Buckingham & the Sons of Edward

I did my thesis on Buckingham's rebellion, and I came away convinced that he had illusions of granduer and was totally rebelling on his own behalf. The idea that he would rise for an exile with highly questionable credentials seems laughable to me and a Tudor invention. So I agree that it would be very much to his disadvantage to admit killing the sons of Edward, if he had done so, but very much to his advantage to blame Richard. So IF he had them killed and IF the subject came up with Morton, he would likely have lied about it and blamed the king. If one buys this scenario, I submit this is a likely source of some of the rumors that Richard did the dirty deed. Discrediting Richard was to Buck's benefit as well as Tudor's, probably more so as Buck was already in England, had retainers at his beck and call to stage an uprising, the trust of the king, power and position, and a better claim than Tudor.

Overall I think Buck merits a great deal more attention from historians that he has gotten in the past. He obviously had a great deal of influence in the spring/summer of 1483 and in Richard becoming king. His possible role in the fate of the sons of Edward also merits some intense scrutiny, as evidenced by this extended thread!

- MargaretA

I agree with you Margaret. The Henry VII our Buckingham had in mind
was himself, not Tudor! A pity his records were destroyed by his
servants when the rebellion failed. Can you imagine what they might
have told us?
Paul

On 16 Feb 2006, at 15:07, Margaret Anderson wrote:

> I did my thesis on Buckingham's rebellion, and I came away
> convinced that he had illusions of granduer and was totally
> rebelling on his own behalf. The idea that he would rise for an
> exile with highly questionable credentials seems laughable to me
> and a Tudor invention. So I agree that it would be very much to his
> disadvantage to admit killing the sons of Edward, if he had done
> so, but very much to his advantage to blame Richard. So IF he had
> them killed and IF the subject came up with Morton, he would likely
> have lied about it and blamed the king. If one buys this scenario,
> I submit this is a likely source of some of the rumors that Richard
> did the dirty deed. Discrediting Richard was to Buck's benefit as
> well as Tudor's, probably more so as Buck was already in England,
> had retainers at his beck and call to stage an uprising, the trust
> of the king, power and position, and a better claim than Tudor.
>
> Overall I think Buck merits a great deal more attention from
> historians that he has gotten in the past. He obviously had a great
> deal of influence in the spring/summer of 1483 and in Richard
> becoming king. His possible role in the fate of the sons of Edward
> also merits some intense scrutiny, as evidenced by this extended
> thread!
>
> - MargaretA
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>