Edward V and not assume the throne himself.
 Romane here :What would have been Henry's interest in marrying Elizabeth as a bastard ? He could do better, once on the throne. And if he wanted her as a legitimate heir, that meant that the two boys had to be out of the picture. What is the source for that early communication between Elizabeth and Margaret ? Is it reliable ? For it seems to me rather impossible that Elizabeth would have agreed to such a plan without knowing about her boys.
romanenemo wroteWhat had convinced me that the children had to be dead was, first, the fact that IMO, Richard wold have put a stop to the rumors if he had been able to. But maybe Doug is right and these rumors were not that important in England, and overrated by Mancini, for obvious reasons.About my second reason, that is the Woodville alliance with Henry, maybe you're right thinking that it's overrated too. Besides, it's possible that many of the plotters with Woodville connections had no qualms about allying themselves with Henry in spite of what would happen to the children if he became king. As you say, they were led by greed. Doug here:There's no real evidence that the Woodvilles ever allied themselves to Tudor with the aim of assisting him in getting the throne. We do know that Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort were in communication while Elizabeth was in sanctuary and that, apparently, a proposal was made that Elizabeth of York was to marry Henry Tudor. However, considering the time frame when the original proposed match between Henry and Elizabeth was made, it's entirely probable that all that was intended was that Henry was to marry the sister of the re-enthroned Edward V and not assume the throne himself.Therefore there'd be no reason, at that time, to worry about what Henry might, or might not, do in regards to his proposed brothers-in-law. romanenemo concluded:But what of Lionel Woodville ?What of Thomas Grey, who swore allegiance to Henry for a while ? Granted, he apparently changed his mind, but it's nonetheless strange, if his half-brothers were still alive, don't you think ? Why having a new candidate for the throne, instead of his own brother ? Brotherly loyalty aside, in was not in Dorset's interest to be only the brother of a powerless queen, and not the brother, maybe the protector even, as Anthony was dead, of a young and so probably suggestible king. And Henry's accession to the throne meant the children's death warrant. Supporting Henry's claim to the throne meant to tacitly accept that the children were dead, or as good as dead. Would the boys' own kin have done that, if they were alive ?I can't see a way out from that. Doug here:Again, what's important is when Lionel Woodville and Thomas Grey supported Tudor. Lionel Woodville died in late June 1484. It's again most likely than any support the he gave to Henry Tudor was part of the original effort to return Edward V to the throne. The same queries surround Thomas Grey. It's no secret that he supported Buckingham's Rebellion but the idea that Buckingham rebelled in order to offer the throne to Henry Tudor is, frankly, ludicrous. As best as can be determined by the facts, the aim of Buckingham's Rebellion from the start was to return Edward V to the throne. That Buckingham may have also had his eye on the throne shouldn't be discounted, but doesn't change anything concerning the original intent of the rebellion.Grey, during 1485, attempted to flee from Henry and return to England; apparently he'd received letters from his mother encouraging him to do so. Grey, however, was apprehended, apparently at Tudor's request, and kept under some form of custody in Paris.IOW, while these two Woodvilles were more than willing to conspire and plot treason to return Edward V to the throne, there's no evidence they supported Tudor in his quest for that same throne. One, Lionel, was dead well before Bosworth, and the other, Grey, was a captive in Paris.Doug 
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
 

No Romane Edward Woodville joined Tudor before the Princes disappeared. There is evidence regarding their presence in the Tower around 8th of September 1483. I can't remember exactly what it was. Alison Weir insists that she has proof that James Tyrrell killed the Princes on 3rd September 1483 because he was in London collecting clothes for the investiture of Edward of Middleham. I believe that he left London on the 3rd. However, there is this documentary evidence for the 8th. Edward Woodville had joined Tudor well before then.

Eileen wrote :Imho the Wydevilles must have thought/been initially led to believe by MB that the deal was that Edward of Westminster would be crowned if Tudor was allowed to return 
Eileen, I think that's a very interesting idea. The unlikely alliance between the Woodville and the Lancastrian could indeed be explained much better if its first aim, the alleged one at least, had been to put Edward V, as legitimate heir, on the throne, and then to give HenryTudor the hand of Elizabeth. Or course, on each side, there was a huge hidden agenda. It was a fool's bargain, such as the one between Warwick and Marguerite of Anjou.And then, a rumor was spread that the children were dead, or they actually died. After that, nothing was left in the deal for the Woodville thant Elizabeth of York becoming queen. Which explain that some of them lost heart.
As for the Simnel plot, there is no evidence at all that EW was part of it. Why would she have supported Clarence' son ? And there is no source claiming that he was Richard of York, that's just a modern hypothesis and IMO rather far-fetched one. Henry could have chosen that moment to get rid of her, and that's all. 
Or, she could indeed had discovered things about Henry's, or Morton's (if the children had died at the hands of Buckingham) responsibility just at that moment, with all that stirring of the ancient yorkist loyalties.

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

Imho the Wydevilles must have thought/been initially led to believe by MB that the deal was that Edward of Westminster would be crowned if Tudor was allowed to return (which they renegaded on obviously) which then evolved into, oh dear, Richard has  had  the boys murdered.  Both or one of these scenarios would explain EW joining the Simnel plot with either EW discovering one or both of the boys was alive and kicking or that someone else and nit Richard had had them destroyed.  I prefer the scenario that she had found out that one of them was alive because I think that would be the only reasonable explanation as to why she would get involved in a plot to oust her own daughter from the throne.  Further I have always felt that EoY was kind of indifferent to her mothers situation..culminating in a very, very low key funeral which although EW had requested this her family didn't really have to obey to the degree that even the herald reporting on it was shocked,   

Eileen wrote :Imho the Wydevilles must have thought/been initially led to believe by MB that the deal was that Edward of Westminster would be crowned if Tudor was allowed to return
Eileen, I think that's a very interesting idea. The unlikely alliance between the Woodville and the Lancastrian could indeed be explained much better if its first aim, the alleged one at least, had been to put Edward V, as legitimate heir, on the throne, and then to give HenryTudor the hand of Elizabeth. Or course, on each side, there was a huge hidden agenda. It was a fool's bargain, such as the one between Warwick and Marguerite of Anjou.And then, a rumor was spread that the children were dead, or they actually died. After that, nothing was left in the deal for the Woodville thant Elizabeth of York becoming queen. Which explain that some of them lost heart.
As for the Simnel plot, there is no evidence at all that EW was part of it. Why would she have supported Clarence' son ? And there is no source claiming that he was Richard of York, that's just a modern hypothesis and IMO rather far-fetched one. Henry could have chosen that moment to get rid of her, and that's all.
Or, she could indeed had discovered things about Henry's, or Morton's (if the children had died at the hands of Buckingham) responsibility just at that moment, with all that stirring of the ancient yorkist loyalties.

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

Imho the Wydevilles must have thought/been initially led to believe by MB that the deal was that Edward of Westminster would be crowned if Tudor was allowed to return (which they renegaded on obviously) which then evolved into, oh dear, Richard has had the boys murdered. Both or one of these scenarios would explain EW joining the Simnel plot with either EW discovering one or both of the boys was alive and kicking or that someone else and nit Richard had had them destroyed. I prefer the scenario that she had found out that one of them was alive because I think that would be the only reasonable explanation as to why she would get involved in a plot to oust her own daughter from the throne. Further I have always felt that EoY was kind of indifferent to her mothers situation..culminating in a very, very low key funeral which although EW had requested this her family didn't really have to obey to the degree that even the herald reporting on it was shocked,

There is also the story that Clarence sent E of W to Ireland for safety. Maybe the Earl of Warwick in the tower was an impostor. It is v difficult to know exactly what happened. E of W was supposed to be in Richard and Anne's household after May 1483 before that I believe he was supposed to be in the Marquis of Dorset's household. I tend to think that Anne would have known if he was her nephew or not but then she probably had either never met him or only when he was very young. So many scenarios and without proper contemporary evidence we might never know. I think it is good that we thrash these things out though, instead of just accepting them like the trads.

Eileen wrote :Imho the Wydevilles must have thought/been initially led to believe by MB that the deal was that Edward of Westminster would be crowned if Tudor was allowed to return
Eileen, I think that's a very interesting idea. The unlikely alliance between the Woodville and the Lancastrian could indeed be explained much better if its first aim, the alleged one at least, had been to put Edward V, as legitimate heir, on the throne, and then to give HenryTudor the hand of Elizabeth. Or course, on each side, there was a huge hidden agenda. It was a fool's bargain, such as the one between Warwick and Marguerite of Anjou.And then, a rumor was spread that the children were dead, or they actually died. After that, nothing was left in the deal for the Woodville thant Elizabeth of York becoming queen. Which explain that some of them lost heart.
As for the Simnel plot, there is no evidence at all that EW was part of it. Why would she have supported Clarence' son ? And there is no source claiming that he was Richard of York, that's just a modern hypothesis and IMO rather far-fetched one. Henry could have chosen that moment to get rid of her, and that's all.
Or, she could indeed had discovered things about Henry's, or Morton's (if the children had died at the hands of Buckingham) responsibility just at that moment, with all that stirring of the ancient yorkist loyalties.

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

Imho the Wydevilles must have thought/been initially led to believe by MB that the deal was that Edward of Westminster would be crowned if Tudor was allowed to return (which they renegaded on obviously) which then evolved into, oh dear, Richard has had the boys murdered. Both or one of these scenarios would explain EW joining the Simnel plot with either EW discovering one or both of the boys was alive and kicking or that someone else and nit Richard had had them destroyed. I prefer the scenario that she had found out that one of them was alive because I think that would be the only reasonable explanation as to why she would get involved in a plot to oust her own daughter from the throne. Further I have always felt that EoY was kind of indifferent to her mothers situation..culminating in a very, very low key funeral which although EW had requested this her family didn't really have to obey to the degree that even the herald reporting on it was shocked,

Doug, yes put that way I could buy that. I think Morton's role could well have been in influencing/diverting/ disabling (whatever it took to manipulate the dimmest bulb in the box). But at this stage he hadn't had the time to co-ordinate his own clan to participate in any rebellious action. You can clearly see that by 1485 he certainly had. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017, 3:46
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

      Hilary wrote: Doug, the only reason for a flaw in your theory of Morton's participation is that he actually didn't muster any/much support in 1483. Go forward to Bosworth and it's very different. To say Buckingham's support was thin was an understatement. Sorry, but I still fail to understand why Richard would send either boy to Flanders; Richard was a many who believed in loyalty above all and the loyalty which had been tested again and again was that of his own folk in the North.       Doug here: That's what I meant about Morton not being in control, because I wonder if Buckingham, noting the small number of people turning out, didn't start the rumors on their way prematurely? IOW, the rumors were originally intended to be put out either well after the supporters of Edward V had mustered around the banner raised by Buckingham or, possibly, after Richard had been defeated in battle but before Edward and his brother were rescued. At which time Buckingham would propose himself as Richard's replacement. Yes, it does sound silly put like that, but then Henry Stafford wasn't known for being the brightest bulb in the box, either. If Morton's reputation for manipulating people is anywhere close to being accurate, then, based on what I've read about him, Buckingham would've been putty in Morton's hands. As for what Morton would have gotten out of it  it would likely have been the same as what Morton received for his support of Tudor. The difference being that Morton, if Buckingham became king, would likely have even more power than he actually did under Tudor. If nothing else, Morton's handling of Buckingham during the rebellion would, had the rebellion succeeded, shown Morton he was in a position to, if not control Buckingham, then certainly move him toward those ends Morton. Of courses, I could be over-estimating the good Bishop's talents, but I don't think so. Doug  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

    Hilary wrote: I say this because Richard and they had been colleagues in adversity in 1470. However much they were unalike or had drifted apart afterwards, Richard wouldn't have forgotten that  such things give people a bond.   Doug here: Do you think those bonds might have caused Richard to react to  their actions in the way he did? Hastings' execution for plotting Richard's death would almost be a given, but there have always been questions about why Rivers and Grey were executed when they were. If some sort of ambush of Richard at Stony Stratford had been planned; why weren't the planners executed then and there, just as Hastings was immediately after the plot he in which he was involved had been discovered and disrupted? Is it possible Grey and Rivers had been kept informed of what was going on between Hastings et al? They were in custody, to be sure, but it was likely more on the order of protective custody than anything else; they most certainly weren't chained to the wall in some dark and dank dungeon. And, if they'd also been informed about what was planned in London and hadn't informed Richard, that could have been the last straw for Richard, no matter what his personal regard for Grey and Rivers have been. I've left your post entire below. I rather tend to agree with you concerning MB's power and EW's likely views. Doug So many ifs and so little time...  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

     I read somewhere that Richard had to petition to have them immediately executed but was stopped because he had not been confirmed as Lord Protector at the time of the attempted coup. A technicality he got through eventually which leads me to conclude he had to submit some evidence.
On Jun 10, 2017 10:41 AM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

I read somewhere that Richard had to petition to have them immediately executed but was stopped because he had not been confirmed as Lord Protector at the time of the attempted coup. A technicality he got through eventually which leads me to conclude he had to submit some evidence.
On Jun 10, 2017 10:41 AM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:

Doug, the only reason for a flaw in your theory of Morton's participation is that he actually didn't muster any/much support in 1483. Go forward to Bosworth and it's very different. To say Buckingham's support was thin was an understatement. Sorry, but I still fail to understand why Richard would send either boy to Flanders; Richard was a many who believed in loyalty above all and the loyalty which had been tested again and again was that of his own folk in the North. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@kconline.com []" <@yahoogroups.com>
To: @yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 5 June 2017, 17:28
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

 

romanenemo wrote:
"Thank you for that interesting summary of the available knowledge about
Perkin Warbeck Hilary.
I think that if he was an impostor, the fact that Margaret supported him
shows that she didn't know what had happened to the children either. And
that they were probably dead. There was no staunchest supporter of the
yorkist cause than Margaret. Why would anyone having the children under
their care not contact Margaret, at least after Richard's death, even if
they were not hidden in Burgundy ?Or, if they were hidden somewhere else,
why didn't they reappear in Burgundy to claim the throne, as Perkin Warbeck
did ?"

Doug here:
That Margaret supported "Perkin" is why I tend to believe he was who he
claimed. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to think that Margaret,
as much as she detested Tudor, would have supported someone for the throne
of England that she knew to be an imposter. The possibility does exist, of
course, that Margaret, as well as others, was taken in but, once again, any
attempt to palm someone off as Richard of Shrewsbury entailed so many
possible dangers as to make it, to me anyway, a non-starter.
For what it's worth, it's my belief that Richard separated his two nephews
during the spring of 1484, keeping Edward in England (Edward had, after all,
been proclaimed king, even if he'd never been crowned) and sent Richard
overseas to reside in the household of a well-to-do merchant and, most
importantly, Yorkist supporter. It would have made sense for Richard to have
informed his sister of his actions concerning his nephew, but I can't see
any necessity for Margaret to have had much, or even any, interaction with
the boy. Especially if, as I tend to believe, a major reason for the boy
being sent to Flanders was for his own protection.

ramonenemo concluded:
"And considering the two texts contemporary to Richard's reign (the text
from the journal of some London citizen and the genealogy)showing that there
were already rumors about the children's death during Richard's reign, if
they had been alive, Richard would have shown them to prove it.
On another hand, as Tey points at, Richard was far from stupid and if he
had killed the children or if they had died under his care, he would have
shown the bodies.And there is the lack of official accusation from Henry vii
as well.
It is as if the situation concerning the children had no longer been under
Richard's control when the rumors started. Will we ever know what happened"

Doug here:
As best I can determine, there were two periods when rumors about the boys
were flying around. The first was shortly after Buckingham's Rebellion broke
out, when rumors spread that the boys were dead, and spread far enough to be
noted by the Croyland Chronicler (whoever he was). While noone has ever been
named as the source of these rumors, it's my belief, based on what we
currently know, that those rumors were intended to gin up support for
Buckingham in his quest for the throne. My reasoning is that, should the
rebellion, which originally had as its' aim the return of Edward to the
throne, been successful, Buckingham could only at best hoped to take over as
Protector as long as Edward and Richard were alive. However, if anything
were to happen to the boys, then Buckingham would be in a position not
unlike that which faced Richard upon Stillington's announcement that Edward
IV's offspring were illegitimate - namely, there'd be two juveniles as
possible monarchs, with one under attainder and the second the son of the
man who'd be charged with the murder of his nephews. Because I really can't
see Buckingham letting the facts that Edward and Richard were also his
nephews and were still children stand in his way. IOW, Edward and Richard
would have likely been "discovered" as having been killed by Richard before
Buckingham could rescue them.
I believe the plan failed because the person who dreamed it up, and
encouraged Buckingham to aim for the throne, Bishop Morton, wasn't in
complete control of all the planning that goes into plotting a rebellion.
Morton almost certainly realized that, if a rebellion aimed at returning
Edward V to the throne was to succeed, Edward had to been seen as being
alive. Any rumor about his death spread before the rebellion was well
underway (IOW, troops already mustered and gathered together) would only
depress turnout and reduce the chances of Buckingham defeating Richard.
Everything I've seen suggests that the rumor about the boys' deaths got out
before it was intended, and that, as soon as the rumor was out, Morton
headed for cover, realizing the rebellion was almost certainly doomed. I'm
not certain about the dating of the reference to the boys being killed "on
the vise of Buckingham," but it's certainly possible the reference was
written down at a later time. Possibly because the topic of the boys' deaths
had come up again?
The second instance that I know of is a reference to the boys no longer
being seen in the Tower "after Easter." Easter 1483 can be ruled out
immediately as neither boy was even in the Tower before Easter 1483 was well
past. Which leaves 1484 and 1485 as possibilities. My preference is for 1484
as that was also the time frame when EW finally left sanctuary in
Westminster. There is no reference to her being lodged in London that I know
of, which increases the likelihood that she was lodged somewhere outside
London. Which would also explain why the boys were no longer seen at the
Tower, they also had been moved out of London.
It's only my belief, as I have no proof to sustain it other than the actions
of those involved and their personalities, but my current belief is that an
integral part of Buckingham's Rebellion included the death of the two boys,
and that death was to be laid at Richard's feet. Richard's actions lead me
to believe that he didn't know what Buckingham had planned for his nephews
until sometime at least after the rebellion was set in motion, and possibly
not until it was over. It may have been when Richard called Buckingham "that
most untrue creature" or it may have been prior to the winter of 1483/84
when it was noticed the boys were being seen less and less.
In either case, Richard decided the boys would be safer if they were
separated. If people were on the look-out for two boys, it would make the
job of hiding them away easier if only one boy suddenly popped up somewhere.
Where Richard seems to have failed is in not making better plans in advance
for the possibility of his, Richard's, demise. Of course, up until the death
of his son, Richard didn't need to worry too much about the succession. And
after his son died, Richard was quickly faced with the prospect of his
wife's illness and death. So I cut him some slack for being preoccupied.
The problems that developed after Bosworth result, again IMO, were due to
our not knowing what happened to Edward. If, as I believe, he'd been hidden
away somewhere in England, his first thought after the news of Bosworth
arrived would have been to get away to someplace safe. But then the problems
with being, first Prince of Wales, then the eldest illegitimate son of
Edward IV came to the fore. His tenure as Prince of Wales hadn't gotten to
the point where he'd actually been doing things on his own. Not only had he
been under the tutelage of his uncle, with everything provided for him
including, quite likely, just where to put his, Edward's, signature on
official documents. That period was followed by his time in the Tower,
originally the Royal Apartments, then in more secure surrounding where,
again, his interactions with people would have been quite limited. If, as I
think, he'd been sent to some out-of-the-way place in the country, the same
would apply there. He'd likely have a greater chance to interact with people
but, and if only because of the reason for his sequestration, those contacts
would still be limited.
Which means that, after Bosworth, there are two possibilities for Edward.
The first is that remained where he was and was swallowed up into the gentry
or he fled. If it's the latter that happened then there's the possibility,
and only a possibility, that there may be something to the "Richard of
Eastham" story, but whether that "Richard" was actually Edward or possibly
someone who knew what had happened to Edward and decided in his declining
years to take advantage of that knowledge isn't currently determinable.
Sorry about the length!
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

The poorer also slept on the tables..known as boards/bords in them there distant days. Hence 'bed and board' 'boarding house' 'board and lodgings' etc., When bords were not being used to eat from or sleep on they could be turned up the other way and their would a game carved ..the medieval equivalent of chess/draughts or similar Hence the express 'board games'. Clever eh? Not an inch of space wasted. Also where you get 'Board room' and 'Chairman of the Board' I learnt this during a tour of Mary Ardingly's house, Straford on Avon.

Probably Mary, but it might have backfired. I bet he was a stroppy teenager and not the easiest to deal with. After all he'd been brought up to be king. H
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 10 June 2017, 14:19
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

A thought just occurred to me reading this, could these disaffected people have thought that they would have lots of influence over Edward V, always supposing they could re-instate him, because with Anthony dead EW would need supporters.They would know that, despite the fact that Richard had not done anything in particular to annoy them, he would not be a push over and boy king with vulnerable family connections would be a better option. Though I would imagine MB and the Stanleys would be the most powerful in that scenario.
Mary

But what would be the point for Richard of letting run the rumor that he had killed his own nephews ? And even more than a rumor : to let the Chancellor of France accuse him of being a child murderer in front of the States General ? Richard was fascinated by chivalry, his motto was "Loyaulte me lie", he craved for military glory, especially against the 'infidels', because of his piety. He said as much to some foreign visitor (the one who left us a physical description of him).I can imagine Louis XI, the 'spider king', allowing himself to be slandered in such a way if that could serve his political goals, but not chilvalric, impulsive Richard. And what of Richard's declarations about the need to go back to a more moral way of ruling ? Would he have left the moral higher ground  to his enemies on such a capital point : the lives of two innocent children, his nephews ?And what about his oath not to harm Elizabeth and her daughters, and later his public declaration that he didn't intend to marry his niece ? Would he have remained silent about that other dangerous suspicion if he'd had a way to justify himself ? My guess is that he'd been trapped in a situation that was not of his making, but that had resulted in the boy's death.And as the boy's death was not really his interest (one of the reasons why we can assume he's not the murderer) he remained silent because rumors of the boy's unexplained death were somehow a lesser evil than telling the real circumstances of their death, that might have raised even stronger suspicions against him. Why was it so ? Because Buckingham had killed the boys at a moment he was supposed to be still on Richard's side ? Because they were poisoned and it was impossible to find the real culprit ? Because they disappeared during some journey ? There are so many possibilities.On another hand, if they had been alive, it would have been very important politically to make it known, especially when Henry began to be supported by France, and to prepare his landing. It would have given pause to people like Edward Woodville, and other yorkist of the Woodville faction, for then it had become clear that Henry wanted the crown for himself.

Romanenemo wrote:

I didn't say that if Richard had made a declaration, it would have changed everything. When he declared that he'd never intended to marry Elizabeth, some people didn't believe him and it's still the case in these days.

I have joined this group not so long ago and am learning so much, thank you for that.
The problem I find is that I tend to get a little lost in all the names (as in who is in relation to who) as Richards reign is not so well known to me. Is there a site where I could get a better acquaintance with them?

Carol,Don't faint - I think we agree again.
There was an article on the RIII Foundation site that may have been taken down, but has been archived because of the number of links to it from other sites. 'William Stanley a Yorkist'. It tracks all William's participation in the events during his life and concludes he was always loyal to the House of York. The writer concludes that by Bosworth he must have come to view the true line of York to be Elizabeth.
The writer concludes (like Romane) that William must have believed Edward and Richard to be dead, but as a good Ricardian, believes he was mistaken.
Regarding Thomas, I have seen references to extant documents that Thomas was signing at Lathom very shortly before Bosworth. They sound like enfeoffments, so Thomas genuinely had urgent business to transact in Lancashire.
RegardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Doug wrote :

Romanenemo wrote:

"This makes quite an amount of good reasons to deny the children's death, or to make someone reliable on the subject do it. If Richard didn't do anything, it must have been because he couldn't."
Carol responds:

Or because the boys were his illegitimate nephews in danger of being used (or killed) by forces opposing Richard and he considered it his duty to conceal their whereabouts (assuming that he knew them) by saying nothing. But Edward V was also a rival claimant whose whereabouts he would not want to advertise for his own sake.

As I said earlier, making the existence of the boys known by showing them or providing proof of their whereabouts (though it would end the not very widespread rumors) would not deter the rebels. Those who supported HT would continue to support him; those who wished to restore Edward V would have even more cause to rebel. It would, in short, do him no good at all.

Contrast his denying the rumor that he intended to marry his niece--he could safely deny that slur on his character because doing so would lead to no new rebellions--though he did move Elizabeth to Sheriff Hutton with little Warwick and, probably, his sister Margaret--again, out of sight, out of mind. (It's even possible that her brothers were there at some point given the instructions about "one breakfast" for "the children" quoted by Paul Murray Kendall). But, as I said, denying the rumor that the boys were dead (not necessarily by his hand) would only call attention to them and the uses to which they could be put by Richard's enemies. It would not stop the plots already in progress against him.

Carol

Romanenemo wrote:

"This makes quite an amount of good reasons to deny the children's death, or to make someone reliable on the subject do it. If Richard didn't do anything, it must have been because he couldn't."
Carol responds:

Or because the boys were his illegitimate nephews in danger of being used (or killed) by forces opposing Richard and he considered it his duty to conceal their whereabouts (assuming that he knew them) by saying nothing. But Edward V was also a rival claimant whose whereabouts he would not want to advertise for his own sake.

As I said earlier, making the existence of the boys known by showing them or providing proof of their whereabouts (though it would end the not very widespread rumors) would not deter the rebels. Those who supported HT would continue to support him; those who wished to restore Edward V would have even more cause to rebel. It would, in short, do him no good at all.

Contrast his denying the rumor that he intended to marry his niece--he could safely deny that slur on his character because doing so would lead to no new rebellions--though he did move Elizabeth to Sheriff Hutton with little Warwick and, probably, his sister Margaret--again, out of sight, out of mind. (It's even possible that her brothers were there at some point given the instructions about "one breakfast" for "the children" quoted by Paul Murray Kendall). But, as I said, denying the rumor that the boys were dead (not necessarily by his hand) would only call attention to them and the uses to which they could be put by Richard's enemies. It would not stop the plots already in progress against him.

Carol

Romane wrote:

But as for Von Popplau's own opinion, here's the way it was phrased, according to what I found on the net : "many people say - and I agree with them - that they are still alive and kept in a very dark cellar'.

Marie responds:

Indeed. I've just been a little cautious about quoting that verbatim. The first problems is that VP doesn't seem to have written up his traveller's notes into a proper account until 1486, after Richard was dead and the Princes had still failed to show up, so even if "a very dark cellar" is what he wrote in his account, it may not reflect what he had been thinking when he was with Richard. The second problem is that we don't have VP's own MS, only an 18th [?] century copy. If there is one thing we see with later copies of documents, it is that the copyists get tempted to "correct" bits that they don't find credible (such as Leland's copy of the Herald's Memoir of the 1st years of Henry VII's reign, where the original has the boy who was brought to Henry after Stoke give his name as John, but in Leland's version 'John' is changed to Lambert Symnel).

      Romane, I've searched and been unable to discover where I read that the boys were no longer noted being in the Tower after Easter. I'll search again, but if anyone else has any input, I'd be most grateful. I'd also like to add that my position concerning the rumors isn't meant to support the idea that no rumors were floating about after late 1483, but that the topic wasn't the subject on everyone's lips.   Romane wrote: Once again, that's very interesting, Doug. You're perfectly right to say that all the sources concerning the rumors were written in 1453, or at least are dealing with that very year. Even Rochefort's statement in front of the States Generals is very soon after that, in january 1484. Apart from the ones you quote, the Chronicle of London says that : 'During the year  that Edward Shaw was Mayor of London, the children were seen shooting and playing in the garden if the Tower at sundry time'. So it means that the children could still be seen at least until october 1483, for Shaw was mayor of London until 28 october 1483. But what is that source saying that the boys were alive 'at least after Easter' ? For you're right, it would mean Easter 1484 or 1485. It's an extremely important source, if it's reliable. There is only one problem. The fact that people like Edward Woodville, and others who should have sustained Edward V's claim, seem to have stayed under Henry's banner even when it was obvious that the man would seize the crown for himself. Would these Yorkists of the Woodville party have done such a thing if they had thought that the boys were alive ? Edward Woodville fought at Henry's side at Bosworth, knowing fully well that the boys wouldn't stay alive very long if Henry was the victor. So it seems that he thought they were already dead. Do you have an explanation ? I hope you do, for my favorite version of the story would be with Henry as the responsible for the boy's disappearance.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

TA few unrelated thoughts:

1) The link between the rumours of the boys' death and support for HT is of course is an important point. There's no doubt that the first rumours of the boys' deaths emerged not around Easter 1484 but before the outbreak of Buckingham's Rebellion, just as Crowland says, and were responsible for the way that rebellion - whose original purpose was to restore Edward V - was hijacked by Buckingham and Henry Tudor for their own ends. Mancini's account, finished in December 1483, shows that people in France were wondering about them too.

2) As regards David's point, that Richard only needed to say they were alive, not where they were, I don't think that would necessarily have been much use unless he actually showed them (as Henry VII later found with Warwick). After all, people who have convinced themselves that a person has just had two children murdered are not going to presume that everything that person has to say on the subject is going to be gospel truth. Bringing the boys out for public display would have been risky.

3) When we're thinking of who believed Richard had killed the boys, we surely shouldn't overlook the behaviour of Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset.

Hi David, who were these 400 escapee
Here's the list that Carol asked for: I've split them into the various rebellion locations
Salisbury
John Averey - servant of Giles DaubenyRobert Bowden - servant of Giles DaubenyRobert Canon - servant of Giles DaubenyHumphrey Cheney - brother of John Cheney from KentJohn Cheney - from Kent (master of horse to Edward IV, also a Cade rebel)Robert Cheney - from Kent cousin of the othersGiles Daubeny - Lancastrian married to a StourtonJohn Forde - servant of Giles DaubenyJohn Shirewell - servant of Giles Daubeny
Kent
William Brandon Esquire of Body to EIVNicholas Gainsford HS of Kent and Esquire of Body to EWJohn Gainsford - his sonEdward Poynings Esquire of the Body and son in law of John Scott HS of Kent
Newbury
William Berkeley Lancastrian & Constable of Southampton married to another Stourton
Exeter
Thomas Arundel Knight of the Body- brother in law to Giles DaubenyWilliam Bolton from Bolterscombe Devon - part of the HS networkEdward Courtenay disinherited (by Edward) Earl of DevonPeter Courtenay Bishop of Exeter son of a Hungerford and brother of the rebel Sir Walter but also of Yorkists Sir William and Sir PhillipJohn Welles (later to marry Cecily) from Lancastrian family (and MB) brother of Sir Richard executed by Edward in 1470Robert Willoughby - Esquire of the Body, Receiver General for the Staffords in Cornwall. Brother was Dean of Exeter, other brother fought for HT at Bosworth. Father Yorkist
Torrington - NoneSomerset/Dorset - NoneBodmin - NoneDevon/Cornwall - None

Other
Thomas Brandon - brother of William aboveSir John Fortescue - One of the Devon/Cornwall HS groupRichard Fox (still be investigated)Evan Morgan (as above)Edward WoodvilleLionel Woodville



From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 15 June 2017, 0:48
Subject: Re: Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Romane
Regarding Henry Tudor's position around Easter 1484, this actually corresponds to a low point for him. After the failure of the 1483 rebellion, a second force was being assembled in Brittany but it was abandoned about Easter. I think they thought they didn't have the resources. Henry was in limbo and the 400 or so escapees from 1483 were a drain on the treasury in Vannes.
It wasn't until October that he became aware of the plot between Richard and Landais and had to flee into France.
A Breton historian believes that it was the Landais plot that actually brought both Richard and Landais down.
RegardsDavid


On 14 Jun 2017 23:12, romanenemo <[email protected]> wrote:
Doug wrote :
OTOH, we do have at least one piece of data that says the boys were alive, at least until after Easter and, as the boys weren't even in the Tower until well after Easter 1483, that reference must be to either 1484 or 1485.

I've found the text. It is from the Great Chronicle of London, the very same text where we find the passage I already quoted, about the children playing in the garden of the Tower :
"And during this mayor's year (sir Edmund Shaa, who laid down his mayoralty in october 1483) the children of King Edward were seen shooting and playing in the garden of the Tower at sundry times."
The quote about the children still being alive in 1484 is this one :
"All the winter season of this mayor's time ( Robert Billeson, whose mayoralty ended on 28 october 1484) the land was in good quiet, but after Easter there was much whispering among the people that the King had put the children of King Edward to death.

So you see, that piece of data doesn't prove anything. If we are to believe the author, the rumors didn't stop after 1483. On the contrary, they began to spread among the people, and not just among the rebels, after Easter 1484.
But anyway, what's next in the text is that Tyrell "was reported to be the doer". As we well know, that particular piece of crap only surfaced after 1502. So the source is not very reliable, to say the least.
If the text says the truth, it shows at least that the rumors of 1483 about the children's death were lies, as you say. But in the same time, it proves that there were still such rumors in 1484, and then, why didn't Richard deny them, if he had some way to prove his innocence ? In 1484, with Henry strengthening his position, it had become all the more important to do so.
Or, the text is a tissue of lies, and then the children might have been actually dead in 1483.
And to finish, whatever its reliability, there's no way that text can be used to prove that the rumors had disappeared in 1484, because it says just the contrary.
Unless you think of another text ? I didn't find anything else on the net about the date of Easter connected to the princes.
So, I'm afraid I'm more or less back to my previous opinion. -There were apparently rumors about the children's death in 1483. - The Chancelor of France accused Richard somehow officially (in front of the States Generals) to have killed his nephews, and that was before France supported Henry. For the moment, he was still allied with the Duke of Brittany, an enemy of France. - Another source (not a very reliable one, though) states there were rumors of the princes' death after Easter 1484. That's around the moment Henry fled to France and began to become a major threat. He had pledged to marry Elizabeth, and if her brothers were dead, that made him the future husband of the legitimate heir for the Woodville party and some other yorkists.
This makes quite an amount of good reasons to deny the children's death, or to make someone reliable on the subject do it. If Richard didn't do anything, it must have been because he couldn't.
Buckingham is still a good suspect, after all. Or something else happened to the children, in circumstances that wouldn't allow Richard to prove he had nothing to do with their death. So it was better to let the matter in doubt, as it was not his interest that the princes' death became a certainty for his enemies.
Romane

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

Romanre wrote:I completely agree with you Mary. For me, either he didn't know himself what had happened to the princes, or the explanation couldn't do him any good, as it would only have strengthened the suspicions. Doug here:If the boys had disappeared and Richard didn't know what had happened to them, then the question for us is: What did? Did someone other than Richard hide the boys away? Did someone kidnap them from the Tower and then kill them? We have nothing that says either of those scenarios occurred.OTOH, we do have at least one piece of data that says the boys were alive, at least until after Easter and, as the boys weren't even in the Tower until well after Easter 1483, that reference must be to either 1484 or 1485.However, the only rumors we have concerning the boys being killed are in 1483; the first reported by Mancini as being in May/June of 1483 and the second sometime during Buckingham's Rebellion. Even the notation from 1485 that the boys were killed on the vise of Buckingham could only refer to some point before Buckingham's execution on 2 November, 1483. Well, unless one wants to believe that Buckingham arranged the boys' deaths before his execution and whoever was appointed to carry out the plan did so after Buckingham was executed!Which basically means the rumors weren't widespread, weren't continually floating around in the background during Richard's reign, thus necessitating any denials by Richard, and only assumed a prominent position when, after Richard's death at Bosworth, the boys' locations weren't known.Thus, as yet another bit of Tudor propaganda, the rumors that had almost certainly died away by late 1483, were resuscitated and emphasized, with the hope that people wouldn't notice that the times the rumors were out and about and the time when the boys were noticed to be missing from the Tower didn't match.IOW, Richard didn't have to allay any suspicions, spread via rumors about the boys being alive or not, because there most likely weren't any such rumors swirling about.DougMy apologies for the late reply. I thought I'd sent this, but only drafted it  as my sister puts it, Just another senior moment!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

"When we're thinking of who believed Richard had killed the boys, we surely shouldn't overlook the behaviour of Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset."

Carol responds:

Exactly. Why would Elizabeth not only place her daughters in Richard's care but tell her son Dorset to come home because Richard would treat him well if she believed he had killed her two younger sons? And why would Dorset actually attempt to come home (thwarted by Tudor) if he believed that Richard (who had indeed executed his uncle Anthony Woodville and full brother Richard Grey) had murdered his young half-brothers? (They must, by the way, have known that Anthony W. and Richard G. were guilty of treason, not innocent victims of a tyrant, to have behaved as they did.)

Carol

"When we're thinking of who believed Richard had killed the boys, we surely shouldn't overlook the behaviour of Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset."

Carol responds:

Exactly. Why would Elizabeth not only place her daughters in Richard's care but tell her son Dorset to come home because Richard would treat him well if she believed he had killed her two younger sons? And why would Dorset actually attempt to come home (thwarted by Tudor) if he believed that Richard (who had indeed executed his uncle Anthony Woodville and full brother Richard Grey) had murdered his young half-brothers? (They must, by the way, have known that Anthony W. and Richard G. were guilty of treason, not innocent victims of a tyrant, to have behaved as they did.)

Carol

Romane wrote:

Do you remember where you found that information ? Indeed, it seems important, for if VP only wrote this in 1486, as you say, he might very well have been influenced by what had happened since his visit to Richard.

The 'dark cellar' doesn't seem a very likely hypothesis in 1486 though, unless VP thought that Henry might have found the boys, but then kept them in the cellar as well, as he had much more reasons than Richard for doing that.

Anyway, if VP wrote this in 1486, he might have exaggerated retrospectively the importance of the rumors concerning the boys, and been influenced in his suggestion of that rather sinister explanation.

Marie answers:

I am basing this on Piotr Radzikowski's article 'Niclas Von Popplau - His Work and Travels' (Ricardian, Vol 11, No 140, March 1998):

"Niclas' account was written with the help of detailed notes he took en route. Dates and days of the week, for instance, are given correctly. . . . His final version was probably composed at Ulm, where he was to report to the Emperor, and at Nuremberg, where he fell ill between June 1485 and 25 May 1486. He may have finished his work in the summer of 1486 at Breslau, where he was getting ready for his next journey, to Moscow. It is also possible that he wrote his report later, between 1487, when he returned from Moscow and Poland, and 1489, when he left again for Moscow and Sweden. After his return home in 1489 he fell seriously ill and died sometime after 16 June 1490, perhaps in Nuremberg."

I was indeed thinking that in 1486 VP may have thought that the boys must have been very closely concealed indeed since still nobody had word of them, and that maybe Henry was continuing to keep them in some secret dungeon.

Romane wrote:

I found Warbeck's story on wikipedia, so the source was not mentioned. But whatever the source, it seems that it's the only one we have about W explaining how he had survived. And it's a very unlikely story.

Marie answers:

It's not the only source. You have a lot more reading to do if you've only looked at Wikipedia.

Marie wrote:

My favoured option is probably that Edward V was dead, and Richard Duke of York was lost. Perhaps Warbeck was York - his story wasn't so farfetched, as the lord who spared him did so because York was his godson. The Divisie Chronicle tells us Buckingham was York's godfather.

Romane answers :

That's a very interesting information ! I had thought that Buckingham could be that Lord' who had spared Warbeck/ Richard but I didn't see any reason why he would have done such a thing. Now if he was his godfather, it could have been different. You're right, the story in that case might not be so far-fetched. The fact that, as David says, there is not one, but two sources telling it, and one of them an original letter, is very important indeed.

And what if Richard, maybe advised by Buckingham to do so, had actually decided to remove the children from the Tower, and Buckinham had used the opportunity to make them disappear instead ? It would be in accordance to the source saying that the boys were killed be the vice of Buckingham', whether it means by his advice or b his device. After that, considering Richard and Buckingham's close association in the eyes of the public, it would have been difficult for Richard to defend himself from the rumors, if there was no proof, no witness available of Buckingham's sole responsibility.

Marie wrote :

It's not the only source. You have a lot more reading to do if you've only looked at Wikipedia.

Romane answers :

I should have written that it was apparently the only version of Warbeck's escape, that's what I meant.

If there had been another version, even wikipedia was likely to mention it.

But of course, I was not satisfied. Even if I'm quite new at this game, usually I keep digging until I find what the contemporary sources are on a particular question. But at the moment I didn't have the time, so I sent my post nonetheless, hoping that someone else would add something about the sources. Which happened, thanks to David.

Romane wrote:But if the boys have been hidden under the care of trusted people, why didn't they pop up later in a safe place, such as Margaret's court un Burgundy ? I know, there is Warbeck, but the story he told about how he had survived was not that one, but a completely far-fetched story about an unknown lord who had killed his brother but spared him.And if Warbeck is not Richard of York, why did the real princes never show up ? Doug here:To be completely honest, I think that story put out by Perkin/Richard of how he'd escaped was just that, a story. If Perkin/Richard was to make a successful claim to the throne, then the absence of his brother Edward had to be explained. Merely claiming that Edward had fallen ill and died would raise as many questions as it would answer. When had Edward died? Where was Edward buried? Why hadn't their uncle announced Edward's death? There's likely even more questions I haven't thought up. OTOH, if Edward had been deliberately killed, then Perkin/Richard was, in his supporters' view anyway, the next in line.It's only my personal view, but I tend to think that the story put out on how Perkin/Richard escaped from the Tower was dreamed up for several reasons. The major one, of course, was that Perkin/Richard and his supporters didn't know what happened to Edward. Therefore a story was thought up that not only explained what happened to Edward, accounted for Perkin/Richard claiming the throne and, hopefully, stopped anyone from claiming to be Edward.There is, I suppose, the possibility that Perkin/Richard's supporters, or some of them anyway, knew what happened to Edward. If, for example, there's any truth in the Richard of Eastham story, that he was Edward V, and, for whatever reason or reasons, decided he didn't want to be king, the only way to ensure support for a claim to the throne by his younger brother would be for Edward to have died. I have to admit, however, that it doesn't seem likely and that the most likely scenario is that neither Perkin/Richard, nor his supporters, knew what had happened to Edward, only that Edward's non-availability, so to speak, had to be explained.Just a thought, but was the story of Perkin/Richard's escape an official announcement, or is what we have something that's based on what someone heard and then wrote down? I don't know if the source of the story would make any difference, but it might.Doug(Who's left the remainder of your post below.) ************Carol wrote :Why would Elizabeth not only place her daughters in Richard's care but tell her son Dorset to come home because Richard would treat him well if she believed he had killed her two younger sons? And why would Dorset actually attempt to come home (thwarted by Tudor) if he believed that Richard (who had indeed executed his uncle Anthony Woodville and full brother Richard Grey) had murdered his young half-brothers? (They must, by the way, have known that Anthony W. and Richard G. were guilty of treason, not innocent victims of a tyrant, to have behaved as they did.)

Romane answers:You're right that Anthony's and R.Grey's case was very different. Now I'm reading Annette Carson's book, I see that they had very likely planned an ambush against Richard, and the fact Anthony stopped his soldiers at Stony Stratford instead of Ludlow is a strong clue about that.No wonder that Mancini couldn't see that, as a foreigner. That's why his account, our main source about the episode, is full of inconsistencies and puzzling behavior, such as the cordiality of the first meeting of Anthony and Richard, and then the brutal arrest.So yes, certainly Elizabeth would not consider her older son's execution the same way as the murder of her two little boys. On another hand, when she cam out of sanctuary, she didn't have much choice. Richard seemed to have won, and she couldn't remain in sanctuary with her daughters for the rest of their days.But she asked him to swear an oath not to harm her and her daughters. And Richard did it, which is rather incredible, when one think a bit about it. I can't prevent myself from thinking that the reason for this oath was that the boys were dead, that Elizabeth knew it and thought that Richard wasn't responsible, but without being completely sure of that.
If she could suspect him to harm her girls, the fact that she came out of sanctuary doesn't prove much about what she thought concerning her boys' fate under Richard's care. Besides, if Elizabeth had been sure that her boys were alive and safe, why didn't Richard ask her to make a public declaration about that for his sake ? No matter how widespread the rumors were, there were rumors that he had killed two innocent boys, his nephews, and it must have hurt Richard's pride a lot. He wasn't one, like Louis XI was, to swallow his pride in order to get his way, as his conduct showed in many occasions. For me, the most likely explanation for Elizabeth's conduct is that Richard told him that the boys were dead, or lost, and that he could convince her (more or less) that he wasn't the one responsible for that. Romane

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Romane wrote:

That's a very interesting information ! I had thought that Buckingham could be that Lord' who had spared Warbeck/ Richard but I didn't see any reason why he would have done such a thing. Now if he was his godfather, it could have been different. You're right, the story in that case might not be so far-fetched. The fact that, as David says, there is not one, but two sources telling it, and one of them an original letter, is very important indeed.

And what if Richard, maybe advised by Buckingham to do so, had actually decided to remove the children from the Tower, and Buckinham had used the opportunity to make them disappear instead ? It would be in accordance to the source saying that the boys were killed be the vice of Buckingham', whether it means by his advice or b his device. After that, considering Richard and Buckingham's close association in the eyes of the public, it would have been difficult for Richard to defend himself from the rumors, if there was no proof, no witness available of Buckingham's sole responsibility.

Marie answers:

Indeed - it seems very plausible and is sort of the scenario suggested way back by Kendall in the appendix to his Richard III. The reason I'm inclined to think that at least one child was still living, or believed to be possibly still alive, is that if both were definitely dead then, even if Richard could show her it had been done against his wishes, unless HT's camp could be proved to have been directly responsible Elizabeth Woodville is still likely to have felt her best interests would be served by staying put and waiting for Tudor to make another attempt to defeat Richard and place her daughter on the throne. If she had discovered a possibility that they weren't dead - or weren't both dead - then Tudor would become a bigger threat than Richard.

The reason I'm inclined to think that at least one child was still living, or believed to be possibly still alive, is that if both were definitely dead then, even if Richard could show her it had been done against his wishes, unless HT's camp could be proved to have been directly responsible Elizabeth Woodville is still likely to have felt her best interests would be served by staying put and waiting for Tudor to make another attempt to defeat Richard and place her daughter on the throne. If she had discovered a possibility that they weren't dead - or weren't both dead - then Tudor would become a bigger threat than Richard.

Doug wrote :

At any rate, it's likely best to use Wikipedia as the start of any hunt for information, rather than an end. Or so I've discovered.

Romane here :

As you know, I usually look for the sources until I find them. It's just at the moment I didn't have enough time, and hoped someone would add some informations. Which happened.

Doug wrote :

That the boys had been recognized as illegitimate hadn't stopped Buckingham rebelling, supposedly in favor of Edward V. Just because that rebellion had been defeated didn't mean the boys couldn't still be used against Richard  if they could be found.

Romane here :

Are we sure that Buckingham rebelled in Edward V's name ? Some sources say that it's at the moment he joined the rebellion that the rumors about the boys' death began to appear. And it's very possible that Buckingham rebelled being his own candidate for the throne. If I'm not wrong, the sources on his rebellion are all of the Tudor era ?

Doug wrote :

The same applies if the boys had died at the hands of someone other than Richard while they were in Richard's care. I have little doubt Richard would have felt guilt at not preventing their murders, but that wouldn't be enough of a reason to not admit they'd been murdered on the orders of someone else.

Romane here :

Except if there had been no proof at all that they had been murdered by someone else, or if that someone was a known associate of Richard, such as Buckingham.

Doug wrote :

We have to remember that rumors about the boys' deaths had circulated during Buckingham's Rebellion, when dozens, if not hundreds, of people were in a position to see them every day and prove the rumors false.

Romane here :

Are we sure of that ? All what we have is that text from the London chronicle :

And during this mayor's year (sir Edmund Shaa, who laid down his mayoralty in october 1483) the children of King Edward were seen shooting and playing in the garden of the Tower at sundry times.

This doesn't prove they could be seen exactly until the end of the mayorship, which was in october.

Doug wrote :

The mystery, such as it is, is because, for his plan to succeed, the whereabouts of the boys had to be kept a secret from everyone except those who absolutely had to know; IOW, Richard, whoever escorted the boys to their (separate) hiding places, and whomever had been entrusted with their care.

Romane here :

But then, if they had been under the care of trusted people, why on earth didn't they reappear later, explaining where they had been ? Instead of that, we have just Perkin Warbeck, showing up with a very different story.

In fact, that is the major reason why I think they were dead. Had Richard hidden them with trusted people, there's no reason why they shouldn't have popped up in some safe place, such as Burgundy.

Maybe, as Carol said, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the matter of the boys' fate. But then, why would we discuss on that forum if there was no mystery and if we'd all agree ?

I am not making out that this is a fact but I just have a feeling that the two people who took the boys out of the country, if they were taken out of country, would be James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton, also known as Duarte Brandao. The fact that they were both out of the country at the time of Bosworth when Richard was in need of their support. There is also a record of Richard paying Tyrrell something like £3000 for services rendered. Apparently it was a huge amount even for paying the garrison at Guisnes, however, it would keep a prince in luxury for quite some time. Unfortunately I don't have a source but it could have been an article in the Bulletin. As for Brampton "Perkin was supposed to be in his household which seems a bit too much of a coincidence. He never came back to England until after Perkin was executed and we all know what happened to Tyrrell. It is possible that the reason they were not at Bosworth was because they were carrying out a far more important job for Richard. Just a thought.

Thank you very much for the summary, David. If there are two sources, and one original, it seems that it's really the story told by Warbeck himself. I plan to read one book or two on the subject, for until now, I was interested mainly in Richard himself. And like you, I considered that Warbeck was a fake. But now, I'm not so sure. As Marie, says, if Buckingham is the 'Lord' Warbeck told about, and if he was Richard of York's godfather, the story would not be so far-fetched.

Romane wrote:But if the boys have been hidden under the care of trusted people, why didn't they pop up later in a safe place, such as Margaret's court un Burgundy ? I know, there is Warbeck, but the story he told about how he had survived was not that one, but a completely far-fetched story about an unknown lord who had killed his brother but spared him.And if Warbeck is not Richard of York, why did the real princes never show up ? Doug here:To be completely honest, I think that story put out by Perkin/Richard of how he'd escaped was just that, a story. If Perkin/Richard was to make a successful claim to the throne, then the absence of his brother Edward had to be explained. Merely claiming that Edward had fallen ill and died would raise as many questions as it would answer. When had Edward died? Where was Edward buried? Why hadn't their uncle announced Edward's death? There's likely even more questions I haven't thought up. OTOH, if Edward had been deliberately killed, then Perkin/Richard was, in his supporters' view anyway, the next in line.It's only my personal view, but I tend to think that the story put out on how Perkin/Richard escaped from the Tower was dreamed up for several reasons. The major one, of course, was that Perkin/Richard and his supporters didn't know what happened to Edward. Therefore a story was thought up that not only explained what happened to Edward, accounted for Perkin/Richard claiming the throne and, hopefully, stopped anyone from claiming to be Edward.There is, I suppose, the possibility that Perkin/Richard's supporters, or some of them anyway, knew what happened to Edward. If, for example, there's any truth in the Richard of Eastham story, that he was Edward V, and, for whatever reason or reasons, decided he didn't want to be king, the only way to ensure support for a claim to the throne by his younger brother would be for Edward to have died. I have to admit, however, that it doesn't seem likely and that the most likely scenario is that neither Perkin/Richard, nor his supporters, knew what had happened to Edward, only that Edward's non-availability, so to speak, had to be explained.Just a thought, but was the story of Perkin/Richard's escape an official announcement, or is what we have something that's based on what someone heard and then wrote down? I don't know if the source of the story would make any difference, but it might.Doug(Who's left the remainder of your post below.) ************Carol wrote :Why would Elizabeth not only place her daughters in Richard's care but tell her son Dorset to come home because Richard would treat him well if she believed he had killed her two younger sons? And why would Dorset actually attempt to come home (thwarted by Tudor) if he believed that Richard (who had indeed executed his uncle Anthony Woodville and full brother Richard Grey) had murdered his young half-brothers? (They must, by the way, have known that Anthony W. and Richard G. were guilty of treason, not innocent victims of a tyrant, to have behaved as they did.)

Romane answers:You're right that Anthony's and R.Grey's case was very different. Now I'm reading Annette Carson's book, I see that they had very likely planned an ambush against Richard, and the fact Anthony stopped his soldiers at Stony Stratford instead of Ludlow is a strong clue about that.No wonder that Mancini couldn't see that, as a foreigner. That's why his account, our main source about the episode, is full of inconsistencies and puzzling behavior, such as the cordiality of the first meeting of Anthony and Richard, and then the brutal arrest.So yes, certainly Elizabeth would not consider her older son's execution the same way as the murder of her two little boys. On another hand, when she cam out of sanctuary, she didn't have much choice. Richard seemed to have won, and she couldn't remain in sanctuary with her daughters for the rest of their days.But she asked him to swear an oath not to harm her and her daughters. And Richard did it, which is rather incredible, when one think a bit about it. I can't prevent myself from thinking that the reason for this oath was that the boys were dead, that Elizabeth knew it and thought that Richard wasn't responsible, but without being completely sure of that.
If she could suspect him to harm her girls, the fact that she came out of sanctuary doesn't prove much about what she thought concerning her boys' fate under Richard's care. Besides, if Elizabeth had been sure that her boys were alive and safe, why didn't Richard ask her to make a public declaration about that for his sake ? No matter how widespread the rumors were, there were rumors that he had killed two innocent boys, his nephews, and it must have hurt Richard's pride a lot. He wasn't one, like Louis XI was, to swallow his pride in order to get his way, as his conduct showed in many occasions. For me, the most likely explanation for Elizabeth's conduct is that Richard told him that the boys were dead, or lost, and that he could convince her (more or less) that he wasn't the one responsible for that. Romane

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Marie:

I know it's a case often made, but I'm afraid I personally find it extremely weak. EW and her daughters were almost certainly living in the Abbot's house, where they could have survived in some degree of comfort for years. Her son Dorset and brother Sir Edward were with Tudor, the marriage dispensation was on its way from Rome and the chances of another attempt that summer must have looked pretty good - it may well have been EW's capitulation that scuppered them. However the boys had died, Richard couldn't be entirely absolved of the blame - they had been in his care. These were children, not adults, and she was their mother - I cannot swallow the psychology of this scenario. And what about the following winter, when Tudor was in France with the offer of an army? She writes to Dorset telling him to leave Tudor, come back and make his peace with Richard. It's no wonder Tudor historians had to make recourse to the notion that EW suffered from feminine flightiness. For me the only circumstance that would make sense of this behaviour is if she had discovered, or been persuaded, that there was a strong chance at least one of the boys was still alive. Tudor's marriage plan then becomes a threat to their lives.

Romane:

I am very interested in the Lincoln scroll. If John de la Pole is written as dead on it, it can't prove anything, I suppose.

Marie:

It really isn't a Lincoln scroll - only David calls it that. Its boring proper name is John Rylands Library Latin MS 113.

There's a lot of nonsense been written about it, I'm afraid. Morgan, who wrote a whole article on it, misread a critical word in one of the captions and found the dating a puzzle, and on the John Rylands website, for reasons unexplained, it is dated to 1484. From those described on it as dead and those not, it must actually date from about 1515. It was not written over a period of time as all the figures in the roundels wear the same square Tudor necklines, and the handwriting and even the ink is identical throughout. It is fascinating as a de la Pole dynastic propaganda exercise of the period when Richard de la Pole was touting a claim, but not much use as history since it makes deliberate mistakes in order to enhance the de la Pole claim.

By 1515, only two de la Pole brothers were alive – William in the Tower and Richard in exile.
I really cannot understand why anyone calls it a “Lincoln Roll”, nor why people cite letters from “Perkin” that may have been forged, or a confession obtained under duress.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 18 June 2017 11:10
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

Romane:

I am very interested in the Lincoln scroll. If John de la Pole is written as dead on it, it can't prove anything, I suppose.

Marie:

It really isn't a Lincoln scroll - only David calls it that. Its boring proper name is John Rylands Library Latin MS 113.

There's a lot of nonsense been written about it, I'm afraid. Morgan, who wrote a whole article on it, misread a critical word in one of the captions and found the dating a puzzle, and on the John Rylands website, for reasons unexplained, it is dated to 1484. From those described on it as dead and those not, it must actually date from about 1515. It was not written over a period of time as all the figures in the roundels wear the same square Tudor necklines, and the handwriting and even the ink is identical throughout. It is fascinating as a de la Pole dynastic propaganda exercise of the period when Richard de la Pole was touting a cla im, but not much use as history since it makes deliberate mistakes in order to enhance the de la Pole claim.

Doug wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, Lincoln was never proclaimed as Richard's heir.
Possibly because of Lincoln's activities in the North, it was assumed he was
but, as I say, there's no proclamation/announcement.

Marie:

I'm 99% sure Lincoln was not Richard's heir. There are several references to young Warwick after Bosworth in terms that suggest he was viewed as Richard's heir, and the 'Lambert Simnel' rebellion was aimed at placing him on the throne. Lincoln supported his coronation, which he would never have done if he'd planned to sideline him and take the throne for himself. No de la Pole put in a claim until after the deaths of Warwick and Warbeck.

On Sunday, June 18, 2017, 5:56 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

Marie said I'm 99% sure Lincoln was not Richard's heir.

On Sunday, June 18, 2017, 6:01 pm, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2017, 5:56 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

Marie said I'm 99% sure Lincoln was not Richard's heir.

Carol wrote that the position of Lieutenant of Ireland was a traditional one for the heir to the throne.

Marie picks up:

This claim actually started with Gairdner, and it isn't really true. At some times the Lieutenant of Ireland had also been the heir to the throne, at other times not. George held the position until his death, despite not having been heir for very long, bar one short period when it was held by Tiptoft, who definitely wasn't the heir to the throne. After Clarence's death the post went briefly to Suffolk and then to Richard Duke of York, neither of whom was heir to the throne.

I suspect Richard and Anne may have favoured Warwick because:-

a) were it not for his father's attainder his claim would have been senior to Lincoln's, and even to Richard's - Richard may have felt a bit guilty about stepping over him in the first place; and

b) he was the nearest thing to a son that Richard and Anne had after the death of Edward of Middleham - he was the blood nephew of them both.

BTW, the city of York put Warwick's name in front of Lincoln's in a letter to them both written in May 1485. That would not have been random - names were always listed in strict order of precedence.

Richard didn't name anyone publicly as his heir, but he would have made a will before Bosworth and that will would, I am sure, have set out his wishes for the succession should he die without legitimate issue of his own.

On Sunday, June 18, 2017, 6:29 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

No evidence at all that Warwick was feeble-minded.

"Carol wrote that the position of Lieutenant of Ireland was a traditional one for the heir to the throne. This claim actually started with Gairdner, and it isn't really true. . . . I suspect Richard and Anne may have favoured Warwick because:-

a) were it not for his father's attainder his claim would have been senior to Lincoln's, and even to Richard's - Richard may have felt a bit guilty about stepping over him in the first place; and

b) he was the nearest thing to a son that Richard and Anne had after the death of Edward of Middleham - he was the blood nephew of them both.

BTW, the city of York put Warwick's name in front of Lincoln's in a letter to them both written in May 1485. That would not have been random - names were always listed in strict order of precedence.

Richard didn't name anyone publicly as his heir, but he would have made a will before Bosworth and that will would, I am sure, have set out his wishes for the succession should he die without legitimate issue of his own."

Carol responds:

Thanks for the clarification. Of course, the de la Poles themselves claimed that John was Richard's heir, but that may have been wishful thinking. I'm sure that Lincoln knew that the English would prefer a claimant in the male line, which is why he supported Warwick rather than claiming the throne himself.

However, it has always seemed to me that Richard would not openly favor little Warwick, either, since it would seem to invalidate his own claim.

You're right that Richard would have made a will. Unfortunately, it appears to have been destroyed along with other records by the Tudor regime.

At any rate, my primary point, which still stands, is that Richard did not make John de la Pole his heir.

Carol

Marie wrote:

"Carol wrote that the position of Lieutenant of Ireland was a traditional one for the heir to the throne. This claim actually started with Gairdner, and it isn't really true. . . . I suspect Richard and Anne may have favoured Warwick because:-

a) were it not for his father's attainder his claim would have been senior to Lincoln's, and even to Richard's - Richard may have felt a bit guilty about stepping over him in the first place; and

b) he was the nearest thing to a son that Richard and Anne had after the death of Edward of Middleham - he was the blood nephew of them both.

BTW, the city of York put Warwick's name in front of Lincoln's in a letter to them both written in May 1485. That would not have been random - names were always listed in strict order of precedence.

Richard didn't name anyone publicly as his heir, but he would have made a will before Bosworth and that will would, I am sure, have set out his wishes for the succession should he die without legitimate issue of his own."

Carol responds:

Thanks for the clarification. Of course, the de la Poles themselves claimed that John was Richard's heir, but that may have been wishful thinking. I'm sure that Lincoln knew that the English would prefer a claimant in the male line, which is why he supported Warwick rather than claiming the throne himself.

However, it has always seemed to me that Richard would not openly favor little Warwick, either, since it would seem to invalidate his own claim.

You're right that Richard would have made a will. Unfortunately, it appears to have been destroyed along with other records by the Tudor regime.

At any rate, my primary point, which still stands, is that Richard did not make John de la Pole his heir.

Carol

Marie wrote:

It really isn't a Lincoln scroll - only David calls it that. Its boring proper name is John Rylands Library Latin MS 113.There's a lot of nonsense been written about it, I'm afraid. Morgan, who wrote a whole article on it, misread a critical word in one of the captions and found the dating a puzzle, and on the John Rylands website, for reasons unexplained, it is dated to 1484. From those described on it as dead and those not, it must actually date from about 1515.

Carol wrote :

The "Lincoln roll" ought to be called "the de la Pole" roll. It has nothing to do with John, Earl of Lincoln, except the family's claim that he was Richard's heir. We need to see whether his brother Edmund is also dead. If not, it relates to him. If so, it relates to the youngest brother, Richard.

Romane answers:

Thank you very much, all of you (Marie, Carol, Mary, Hilary, David) for all these informations about the Lincoln genealogy. Of course, in 1515, the boys would be written on it as dead, :Warbeck was, and no on else had showed up claiming to be one of the princes.

Doug wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, Lincoln was never proclaimed as Richard's heir. Possibly because of Lincoln's activities in the North, it was assumed he was but, as I say, there's no proclamation/announcement.

Romane answers :

I don't remember where I found that hypothesis about Lincoln. But I thought that it made sense, as Warwick was attainted and that Richard didn't do anything to change that. So I didn't check.

Mary wrote:

Why would the King of Scotland marry his cousin to the son of a Tournai boatman and why would HT take the son of a boatman with him on progress?

Romane answers:

Why indeed ? I found the story of Catherine Gordon particularly interesting. On another hand, the king of England was supposed to marry a king's daughter or sister, not a king's distant cousin. KG was of course far too high born for a boatman's son, but not enough for Richard of York.

It is as if even the people who were Warbeck's contemporaries didn't know for sure whether he was an impostor or not. No wonder we don' t know either !

So it seems that we won't know if Warbeck was indeed Richard of York, unless, maybe, if Philippa Langley finds new datas about what become of the boys.

Marie :

Again, no early source makes this claim. Crowland (1486) and Rous (1490) don't say whether Richard saw him or not. The London Chronicle Vitellius A XVI (1494) just says that he was 'without speaking with King Richard, beheaded.' The story of the interview requested and confused seems to have developed out of this bald statement, and appears with Fabyan and the Great Chronicle about 15 years later.

Romane :

Thank you for these precisions, that of course changed my point of view. I didn't have the time to develop yesterday when I read your post, but what you wrote showed me again how important it is to know the source of every bit of information. So many of them are posthumous and unreliable.

Marie :

And what about the following winter, when Tudor was in France with the offer of an army? She writes to Dorset telling him to leave Tudor, come back and make his peace with Richard. It's no wonder Tudor historians had to make recourse to the notion that EW suffered from feminine flightiness. For me the only circumstance that would make sense of this behaviour is if she had discovered, or been persuaded, that there was a strong chance at least one of the boys was still alive. Tudor's marriage plan then becomes a threat to their lives.

Romane :

This is as well quite convincing. Though on second thought I wondered, if this was the reason of EW's request to Dorset, why she didn't ask the same thing to her brother Edward. Or maybe she did and he didn't comply.

Marie :

However the boys had died, Richard couldn't be entirely absolved of the blame - they had been in his care. These were children, not adults, and she was their mother - I cannot swallow the psychology of this scenario.

Romane :

In this, I don't agree that much. What sort of a mother, anyway, would have fled in sanctuary, leaving her older boy under the watch of a man whom she considered such a threat, precisely, that she had fled in sanctuary ?

It's quite obvious that EW didn't fear Richard as much as she pretended to, it was a political move and not a very good one at that.

How could she have feared for her life ? Had Edward IV or Richard himself ever physically hurt the women involved in any plot against them ? And if she didn't really fear for her life, why didn't she remain in a position allowing her to watch over her son, to visit him ? Why on earth would she have agreed to let Richard join his brother ?

In all these events, EW seems to have considered much more her political position than the sake of her children, especially her boys.

If so, what happened to them ?

After our last posts, here's a scenario, that works quite well for me at the moment :

Richard decided to move the boys from the Tower. Buckingham managed to get the men in charge for that on his payroll. Instead of sending the children where Richard wanted them to be, he made them disappear. Then he joined the rebellion, spreading the rumors that the children were dead, and having some kind of deal with the Lancastrians. The deal might have been that Buckingham, who had the better claim according to genealogy, would become king, and that Henry would marry Elizabeth and would become the closest to the throne after him (if I remember well, all the sources claiming that Buckingham supported Henry's claim are Tudor ones).Of course, both men had a hidden agenda.

Some say it's not possible, for Buckingham got caught, and then Richard could have put the blame on the right shoulders, but why would B have confessed such a crime if there was no proof ?

And maybe, before B's capture, Richard didn't realize that the boys were missing for quite a while, because he was sent false reports about the children being safe and well by those who had been entrusted with their care, and he didn't suspect them of being on B's payroll. At the news of Buckingham's capture, these people hastily disappeared and, if RoY was Warbeck, and was still alive, they made sure that no one would find him, as it was the safest option for them, apart from killing him.

That way, if RoY was still alive and if Buckingham tried to trade his life against his whereabouts, it didn't work, because the boy had been moved. But Elizabeth might have believed Richard when he told him that he didn't know himself if one boy at least was dead or alive, and so she asked Dorset to stop supporting Henry.

Or, they were both dead, and she did that for other reasons, the ones often provided.

Of course, it's nothing more than a scenario, the kind a novelist would imagine, and I don't know if it's plausible (what do you think ?). But for now, I think it could explain why Richard never defended himself against the rumors.

I know that some here have another explanation: the necessity of protecting the boys.

But then, why did Warbeck tell such a different story ?

Or, if he wasn't RoY, why did the real princes never show up, explaining how Richard had protected them from Henry ?

If I could have a likely explanation for that, I would not be that skeptical about the boys' possible survival.

Romane

Romane continued:

Are we sure that Buckingham rebelled in Edward V's name ? Some sources say that it's at the moment he joined the rebellion that the rumors about the boys' death began to appear. And it's very possible that Buckingham rebelled being his own candidate for the throne. If I'm not wrong, the sources on his rebellion are all of the Tudor era ?

Doug here:

As best can be determined, the announced aim of Buckingham's Rebellion was to return Edward V to the throne. Whether Buckingham had plans to put himself on the throne can't be said one way or the other  at present. What is certain is that Tudor was invited to become part of the rebellion, but the idea that Buckingham ceded his claim to the throne (after Edward V, Edward's brother, Richard and the young Warwick) is, to be blunt, ridiculous.

Romane here :

Except if there had been no proof at all that they had been murdered by someone else, or if that someone was a known associate of Richard, such as Buckingham.

Doug here:

Which is why they were called rumors. It's entirely possible the rumors came about as an attempt on the part of some unknown person, or persons, to explain why there even was a rebellion. There's also the possibility that the rumors were planned as part of the rebellion but either got out too soon or were released in an effort to increase recruiting for the rebellion.

Romane continued:

Are we sure of that ? All what we have is that text from the London chronicle :

And during this mayor's year (sir Edmund Shaa, who laid down his mayoralty in october 1483) the children of King Edward were seen shooting and playing in the garden of the Tower at sundry times.'

This doesn't prove they could be seen exactly until the end of the mayorship, which was in october.

Doug here:

Had the boys not been seen until at least the end of Shaa's mayoral term, why wasn't that the subject of the entry? Why not say before the end of or by the end of Shaa's term? But you are correct in that we don't have a receipt from the Constable of the Tower saying just exactly when he signed custody of the boys over to someone else.

Mores the pity.

Romane continued:

But then, if they had been under the care of trusted people, why on earth didn't they reappear later, explaining where they had been ? Instead of that, we have just Perkin Warbeck, showing up with a very different story. In fact, that is the major reason why I think they were dead. Had Richard hidden them with trusted people, there's no reason why they shouldn't have popped up in some safe place, such as Burgundy.

Doug here:

Well, to be honest, there are those who rather think at least one of them (Richard/Perkin) did appear later. Why Edward didn't, and where he was, has resulted in a lot of theorizing, but very little factual knowledge. I can say, safely I think, that there were valid reasons for neither Edward nor Richard to show their heads immediately after Bosworth. First off, they were still officially acknowledged as being illegitimate as Titulus Regius hadn't yet been repealed. Don't forget, Buckingham's Rebellion, which failed, had been undertaken before their illegitimacy had been officially proclaimed and even then there hadn't been enough support for Edward to his supporters to retake the throne.

Then there's the problem caused by Tudor and his proclaimed intentions, both before and after Bosworth. Prior to the battle, Tudor claimed the throne as the last Lancastrian heir and vowed to cement that claim by marrying Elizabeth of York in her role as the eldest surviving heir to Edward IV. Immediately after Bosworth, of course, Tudor changed his tune and claimed the throne by right of conquest. However one looked at it though, post-Bosworth, Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury represented a direct, very dangerous threat to Tudor. There were only two groups of people armed at that point, Tudor's French mercenaries and the Stanleys, and Richard's supporters who hadn't been at Bosworth, but had been mustering and arming themselves. Tudor certainly wasn't going to step aside for Edward or Richard and the supporters of Richard III weren't organized enough to immediately switch to a Plan B under the leadership of some well-known, surviving Yorkist adult male, willing to risk his life to put the illegitimate son of Edward IV on the throne.

We also have to remember that, before any attempt to gain the throne was made by by Richard/Perkin, there had been a failed rebellion to put a Yorkist on the throne  Edward of Warwick who, while still under his father's Attainder, at least was recognized by one and all as being legitimate. So it wasn't until after the attempt to put Warwick on the throne had failed, and after Richard/Perkin had reached adulthood, that another attempt was made to de-throne Tudor. And that attempt employed the person who, if possibly not having the clearest claim to the throne, had the best-known. After his brother Edward, anyway.

Romane concluded:

Maybe, as Carol said, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the matter of the boys' fate. But then, why would we discuss on that forum if there was no mystery and if we'd all agree ?

Doug here:

Oh Heavens, if we didn't have differing views and opinions, this forum would be a waste of pixels!

Doug

Marie wrote:

I'm 99% sure Lincoln was not Richard's heir. There are several references to young Warwick after Bosworth in terms that suggest he was viewed as Richard's heir, and the 'Lambert Simnel' rebellion was aimed at placing him on the throne. Lincoln supported his coronation, which he would never have done if he'd planned to sideline him and take the throne for himself. No de la Pole put in a claim until after the deaths of Warwick and Warbeck.

Doug here:

Thank you, Marie! I wonder if the idea that Lincoln was Richard's heir didn't arise simply because Lincoln assumed the leadership of the Yorkist cause after Bosworth?

Thanks again,

Doug

On which note I've just stumbled on this on the Hicks IPM website
Gordon McKelvie | The Bastardy of Edward V in 1484: New evidence of its reception in the inquisitions post mortem of William Lord Hastings | RSJ Vol 3, No 1 (2016) | Winchester University Press
Gordon McKelvie | The Bastardy of Edward V in 1484: New evidence of its rec... The Bastardy of Edward V in 1484: New evidence of its reception in the inquisitions post mortem of William Lord ...
Have you read it Marie, or anyone else? H

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 18 June 2017, 22:16
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: 'Buckingham did it' : scholars versus 'gifted amateurs' ?

There would have plenty of people who knew the contents of Richard's will. There are a surprising number of records which all point towards Warwick having been assumed to be Richard's heir after Bosworth.

Romane wrote:

What sort of a mother, anyway, would have fled in sanctuary, leaving her older boy under the watch of a man whom she considered such a threat, precisely, that she had fled in sanctuary ?It's quite obvious that EW didn't fear Richard as much as she pretended to, it was a political move and not a very good one at that.

How could she have feared for her life ? Had Edward IV or Richard himself ever physically hurt the women involved in any plot against them ? And if she didn't really fear for her life, why didn't she remain in a position allowing her to watch over her son, to visit him ? Why on earth would she have agreed to let Richard join his brother ?

Marie:

I agree that she didn't at that point fear Richard would harm her children or kill her (nobody executed noble ladies at that period). Going into sanctuary was what she did when the opposition took over. If there had been a coup against Richard planned at Stony Stratford, however, she was probably involved and so would have had good reason to fear imprisonment. Her oldest son, Dorset, also took sanctuary with her (although he later disappeared elsewhere) and he possibly did have reason to fear for his life.

I suspect EW and Dorset half hoped to run an alternative government from the sanctuary. She took with her as much treasure as she could, and even seems to have briefly got the Great Seal off Rotherham - with that she could issue all official documents and leave the royal council looking stupid. I really think they'd tried to take Richard out of the equation, expected to succeed, and did not have Plan B in place. Mancini says she and Dorset tried to raise the Londoners to resist Gloucester, but they weren't interested. Then she panics. I've no doubt that she and Dorset continued making plans, and that Dorset left sanctuary with some purpose.

What sort of a mother was she? A loving one, I think, to judge from her will, but she was also arrogant and ambitious for her family, and she had had supreme power for so many years that it had warped her thinking.

Just to clarify the sources for Edward V's disappearance whilst I'm here, it does seem clear that they had not been seen since before the outbreak of the rebellion. Crowland says so, and he was writing just after Bosworth. Mancini, commissioned in France in the autumn of 1483 to write about Richard's path to the throne, felt obliged to offer some sort of assessment of whether Edward V was still . He says the boys disappeared from view soon after Hastings' death, but I'm personally inclined to think he was passing off as stuff that had occurred when he was in England much more recent events that he'd been told about by fugitives from Buckingham's Rebellion. In January 1484 the Estates General of France were treated to a morality tale based on Richard's murder of Edward V and his brother. The Great Chronicle, with its claim that the boys were on view until Easter 1484, is much, much later - probably about 1512 - and is clearly wrong.

So when Elizabeth Woodville made her deal with Richard her sons had been missing from public view for several months.

I think your scenario regarding Buckingham is very plausible. It seems to me that so long as there was a chance that at least one of the boys was alive EW would have had the necessary incentive to extricate herself from the marriage agreement with Tudor. One thing that makes me doubt whether Edward V survived is the appearance of Perkin Warbeck. If he was really Richard Duke of York then his brother had indeed been killed, and if he was an imposter, then the fact that he chose to identify himself as York rather than as Edward V suggests that there was a strong suspicion around - or even knowledge amongst a favoured few - that Edward had not survived.

Marie:

I agree that she didn't at that point fear Richard would harm her children or kill her (nobody executed noble ladies at that period).

What sort of a mother was she? A loving one, I think, to judge from her will, but she was also arrogant and ambitious for her family, and she had had supreme power for so many years that it had warped her thinking.

Romane:

About noble women not being executed, this changed quite a lot with the Tudors !

You're right as well about Elizabeth probably being quite a loving mother. I was shocked by the fact that she fled in sanctuary leaving her son with people she considered as enemies, and made impossible for her to visit him. But it's a modern way of thinking. In these times, high born children were often separated from their parents very young to live with other relatives or allies, and young Edward, as Prince of Wales, had been living apart from her for a long time. Besides, in spite of the oath she asked from him later, she didn't really fear that Richard would harm her children.

Marie:

Just to clarify the sources for Edward V's disappearance whilst I'm here, it does seem clear that they had not been seen since before the outbreak of the rebellion. Crowland says so, and he was writing just after Bosworth. Mancini, commissioned in France in the autumn of 1483 to write about Richard's path to the throne, felt obliged to offer some sort of assessment of whether Edward V was still . He says the boys disappeared from view soon after Hastings' death, but I'm personally inclined to think he was passing off as stuff that had occurred when he was in England much more recent events that he'd been told about by fugitives from Buckingham's Rebellion. In January 1484 the Estates General of France were treated to a morality tale based on Richard's murder of Edward V and his brother. The Great Chronicle, with its claim that the boys were on view until Easter 1484, is much, much later - probably about 1512 - and is clearly wrong.

So when Elizabeth Woodville made her deal with Richard her sons had been missing from public view for several months.

Romane:

I completely agree. First, the Great Chronicle doesn't even say that the boys were on view until Easter 1484. It just says that the situation was quiet until that date, and then rumors about the boy's death began to spread. It was not the first time. Apparently the rumors quieted for a while after the crushing of the 1483 rebellion, and then came back, probably because the same people began to stir the pot again.

Besides, the same Great Chronicle says that the boys could only be seen under Shaa's mayorship, which ended in october 1483. And it doesn't say that they were seen until that very month. Only during the mayorship, in general. The boys might very well have disappeared from view in august or in early september, at the moment when Buckingham joined the rebellion.

As for the other sources, Crowland and Mancini, as you say they place the boys' disappearance in 1483.

Marie:

I think your scenario regarding Buckingham is very plausible. It seems to me that so long as there was a chance that at least one of the boys was alive EW would have had the necessary incentive to extricate herself from the marriage agreement with Tudor. One thing that makes me doubt whether Edward V survived is the appearance of Perkin Warbeck. If he was really Richard Duke of York then his brother had indeed been killed, and if he was an imposter, then the fact that he chose to identify himself as York rather than as Edward V suggests that there was a strong suspicion around - or even knowledge amongst a favoured few - that Edward had not survived.

Romane:

You're absolutely right, why would have Warbeck, if he was an impostor, pretend to be Richard if there was a possibility that Edward was still alive ? The two boys had not an important age difference.People must have known a little more than we do, even if it's obvious that there was a profound mystery surrounding their fate even in these time.

I'm glad you find my scenario plausible. I can't help from looking for explanations about why Richard didn't defend himself agains the rumors, and why both princes didn't reappear safe and sound later, out of Henry's reach. And IMO Buckingham appears far too much in the sources concerning the princes' death for that to be just a coincidence.

That hypothesis implies that the two skeletons found buried under that stair in the Tower are not the remains of the Princes, though. I hope the Church, some day, will reconsider the matter and that scientists will be allowed to put an end to the doubts on that matter.

Romane wrote:

What sort of a mother, anyway, would have fled in sanctuary, leaving her older boy under the watch of a man whom she considered such a threat, precisely, that she had fled in sanctuary ?It's quite obvious that EW didn't fear Richard as much as she pretended to, it was a political move and not a very good one at that.

How could she have feared for her life ? Had Edward IV or Richard himself ever physically hurt the women involved in any plot against them ? And if she didn't really fear for her life, why didn't she remain in a position allowing her to watch over her son, to visit him ? Why on earth would she have agreed to let Richard join his brother ?

Marie:

I agree that she didn't at that point fear Richard would harm her children or kill her (nobody executed noble ladies at that period). Going into sanctuary was what she did when the opposition took over. If there had been a coup against Richard planned at Stony Stratford, however, she was probably involved and so would have had good reason to fear imprisonment. Her oldest son, Dorset, also took sanctuary with her (although he later disappeared elsewhere) and he possibly did have reason to fear for his life.

I suspect EW and Dorset half hoped to run an alternative government from the sanctuary. She took with her as much treasure as she could, and even seems to have briefly got the Great Seal off Rotherham - with that she could issue all official documents and leave the royal council looking stupid. I really think they'd tried to take Richard out of the equation, expected to succeed, and did not have Plan B in place. Mancini says she and Dorset tried to raise the Londoners to resist Gloucester, but they weren't interested. Then she panics. I've no doubt that she and Dorset continued making plans, and that Dorset left sanctuary with some purpose.

What sort of a mother was she? A loving one, I think, to judge from her will, but she was also arrogant and ambitious for her family, and she had had supreme power for so many years that it had warped her thinking.

Just to clarify the sources for Edward V's disappearance whilst I'm here, it does seem clear that they had not been seen since before the outbreak of the rebellion. Crowland says so, and he was writing just after Bosworth. Mancini, commissioned in France in the autumn of 1483 to write about Richard's path to the throne, felt obliged to offer some sort of assessment of whether Edward V was still . He says the boys disappeared from view soon after Hastings' death, but I'm personally inclined to think he was passing off as stuff that had occurred when he was in England much more recent events that he'd been told about by fugitives from Buckingham's Rebellion. In January 1484 the Estates General of France were treated to a morality tale based on Richard's murder of Edward V and his brother. The Great Chronicle, with its claim that the boys were on view until Easter 1484, is much, much later - probably about 1512 - and is clearly wrong.

So when Elizabeth Woodville made her deal with Richard her sons had been missing from public view for several months.

I think your scenario regarding Buckingham is very plausible. It seems to me that so long as there was a chance that at least one of the boys was alive EW would have had the necessary incentive to extricate herself from the marriage agreement with Tudor. One thing that makes me doubt whether Edward V survived is the appearance of Perkin Warbeck. If he was really Richard Duke of York then his brother had indeed been killed, and if he was an imposter, then the fact that he chose to identify himself as York rather than as Edward V suggests that there was a strong suspicion around - or even knowledge amongst a favoured few - that Edward had not survived.

"You're right as well about Elizabeth probably being quite a loving mother. I was shocked by the fact that she fled in sanctuary leaving her son with people she considered as enemies, and made impossible for her to visit him. But it's a modern way of thinking. In these times, high born children were often separated from their parents very young to live with other relatives or allies, and young Edward, as Prince of Wales, had been living apart from her for a long time. Besides, in spite of the oath she asked from him later, she didn't really fear that Richard would harm her children."

Carol responds:

I wonder how EW reacted earlier when Edward IV insisted on sending their oldest son to Wales. Possibly, she was consoled by the fact that he would be with her brother, Anthony, and her older son, Richard Grey, but in my view, it was a bad idea since he would not be exposed either to his father or to Richard--he'd be infused with Woodville views rather than Yorkist ideals.

But, you're right, he'd never been close to his mother. When he came to London, he was almost immediately moved to the royal apartments in the Tower, the traditional place where kings awaited coronation. His brother was to join him there. It would seem by his behavior (happily talking with his uncle Richard, the Protector) that he was glad to escape sanctuary with his mother and sisters to join the brother he didn't know.

I hope this post makes sense since I've been trying to hold a conversation as I type!

Carol

Romane wrote [to Marie]:

"You're right as well about Elizabeth probably being quite a loving mother. I was shocked by the fact that she fled in sanctuary leaving her son with people she considered as enemies, and made impossible for her to visit him. But it's a modern way of thinking. In these times, high born children were often separated from their parents very young to live with other relatives or allies, and young Edward, as Prince of Wales, had been living apart from her for a long time. Besides, in spite of the oath she asked from him later, she didn't really fear that Richard would harm her children."

Carol responds:

I wonder how EW reacted earlier when Edward IV insisted on sending their oldest son to Wales. Possibly, she was consoled by the fact that he would be with her brother, Anthony, and her older son, Richard Grey, but in my view, it was a bad idea since he would not be exposed either to his father or to Richard--he'd be infused with Woodville views rather than Yorkist ideals.

But, you're right, he'd never been close to his mother. When he came to London, he was almost immediately moved to the royal apartments in the Tower, the traditional place where kings awaited coronation. His brother was to join him there. It would seem by his behavior (happily talking with his uncle Richard, the Protector) that he was glad to escape sanctuary with his mother and sisters to join the brother he didn't know.

I hope this post makes sense since I've been trying to hold a conversation as I type!

Carol

Marie :

I apologise, though, because I see the letter does not mention that the lord was his godfather, but according to my notes the Dutch Divisie Chronicle, which seems to have been written during the Perkin Warbeck period, says that one version of the fate of the Princes was that Buckingham went to murder them but spared Richard Duke of York because he was his godchild, and that York was the young man executed as Perkin Warbeck'. The same chronicle also claims that some people said Buckingham killed them both to clear his own path to the throne. I'm pretty sure there is an article by Livia Visser-Fuchs about the Divisie Chronicle in a very old Ricardian, but I don't have time to look for it at present, I'm afraid.

Romane :

Annette Carson quotes the Divisie Chronicle and says exactly that. I think it's very interesting, for there is no link at all between de Divisie Chronicle, the journal of the London citizen kept among the College of Arms manuscripts and the genealogy found in another collection of manuscripts. One of these source is a foreign one, with no reason at all to change the truth, that lists all the different versions the author knows about the fate of the princes. The other two are english, but not for publication and not written under the Tudor era. It can't be a coincidence that we find Buckingham's name linked to the murder in the three of them. Of course, considering Richard's close association with Buckingham's in the beginning of the reign, no wonder that people thought that they were partners in crime. And that's probably exactly why, having no proof and unable to find the surviving boy, Richard couldn't not defend himself against the accusation. But the Divisie Chronicle names only Buckingham, who was called by Richard "the most untrue creature living"

Marie :

My feeling is that PW left the names out of his account because he was trying to maximise the base of his support in England.

Romane :

As for PW not naming the « Lord », there can be several reason. If he was an impostor, it was better for him to remain vague about the murderer. If he was Richard of Shrewsbury, he might have not recognized the « Lord » who talked to him. Buckingham might very well have made sure that he could not identify him, for example by having some of his followers impersonating that « Lord ». Besides, he was very young, and even if Buckingham was his godfather, he might have not seen him very often.

David :

The move by Elizabeth Woodville into sanctuary may seem odd to modern eyes. It seems as Romane suggested that she was turning her back on her eldest son and has been spun by several writers into a suspicious move - an indication that the Woodvilles were 'up to something' and confirmation that Richard's accusations against them were true.

Romane :

Well, most of the historians agree that Elizabeth's hasty retreat in sanctuary, once she had heard of Anthony's arrest, was a very defiant and hostile move, unless one considers that the Woodvilles had done nothing that justified Anthony's arrest. For why would she have made such a thing, if all what she had done was to try to deprive Richard from his position as Protector ?

Some think that such a hasty flight proves that she knew about the pre contract. Others, that it supports the hypothesis that the Woodvilles had actually tried to ambush Richard. But even the most hostile to Richard don't really explain why she had to do such a thing. Richard had never done anything proving that she should fear for her personal safety or that of her children.

I agree with Marie's remark, the fact that she took some part of the treasure, and tried to take the seal, proves that she hoped to rule from sanctuary.

David :

However, you need to view the perspective of the period and the vulnerability of ruling families to attack or disease. It was not only common practice, but essential to keep the king and heir or heir and spare apart. Although the people did not know the means by which disease was passed, they understood that it struck groups in an area.

Romane :

Yes, to separate the heirs made sense in that regard, I agree. But to separate Edward and Richard didn't necessarily mean to keep the younger boy in sanctuary. Besides, she surrendered him later. She took him to sanctuary as a political asset, like the treasure, and the seal.

David :

For Edward IV's early reign he kept Henry VI as a usurped king and prisoner. This was not because he had any reluctance about killing him, it was because Henry had a son in exile. Killing him would only make the strategic situation worse. Henry's son would become the Lancastrian king-in-exile and a rallying point for any rebels. Henry's presence may also discourage any attempt to reinstate him. As soon as the son died at Tewkesbury, the usefulness of keeping Henry alive was gone.

Romane :

Well, if it was Edward's IV strategy, it didn't work, Edward of Lancaster made his landing anyway. And he was a rallying point even as Prince of Wales. Only he was too young to try to take the crown before that.

Of course, there is also the matter of Warwick's interference, but he used Henry VI as a figurehead, as Marguerite of Anjou had done before him. Had Edward IV killed Henry VI sooner, Warwick wouldn't have had an anointed king on hand to seize the real power.

So I don't think we can say that Edward IV only killed Henry VI when we was no longer more useful alive than dead. The Tudors would have killed him long ago when he eventually did it

David :

The principle of securing the next-in-line meant that, even IF Richard had intended to seize the throne at Stony Stratford, he would not have harmed Edward. However, in the chess game of 15th century power politics, moving the younger Prince to a place of safety was the best thing that Elizabeth Woodville could do to protect her older son, Edward V.

Romane :

It could be one of her reasons. But when she fled in sanctuary, on what ground would she have suspected Richard to want to harm her sons, if she didn't know that they were illegitimate, or if she had not been part in a plot for ambushing him ? At the beginning, Richard only played his part as Protector, and nothing more.

Besides, she surrendered the boy later and remained in sanctuary. I think Elizabeth's move had much more to do with keeping the power than protecting her sons.

Unless she had the feeling, without any proof of it, that Richard was an evil man, capable of everything. It's exactly what her flight in sanctuary suggested.

Last time she had fled in sanctuary, is was to escape Warwick and Marguerite of Anjou. That she adopted the same conduct towards Richard certainly played a part in the spreading of the rumors of murder. It made people expect that Elizabeth's family would come to harm at Richard's hands.

David :

The move by Elizabeth Woodville into sanctuary may seem odd to modern eyes. It seems as Romane suggested that she was turning her back on her eldest son and has been spun by several writers into a suspicious move - an indication that the Woodvilles were 'up to something' and confirmation that Richard's accusations against them were true.

Romane :

Well, most of the historians agree that Elizabeth's hasty retreat in sanctuary, once she had heard of Anthony's arrest, was a very defiant and hostile move, unless one considers that the Woodvilles had done nothing that justified Anthony's arrest. For why would she have made such a thing, if all what she had done was to try to deprive Richard from his position as Protector ?

Some think that such a hasty flight proves that she knew about the pre contract. Others, that it supports the hypothesis that the Woodvilles had actually tried to ambush Richard. But even the most hostile to Richard don't really explain why she had to do such a thing. Richard had never done anything proving that she should fear for her personal safety or that of her children.

I agree with Marie's remark, the fact that she took some part of the treasure, and tried to take the seal, proves that she hoped to rule from sanctuary.

David :

However, you need to view the perspective of the period and the vulnerability of ruling families to attack or disease. It was not only common practice, but essential to keep the king and heir or heir and spare apart. Although the people did not know the means by which disease was passed, they understood that it struck groups in an area.

Romane :

Yes, to separate the heirs made sense in that regard, I agree. But to separate Edward and Richard didn't necessarily mean to keep the younger boy in sanctuary. Besides, she surrendered him later. She took him to sanctuary as a political asset, like the treasure, and the seal.

David :

For Edward IV's early reign he kept Henry VI as a usurped king and prisoner. This was not because he had any reluctance about killing him, it was because Henry had a son in exile. Killing him would only make the strategic situation worse. Henry's son would become the Lancastrian king-in-exile and a rallying point for any rebels. Henry's presence may also discourage any attempt to reinstate him. As soon as the son died at Tewkesbury, the usefulness of keeping Henry alive was gone.

Romane :

Well, if it was Edward's  IV strategy, it didn't work, Edward of Lancaster made his landing anyway. And he was a rallying point even as Prince of Wales. Only he was too young to try to take the crown before that.

Of course, there is also the matter of Warwick's interference, but he used Henry VI as a figurehead, as Marguerite of Anjou had done before him. Had Edward IV killed Henry VI sooner, Warwick wouldn't have had an anointed king on hand to seize the real power.

So I don't think we can say that Edward IV only killed Henry VI when we was no longer more useful alive than dead. The Tudors would have killed him long ago when he eventually did it

David :

The principle of securing the next-in-line meant that, even IF Richard had intended to seize the throne at Stony Stratford, he would not have harmed Edward. However, in the chess game of 15th century power politics, moving the younger Prince to a place of safety was the best thing that Elizabeth Woodville could do to protect her older son, Edward V.

Romane :

It could be one of her reasons. But when she fled in sanctuary, on what ground would she have suspected Richard to want to harm her sons, if she didn't know that they were illegitimate, or if she had not been part in a plot for ambushing him ? At the beginning, Richard only played his part as Protector, and nothing more.

Besides, she surrendered the boy later and remained in sanctuary. I think Elizabeth's move had much more to do with keeping the power than protecting her sons. 

Unless she had the feeling, without any proof of it, that Richard was an evil man, capable of everything. It's exactly what her flight in sanctuary suggested.

Last time she had fled in sanctuary, is was to escape Warwick and Marguerite of Anjou. That she adopted the same conduct towards Richard certainly played a part in the spreading of the rumors of murder. It made people expect that Elizabeth's family would come to harm at Richard's hands.

Romane wrote:

That Richard was never tempted to kill the boys would be difficult to prove, even if it's not in accordance with what we know about his character.

Marie answers:

I wasn't intending to make any kind of an observation on Richard's character, but merely picking up on David's observation that kings did not kill their rivals if those rivals had successors who were not under their control - it simply made the situation worse. The fact that EW still had the girls, and that their marriages were of potential interest to ambitious dynasts at home or abroad, would have made the murder of their brothers very risky. I don't think Richard could have been that confident about the security of the armed guard he had placed around the large and porous area of Westminster Sanctuary, and Crowland tells us there was at least one plot foiled to smuggle the girls abroad.

Romane wrote:

That Richard was never tempted to kill the boys would be difficult to prove, even if it's not in accordance with what we know about his character. 

Marie answers:

I wasn't intending to make any kind of an observation on Richard's character, but merely picking up on David's observation that kings did not kill their rivals if those rivals had successors who were not under their control - it simply made the situation worse. The fact that EW still had the girls, and that their marriages were of potential interest to ambitious dynasts at home or abroad, would have made the murder of their brothers very risky. I don't think Richard could have been that confident about the security of the armed guard he had placed around the large and porous area of Westminster Sanctuary, and Crowland tells us there was at least one plot foiled to smuggle the girls abroad.

Romane wrote:

That Richard was never tempted to kill the boys would be difficult to prove, even if it's not in accordance with what we know about his character.

Marie answers:

I wasn't intending to make any kind of an observation on Richard's character, but merely picking up on David's observation that kings did not kill their rivals if those rivals had successors who were not under their control - it simply made the situation worse. The fact that EW still had the girls, and that their marriages were of potential interest to ambitious dynasts at home or abroad, would have made the murder of their brothers very risky. I don't think Richard could have been that confident about the security of the armed guard he had placed around the large and porous area of Westminster Sanctuary, and Crowland tells us there was at least one plot foiled to smuggle the girls abroad.

Karen wrote:

Then it is plausible that the temptation would increase once he got custody of the girls?

Marie thinks:

If they'd been boys, then yes (and he could have killed all but the littlest one). The complicating factor with the girls was their marriage potential. By killing the boys - if they were still alive at that point - Richard would have increased Tudor's incentive to come over and make Elizabeth his bride. So his first task would have been to marry the girls off to harmless nobodies.