The Princes

I remember seeing a Movie, sometime ago Vincent Price played the part of Richard III.What was the name of the movie, it escapes me. I do not believe the Princes were murdered by Richard III. At least one of them lived in France.
I wondered if he had descendants. What recent work is there to read on the subject? That sheds more light in favor of the King.
Le

The movie in question is the 1962 re-make of "Tower of London"
directed by Roger Corman and is a real stinkeroo----unless you like
bad movies, then it is a pip. At least the 1939 version had Basil
Rathbone as Richard and Boris Karloff as his ever faithful pet
executioner named Mord and they both gleefully drown Vincent Price's
Clarence in a most handy big vat of wine.

"Meek"

>
> I remember seeing a Movie, sometime ago Vincent Price played the
part of Richard III.What was the name of the movie, it escapes me. I
do not believe the Princes were murdered by Richard III. At least one
of them lived in France.
> I wondered if he had descendants. What recent work is there to read
on the subject? That sheds more light in favor of the King.
> Le
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Le Bateman" <LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
>. I do not believe the Princes were murdered by Richard III. At least one of them lived in
France.
> I wondered if he had descendants. What recent work is there to read on the subject? That
sheds more light in favor of the King.
> Le

Hi Le - Can you expand more on your theory that one of them lived in France. I am always
intrested to hear other people's theories/thinkings on this subject?
Eileen
>
>
>
>

It seems to me I remember reading that Edward V had some dental problems and
was generally

not in good health to begin with. Nowadays we know how dental disease can
lead to heart problems, infection,

and other health issues. Usually this happens when a person is older but,
who knows? Given the stress of his

situation and the generally unsanitary conditions, Edward could have become
mortally ill.



Although I would love to believe at least one Prince survived, I just don't.
They were worth more dead than alive

to too many people. I do not believe Richard had them killed either, but
disappear they did. I think Edward did die

either in the Tower or shortly after being released. There is at least one
rumor of a shipwreck or capsizing or

something and the young Prince was drowned.



Someday perhaps we will know - there may be documentation somewhere. We've
got to encourage more research

into this period, both in England and on the Continent!



L.M.L.,

Janet



Janet M. Trimbath

--- In , "Janet T." <forevere@...> wrote:
>
> It seems to me I remember reading that Edward V had some dental problems and
> was generally
>
> not in good health to begin with. Nowadays we know how dental disease can
> lead to heart problems, infection,
>
> and other health issues.

I'm of the opinion that young Edward did die from nature causes,I believe it is recorded he
was visited by Dr Argentine (Croyland Chronical?) but this theory about him having
suffered dental problems - do we know this for sure or has this idea arisen from that fact
that one of the skulls in Westminster Abbey had signs of dental disease?
Eileen




Usually this happens when a person is older but,
> who knows? Given the stress of his
>
> situation and the generally unsanitary conditions, Edward could have become
> mortally ill.
>
>
>
> Although I would love to believe at least one Prince survived, I just don't.
> They were worth more dead than alive
>
> to too many people. I do not believe Richard had them killed either, but
> disappear they did. I think Edward did die
>
> either in the Tower or shortly after being released. There is at least one
> rumor of a shipwreck or capsizing or
>
> something and the young Prince was drowned.
>
>
>
> Someday perhaps we will know - there may be documentation somewhere. We've
> got to encourage more research
>
> into this period, both in England and on the Continent!
>
>
>
> L.M.L.,
>
> Janet
>
>
>
> Janet M. Trimbath
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perhaps that is what I remembered - about the dental problems, I
mean - and just conflated the the two bits of information.

But I do recall he was "feeling poorly". Of course if you
read "Dragon Waiting", you know Dr. Argentine was turning him into a
vampire!!:-)

I guess it was in Croyland or Mancini or Vergil about EWdward V being
sick in some way.

L.M.L.,
Janet

-- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Janet T."
<forevere@> wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me I remember reading that Edward V had some dental
problems and
> > was generally
> >
> > not in good health to begin with. Nowadays we know how dental
disease can
> > lead to heart problems, infection,
> >
> > and other health issues.
>
> I'm of the opinion that young Edward did die from nature causes,I
believe it is recorded he
> was visited by Dr Argentine (Croyland Chronical?) but this theory
about him having
> suffered dental problems - do we know this for sure or has this
idea arisen from that fact
> that one of the skulls in Westminster Abbey had signs of dental
disease?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
> Usually this happens when a person is older but,
> > who knows? Given the stress of his
> >
> > situation and the generally unsanitary conditions, Edward could
have become
> > mortally ill.
> >
> >
> >
> > Although I would love to believe at least one Prince survived, I
just don't.
> > They were worth more dead than alive
> >
> > to too many people. I do not believe Richard had them killed
either, but
> > disappear they did. I think Edward did die
> >
> > either in the Tower or shortly after being released. There is at
least one
> > rumor of a shipwreck or capsizing or
> >
> > something and the young Prince was drowned.
> >
> >
> >
> > Someday perhaps we will know - there may be documentation
somewhere. We've
> > got to encourage more research
> >
> > into this period, both in England and on the Continent!
> >
> >
> >
> > L.M.L.,
> >
> > Janet
> >
> >
> >
> > Janet M. Trimbath
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I have a suggested cause for death in a family tree of children ages 10 to 20 and itýs something we all take as somewhat ýroutineý and that isý.food allergies?!?!



My son has multiple minor food allergies (runs in the family to some extent but for some reason he was hit with a greater number) and if he had been born in an age of no diagnosis, he would have been/ was a sickly kid. Now, he does not have any one great allergy that would directly hurt him, but the multiple small allergies could cause complications over timeý.his allergies tend to affect his skin, but many in our food allergy group get asthma or stomach issues or issues with the ear (wasnýt that the issue with older brother Edward?) Because the allergy causes inflammation in some part of the body (and that varies with each individual), that inflammation can lead to infectionýý



I donýt know, just a thoughtý..



Angie

"I have a suggested cause for death in a family tree of children ages 10 to 20 and it’s something we all take as somewhat “routine” and that is….food allergies?!? !"

That is one I've wondered about for some time. I have an anaphalctic allergy to all fish and shellfish. I ate a fish when I was about 14 and went into shock. Luckilly my dad is a doctor and had some adrenayne upstairs!

I always wonder when people are listed as having died of things like "a surfeit of eels"

cheers,
mishka



---------------------------------
www.mishkajaeger.com

---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Another possibility connected with fish is botulism poisoning. I have a suspicion that this was what caused the death of Isabella of Castile's younger brother Alfonso in 1468. There were rumours of poisoning, but he suffered progressive paralysis after eating fish.

Ann

Mishka <groups@...> wrote:
"I have a suggested cause for death in a family tree of children ages 10 to 20 and it’s something we all take as somewhat “routine” and that is….food allergies?!? !"

That is one I've wondered about for some time. I have an anaphalctic allergy to all fish and shellfish. I ate a fish when I was about 14 and went into shock. Luckilly my dad is a doctor and had some adrenayne upstairs!

I always wonder when people are listed as having died of things like "a surfeit of eels"

cheers,
mishka

---------------------------------
www.mishkajaeger.com

---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Agree with both of you, allergies is a possibility, we have similar problems in our family, usually different things.

However, when looking at the Tudors (half york after all), they seemed to suffer from chest problems and also boys generally did not make old bones, think of all the baby princes that died to Catherine of Aragon, even the Henry's bastard son did not make old bones, without anti-biotics think my own life might have been in the balance, chest infections can come on quickly and without treatment would take a childs life easily.

Marion

Mishka <groups@...> wrote: "I have a suggested cause for death in a family tree of children ages 10 to 20 and it’s something we all take as somewhat “routine” and that is….food allergies?!? !"

That is one I've wondered about for some time. I have an anaphalctic allergy to all fish and shellfish. I ate a fish when I was about 14 and went into shock. Luckilly my dad is a doctor and had some adrenayne upstairs!

I always wonder when people are listed as having died of things like "a surfeit of eels"

cheers,
mishka

---------------------------------
www.mishkajaeger.com

---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.








---------------------------------
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> Another possibility connected with fish is botulism poisoning. I have
a suspicion that this was what caused the death of Isabella of
Castile's younger brother Alfonso in 1468. There were rumours of
poisoning, but he suffered progressive paralysis after eating fish.
>
> Ann



I think Edward of Middleham died too quickly for it to have been
botulism. He was dead before his parents, not that far away from
Middleham, could even be notified...he was dead before the messenger
even set out.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> >
> I think Edward of Middleham died too quickly for it to have been
> botulism. He was dead before his parents, not that far away from
> Middleham, could even be notified...he was dead before the messenger
> even set out.
>
> Katy
>
Is there nothing, absolutely nothing on Edwards death - no mention if he died in pain or in a
fever etc.,

Who told us his parents grief was bordering on madness - was it Croyland? Does he have
nothing to say of symptoms - anyone know?
Eileen

From the Pronay & Cox translation of The Crowland
Chronicles:

"Shortly afterwards, however, they learned how vain
are the attempts of man to regulate his affairs
without God. In the following April, on a day not far
off King Edward's anniversary, this only son, on whom,
through so many solemn oaths, all hope of the royal
succession rested, died in Middleham castle after a
short illness ["brevissimo languore correptus occubit"
in the original Latin], in 1484 and in the first year
of King Richard's reign. You might have seen the
father and mother, after hearing the news at
Nottingham where they were staying, almost out of
their minds for a long time when faced with the sudden
grief."

The choice of the word "languor," meaning feebleness
or faintness, suggests to me that Edward of Middleham
wasn't thought to be usually faint or feeble.

Again, I think we may be underestimating the rapidity
with which death could claim a child in the era before
antibiotics.

--- eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:

> --- In ,
> oregonkaty <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > I think Edward of Middleham died too quickly for
> it to have been
> > botulism. He was dead before his parents, not
> that far away from
> > Middleham, could even be notified...he was dead
> before the messenger
> > even set out.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> Is there nothing, absolutely nothing on Edwards
> death - no mention if he died in pain or in a
> fever etc.,
>
> Who told us his parents grief was bordering on
> madness - was it Croyland? Does he have
> nothing to say of symptoms - anyone know?
> Eileen
>
>

--- In , Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@...> wrote:
>
> >
> Again, I think we may be underestimating the rapidity
> with which death could claim a child in the era before
> antibiotics.
Laura

Yes - and what springs to my mind is in today's world with all the drugs/antibiotics
available how quickly children are taken by meningitis - maybe it was something similar.
Maybe they didnt even have a name for what it was that took Edward. Sad.
Eileen
>
> --- eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In ,
> > oregonkaty <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > I think Edward of Middleham died too quickly for
> > it to have been
> > > botulism. He was dead before his parents, not
> > that far away from
> > > Middleham, could even be notified...he was dead
> > before the messenger
> > > even set out.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> > Is there nothing, absolutely nothing on Edwards
> > death - no mention if he died in pain or in a
> > fever etc.,
> >
> > Who told us his parents grief was bordering on
> > madness - was it Croyland? Does he have
> > nothing to say of symptoms - anyone know?
> > Eileen
> >
> >
>

The princes in the tower,     so what did happen to them?   there doesnt seem to
be any one asking about them, surely some body wondered where they were, or did
they know, could they have died from natural causes, wouldnt they have been
buried with some honours?  come on somebody help me out here,  Mo 

--- In , Mo Harris <moharris483@...> wrote:
>
> The princes in the tower,     so what did happen to them?   there doesnt seem to
> be any one asking about them, surely some body wondered where they were, or did
> they know, could they have died from natural causes, wouldnt they have been
> buried with some honours?  come on somebody help me out here,  Mo 
>


This is one of the questions for the ages. It's worthwhile to continue to discuss the subject, but you might want to have a look at what has already been covered in this forum. You can search the archives by going to the home page and entering a key word or phrase (such as "princes in the Tower") in the search box.

New ideas or points of view are welcome.

Kay

Hiya, Mo,

You've come to the right place....

In its day (the TV quiz show), this would have been known as the $64,000 Question. More ink has been spilt on this one than any other, single topic, other than: "What hump?" [a la Young Frankenstein]

(We were hoping maybe You might be able to tell Us...just kidding, of course : )   But if you've a new theory, "Out with it, Sir/Madam!" as Richard might have said.

Greetings, Judy

(Right now, listening to CarTalk on National Public Radio; I've sometimes considered getting them to weigh in on this....)


________________________________
From: Mo Harris <moharris483@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 4:55 AM
Subject: The Princes


 
The princes in the tower,     so what did happen to them?   there doesnt seem to
be any one asking about them, surely some body wondered where they were, or did
they know, could they have died from natural causes, wouldnt they have been
buried with some honours?  come on somebody help me out here,  Mo 

My reply, Mo, is essentially Katy's, with a touch of my innate silliness for good measure ; )

Judy


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: The Princes


 


--- In , Mo Harris <moharris483@...> wrote:
>
> The princes in the tower,     so what did happen to them?   there doesnt seem to
> be any one asking about them, surely some body wondered where they were, or did
> they know, could they have died from natural causes, wouldnt they have been
> buried with some honours?  come on somebody help me out here,  Mo 
>

This is one of the questions for the ages. It's worthwhile to continue to discuss the subject, but you might want to have a look at what has already been covered in this forum. You can search the archives by going to the home page and entering a key word or phrase (such as "princes in the Tower") in the search box.

New ideas or points of view are welcome.

Kay

Hi Mo,

First welcome!

My theory as to what happened to the princes in the tower is that
Richard secreted them out of the country. I think there's a good chance
that Perkin Warbeck may well have been Richard of York as he claimed to
have been, and his forced confession to Henry VII that he was an
impostor was to protect his wife (Katherine Gordon) and their son. I
expand on this theory in both of my books about Richard III in the
21st-century. In short, because of a lack of extant evidence (in primary
sources) that the boys died during Richard's reign, I have developed
what I and others think is a plausible theory as to how they could have
survived him.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

--- In , Mo Harris
<moharris483@...> wrote:
>
> The princes in the tower, so what did happen to them? there
doesnt seem to
> be any one asking about them, surely some body wondered where they
were, or did
> they know, could they have died from natural causes, wouldnt they have
been
> buried with some honours? come on somebody help me out here, Mo
>
>
>
>

An excellently plausible theory, in my opinion.  J


________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: The Princes


 
Hi Mo,

First welcome!

My theory as to what happened to the princes in the tower is that
Richard secreted them out of the country. I think there's a good chance
that Perkin Warbeck may well have been Richard of York as he claimed to
have been, and his forced confession to Henry VII that he was an
impostor was to protect his wife (Katherine Gordon) and their son. I
expand on this theory in both of my books about Richard III in the
21st-century. In short, because of a lack of extant evidence (in primary
sources) that the boys died during Richard's reign, I have developed
what I and others think is a plausible theory as to how they could have
survived him.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

--- In , Mo Harris
<moharris483@...> wrote:
>
> The princes in the tower, so what did happen to them? there
doesnt seem to
> be any one asking about them, surely some body wondered where they
were, or did
> they know, could they have died from natural causes, wouldnt they have
been
> buried with some honours? come on somebody help me out here, Mo
>
>
>
>

Perkin Warbeck & Katherine Gordon had a son?

Peggy

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 11:28 AM, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:


> I think there's a good chance
> that Perkin Warbeck may well have been Richard of York as he claimed to
> have been, and his forced confession to Henry VII that he was an
> impostor was to protect his wife (Katherine Gordon) and their son.
>

--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mo,
>
> First welcome!
>
> My theory as to what happened to the princes in the tower is that
> Richard secreted them out of the country. I think there's a good chance
> that Perkin Warbeck may well have been Richard of York as he claimed to
> have been, and his forced confession to Henry VII that he was an
> impostor was to protect his wife (Katherine Gordon) and their son.


I am also inclined to believe that Perkin Warbeck was the younger son, Richard. But did he have a son? I thought he and Katherine Gordon had two daughters.

Kay

Agreed Joan.
Paul


On 21 May 2011, at 16:28, joanszechtman wrote:

> My theory as to what happened to the princes in the tower is that
> Richard secreted them out of the country. I think there's a good chance
> that Perkin Warbeck may well have been Richard of York as he claimed to
> have been, and his forced confession to Henry VII that he was an
> impostor was to protect his wife (Katherine Gordon) and their son.

Peggy and Katy--I'm fairly sure I remembered reading that in THE PERFECT
PRINCE by Ann Wroe, but at the moment, I can't put my finger on where in
the book I read this.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

--- In , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman"
u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mo,
> >
> > First welcome!
> >
> > My theory as to what happened to the princes in the tower is that
> > Richard secreted them out of the country. I think there's a good
chance
> > that Perkin Warbeck may well have been Richard of York as he claimed
to
> > have been, and his forced confession to Henry VII that he was an
> > impostor was to protect his wife (Katherine Gordon) and their son.
>
>
> I am also inclined to believe that Perkin Warbeck was the younger son,
Richard. But did he have a son? I thought he and Katherine Gordon had
two daughters.
>
> Kay
>

--- In , Mo Harris <moharris483@...> wrote:
>
> The princes in the tower,     so what did happen to them?   there doesnt seem to
> be any one asking about them, surely some body wondered where they were, or did
> they know, could they have died from natural causes, wouldnt they have been
> buried with some honours?  come on somebody help me out here,  Mo 


I've always been intrigued by the fact that though Perkin Warbeck claimed to be the younger son, Richard, and other people backed him up, no one ever came forth claiming to be Edward. The elder son would trump a younger son, of course, so there seems to have been some tacit knowledge or acceptance that by the time Warbeck came forth, if not much earlier, Edward was dead.

How could it be an apparently accepted fact, but no one wrote it down, much less said who, where, and how.

Kay

We can't know for sure that no one wrote it down, etc.  Just that we do not have - or no longer have - documentation to support the idea.


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: The Princes


 


--- In , Mo Harris <moharris483@...> wrote:
>
> The princes in the tower,     so what did happen to them?   there doesnt seem to
> be any one asking about them, surely some body wondered where they were, or did
> they know, could they have died from natural causes, wouldnt they have been
> buried with some honours?  come on somebody help me out here,  Mo 

I've always been intrigued by the fact that though Perkin Warbeck claimed to be the younger son, Richard, and other people backed him up, no one ever came forth claiming to be Edward. The elder son would trump a younger son, of course, so there seems to have been some tacit knowledge or acceptance that by the time Warbeck came forth, if not much earlier, Edward was dead.

How could it be an apparently accepted fact, but no one wrote it down, much less said who, where, and how.

Kay

Unlikely, though possible, is that Edward went "underground" choosing a
life in anonymity instead of risking revealing his true identity. Also,
since he was in Anthony Woodville's care for a good portion of his young
life up to the time that his father died and that Woodville was known
for his scholarship and piety, it's also possible that Edward could have
decided to go into the clergy, taking his chances that he could gain
power with less risk that way. Another theory is that Edward V was
killed at Stoke and since Henry had revoked Titulus Regius, he may not
have wanted to show his body because he could not at that point pin it
on Richard III and it would suggest that Richard of York was still alive
and waiting in the wings to challenge his rule. Henry's forces killed
everyone (although Lovel probably got away, but who could he tell
without jeopardizing his own life?) who could have identified Edward's
body, if he had indeed been killed at Stoke.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

--- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> We can't know for sure that no one wrote it down, etc. Â Just that
we do not have - or no longer have - documentation to support the idea.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 5:40 PM
> Subject: Re: The Princes
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In , Mo Harris moharris483@
wrote:
> >
> > The princes in the tower,    so what did happen to
them?  there doesnt seem to
> > be any one asking about them, surely some body wondered where they
were, or did
> > they know, could they have died from natural causes, wouldnt they
have been
> > buried with some honours? come on somebody help me out
here, MoÂ
>
> I've always been intrigued by the fact that though Perkin Warbeck
claimed to be the younger son, Richard, and other people backed him up,
no one ever came forth claiming to be Edward. The elder son would trump
a younger son, of course, so there seems to have been some tacit
knowledge or acceptance that by the time Warbeck came forth, if not much
earlier, Edward was dead.
>
> How could it be an apparently accepted fact, but no one wrote it down,
much less said who, where, and how.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> We can't know for sure that no one wrote it down, etc.  Just that we do not have - or no longer have - documentation to support the idea.


Very true. And things turn up in unexpected places from time to time, such as a Thomas More treatise stuffed in an urn at the Vatican. And the Bayeaux Tapestry, though it wasn't lost. It was right where the inventory said it was, but the inventory itself had been lost for centuries.

Kay

Welcome to Mo from me, too. I just want to add that I feel I can't leave Joan as the only respondent to put forward the theory that I myself espouse, although I'm delighted to hear so many people think it's plausible. I once thought of writing a book about all the different possible answers to your question, but abandoned the idea as there were so many. And - what's worse for an author trying to make sense of them - I knew I couldn't do justice to most of the ideas since I saw them as patently silly.

For my money, when it comes to a choice between an elaborate conspiracy and a simple explanation, I vote for the simple explanation every time. If someone (Richard, Buckingham, Tyrell, insert your choice of name) aimed to commit a double homicide while concealing the fact of the murder as well as the identity of the perpetrator, the last thing he'd do would be to have the conspiracy known to as many as eight people at minimum, most of whose stations in life left them vulnerable to bribery, the pangs of conscience and/or intimidation. Plain common sense also tells us that no one would be so daft as to commit a secret murder in a well populated and garrisoned royal palace, then hang around the scene of the crime for several hours while they excavated a pit into which to place the bodies AND covered up the results of their handiwork afterwards and no one any the wiser!

This, together with the fact that it IS still regarded as a mystery, must surely rule out Thomas More's alleged solution. And, I contend, any other version of the story that suggests they were killed at the Tower. Again I call upon common sense to ask what the reaction would have been, on the part of the hundreds of people who resided or had daily business there, if the attendants arriving the next morning had found their quarters suddenly and suspiciously empty, with their books, clothes, playthings and other possessions unaccountably left behind. It would have been a nine days' wonder, with everyone speculating darkly what had happened to them. Within hours the tale would have been known by hundreds, and within weeks by thousands, and it would have been an occurrence and a date that would remain imprinted on many memories. Yet Henry VII after Bosworth was unable to learn anything that allowed him to announce their murder.

By contrast, my suggestion is that Richard, realising the degree to which unrest was being stirred up, recognised that they simply could not stay in London. Consequently he would have arranged for a perfectly ordinary departure of the boys, probably by the water gate, together with all their belongings and a hand-picked retinue for the journey. Nobody at the Tower would have regarded this as odd or suspicious, everybody had doubtless been expecting it, and no one would have thought it particularly worth remembering.

Ordinary folk would not have expected to be told their destination, a fact known only to their attendants, but we may speculate that to transfer them to an alternative location in England was scarcely a safe option. Their overland passage would have attracted unwelcome attention, especially as the younger boy at least would not have been capable of riding hours at a stretch on horseback, so a litter or carriage would have been necessary. Hence my deduction that the sensible solution was to send them over by sea to the care of their aunt in Flanders, there to await developments.

That is my answer to the question 'why wasn't anyone asking about them?' And contrary to the so-called evidence adduced by historians, there is no extant record written by any subject of Richard's that accuses him of killing them. Plenty voiced their opinions after his death, when the boys were missing and the new king was busy blackening Richard's name. One contemporaneous record, written by Robert Ricart, Recorder of Bristol, says that they were 'put to silence in the Tower of London', but doesn't suggest by whom. We must ask ourselves how this gentleman from Bristol came by such information, and how reliable was his source (of course we know such rumours were widespread among the rebels involved in 'Buckingham's Rebellion'), and whether we are prepared to believe in the murders taking place in the Tower anyway. As our friend Thomas More appositely said, people involved in capital crimes rarely take along a notary to record exactly what happened - which he would have done well to remind himself when libelling Richard III.

Finally, didn't anybody ask questions? Well yes, somebody did ask questions, probably a lot of questions. This was Dominic Mancini, who was in London until the time of Richard's coronation and reported events to his immediate master, the Archbishop of Vienne. On 1 December 1483 Mancini completed a written account to be circulated to others of the archbishop's colleagues, people who moved in French court and government circles. Mancini was openly antipathetic to Richard's seizure of the throne, and stated outright that people feared for the fate of the deposed Edward V. Nevertheless, by the time he came to write his report, he admitted that he had been unable to find anything out. Writing in the present tense, he stated: "An autem sublatus sit, et quo genere mortis nihil adhuc compertum habeo" ("Whether, however, he has been taken by death, and by what manner of death, so far I have not at all discovered" - this translation of the word "sublatus" as "taken by death" being preferred by some modern Latin scholars as more accurate than CAJ Armstrong's "done away with").

This frank admission by Mancini did not suit the French chancellor, who only a few weeks afterwards announced publicly that the sons of Edward IV had been murdered and the crown given to their murderer (a reversal of the usual accusation - deposition followed by murder - that shows he really wasn't closely concerned with inconvenient facts). Unfortunately the statement of the chancellor is usually cited nowadays in ringing tones, while Mancini's modest admission is either glossed over or selectively quoted. I have just borrowed a book from the library by Jonathan Hughes which says on page 2 that Mancini "admitted he had not been able to find out how the princes had died" - conspicuously omitting what Mancini actually said first, which was that he hadn't found out "whether" Edward V had died. Precisely the same omission from the same quotation appears in the book "The Year of Three Kings" written by an Eton history master, Giles St Aubyn. That's why I always advise enquirers to consult the original sources.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: The Princes



Hi Mo,

First welcome!

My theory as to what happened to the princes in the tower is that
Richard secreted them out of the country. I think there's a good chance
that Perkin Warbeck may well have been Richard of York as he claimed to
have been, and his forced confession to Henry VII that he was an
impostor was to protect his wife (Katherine Gordon) and their son. I
expand on this theory in both of my books about Richard III in the
21st-century. In short, because of a lack of extant evidence (in primary
sources) that the boys died during Richard's reign, I have developed
what I and others think is a plausible theory as to how they could have
survived him.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

--- In , Mo Harris
<moharris483@...> wrote:
>
> The princes in the tower, so what did happen to them? there
doesnt seem to
> be any one asking about them, surely some body wondered where they
were, or did
> they know, could they have died from natural causes, wouldnt they have
been
> buried with some honours? come on somebody help me out here, Mo
>
>
>
>

 Hi Annette, I thank you for your interest, and may I say common sense seems the
only way to think of the fate of the princes, you are right had they been
murdered in the tower some one would have been talking, servants always know
their masters business, it would not have been possible to keep everyone quiet, 
and why did no one rush to tell Henry?  do we know what happened to any of the
servants that were with the princes,while they were at the tower, and am I right
in thinking Elizabeth Woodville did better with Richard than she did with
Henry,in spite of her daughters marraige to the latter,  I look forward to
hearing more of your thoughts,  best wishes  Mo Harris


________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Mon, 23 May, 2011 13:11:21
Subject: Re: Re: The Princes

 
Welcome to Mo from me, too. I just want to add that I feel I can't leave Joan as
the only respondent to put forward the theory that I myself espouse, although
I'm delighted to hear so many people think it's plausible. I once thought of
writing a book about all the different possible answers to your question, but
abandoned the idea as there were so many. And - what's worse for an author
trying to make sense of them - I knew I couldn't do justice to most of the ideas
since I saw them as patently silly.

For my money, when it comes to a choice between an elaborate conspiracy and a
simple explanation, I vote for the simple explanation every time. If someone
(Richard, Buckingham, Tyrell, insert your choice of name) aimed to commit a
double homicide while concealing the fact of the murder as well as the identity
of the perpetrator, the last thing he'd do would be to have the conspiracy known
to as many as eight people at minimum, most of whose stations in life left them
vulnerable to bribery, the pangs of conscience and/or intimidation. Plain common
sense also tells us that no one would be so daft as to commit a secret murder in
a well populated and garrisoned royal palace, then hang around the scene of the
crime for several hours while they excavated a pit into which to place the
bodies AND covered up the results of their handiwork afterwards and no one any
the wiser!

This, together with the fact that it IS still regarded as a mystery, must surely
rule out Thomas More's alleged solution. And, I contend, any other version of
the story that suggests they were killed at the Tower. Again I call upon common
sense to ask what the reaction would have been, on the part of the hundreds of
people who resided or had daily business there, if the attendants arriving the
next morning had found their quarters suddenly and suspiciously empty, with
their books, clothes, playthings and other possessions unaccountably left
behind. It would have been a nine days' wonder, with everyone speculating darkly
what had happened to them. Within hours the tale would have been known by
hundreds, and within weeks by thousands, and it would have been an occurrence
and a date that would remain imprinted on many memories. Yet Henry VII after
Bosworth was unable to learn anything that allowed him to announce their murder.

By contrast, my suggestion is that Richard, realising the degree to which unrest
was being stirred up, recognised that they simply could not stay in London.
Consequently he would have arranged for a perfectly ordinary departure of the
boys, probably by the water gate, together with all their belongings and a
hand-picked retinue for the journey. Nobody at the Tower would have regarded
this as odd or suspicious, everybody had doubtless been expecting it, and no one
would have thought it particularly worth remembering.

Ordinary folk would not have expected to be told their destination, a fact known
only to their attendants, but we may speculate that to transfer them to an
alternative location in England was scarcely a safe option. Their overland
passage would have attracted unwelcome attention, especially as the younger boy
at least would not have been capable of riding hours at a stretch on horseback,
so a litter or carriage would have been necessary. Hence my deduction that the
sensible solution was to send them over by sea to the care of their aunt in
Flanders, there to await developments.


That is my answer to the question 'why wasn't anyone asking about them?' And
contrary to the so-called evidence adduced by historians, there is no extant
record written by any subject of Richard's that accuses him of killing them.
Plenty voiced their opinions after his death, when the boys were missing and the
new king was busy blackening Richard's name. One contemporaneous record, written
by Robert Ricart, Recorder of Bristol, says that they were 'put to silence in
the Tower of London', but doesn't suggest by whom. We must ask ourselves how
this gentleman from Bristol came by such information, and how reliable was his
source (of course we know such rumours were widespread among the rebels involved
in 'Buckingham's Rebellion'), and whether we are prepared to believe in the
murders taking place in the Tower anyway. As our friend Thomas More appositely
said, people involved in capital crimes rarely take along a notary to record
exactly what happened - which he would have done well to remind himself when
libelling Richard III.

Finally, didn't anybody ask questions? Well yes, somebody did ask questions,
probably a lot of questions. This was Dominic Mancini, who was in London until
the time of Richard's coronation and reported events to his immediate master,
the Archbishop of Vienne. On 1 December 1483 Mancini completed a written account
to be circulated to others of the archbishop's colleagues, people who moved in
French court and government circles. Mancini was openly antipathetic to
Richard's seizure of the throne, and stated outright that people feared for the
fate of the deposed Edward V. Nevertheless, by the time he came to write his
report, he admitted that he had been unable to find anything out. Writing in the
present tense, he stated: "An autem sublatus sit, et quo genere mortis nihil
adhuc compertum habeo" ("Whether, however, he has been taken by death, and by
what manner of death, so far I have not at all discovered" - this translation of
the word "sublatus" as "taken by death" being preferred by some modern Latin
scholars as more accurate than CAJ Armstrong's "done away with").

This frank admission by Mancini did not suit the French chancellor, who only a
few weeks afterwards announced publicly that the sons of Edward IV had been
murdered and the crown given to their murderer (a reversal of the usual
accusation - deposition followed by murder - that shows he really wasn't closely
concerned with inconvenient facts). Unfortunately the statement of the
chancellor is usually cited nowadays in ringing tones, while Mancini's modest
admission is either glossed over or selectively quoted. I have just borrowed a
book from the library by Jonathan Hughes which says on page 2 that Mancini
"admitted he had not been able to find out how the princes had died" -
conspicuously omitting what Mancini actually said first, which was that he
hadn't found out "whether" Edward V had died. Precisely the same omission from
the same quotation appears in the book "The Year of Three Kings" written by an
Eton history master, Giles St Aubyn. That's why I always advise enquirers to
consult the original sources.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: The Princes

Hi Mo,

First welcome!

My theory as to what happened to the princes in the tower is that
Richard secreted them out of the country. I think there's a good chance
that Perkin Warbeck may well have been Richard of York as he claimed to
have been, and his forced confession to Henry VII that he was an
impostor was to protect his wife (Katherine Gordon) and their son. I
expand on this theory in both of my books about Richard III in the
21st-century. In short, because of a lack of extant evidence (in primary
sources) that the boys died during Richard's reign, I have developed
what I and others think is a plausible theory as to how they could have
survived him.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

--- In , Mo Harris
<moharris483@...> wrote:
>
> The princes in the tower, so what did happen to them? there
doesnt seem to
> be any one asking about them, surely some body wondered where they
were, or did
> they know, could they have died from natural causes, wouldnt they have
been
> buried with some honours? come on somebody help me out here, Mo
>
>
>
>

Hi, Mo - The only details we have of servants are (a) the record of payment of wages to


----- Original Message -----
From: Mo Harris
To:
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Re: The Princes



Hi Annette, I thank you for your interest, and may I say common sense seems the
only way to think of the fate of the princes, you are right had they been
murdered in the tower some one would have been talking, servants always know
their masters business, it would not have been possible to keep everyone quiet,
and why did no one rush to tell Henry? do we know what happened to any of the
servants that were with the princes,while they were at the tower, and am I right
in thinking Elizabeth Woodville did better with Richard than she did with
Henry,in spite of her daughters marraige to the latter, I look forward to
hearing more of your thoughts, best wishes Mo Harris

________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Mon, 23 May, 2011 13:11:21
Subject: Re: Re: The Princes


Welcome to Mo from me, too. I just want to add that I feel I can't leave Joan as
the only respondent to put forward the theory that I myself espouse, although
I'm delighted to hear so many people think it's plausible. I once thought of
writing a book about all the different possible answers to your question, but
abandoned the idea as there were so many. And - what's worse for an author
trying to make sense of them - I knew I couldn't do justice to most of the ideas
since I saw them as patently silly.

For my money, when it comes to a choice between an elaborate conspiracy and a
simple explanation, I vote for the simple explanation every time. If someone
(Richard, Buckingham, Tyrell, insert your choice of name) aimed to commit a
double homicide while concealing the fact of the murder as well as the identity
of the perpetrator, the last thing he'd do would be to have the conspiracy known
to as many as eight people at minimum, most of whose stations in life left them
vulnerable to bribery, the pangs of conscience and/or intimidation. Plain common
sense also tells us that no one would be so daft as to commit a secret murder in
a well populated and garrisoned royal palace, then hang around the scene of the
crime for several hours while they excavated a pit into which to place the
bodies AND covered up the results of their handiwork afterwards and no one any
the wiser!

This, together with the fact that it IS still regarded as a mystery, must surely
rule out Thomas More's alleged solution. And, I contend, any other version of
the story that suggests they were killed at the Tower. Again I call upon common
sense to ask what the reaction would have been, on the part of the hundreds of
people who resided or had daily business there, if the attendants arriving the
next morning had found their quarters suddenly and suspiciously empty, with
their books, clothes, playthings and other possessions unaccountably left
behind. It would have been a nine days' wonder, with everyone speculating darkly
what had happened to them. Within hours the tale would have been known by
hundreds, and within weeks by thousands, and it would have been an occurrence
and a date that would remain imprinted on many memories. Yet Henry VII after
Bosworth was unable to learn anything that allowed him to announce their murder.

By contrast, my suggestion is that Richard, realising the degree to which unrest
was being stirred up, recognised that they simply could not stay in London.
Consequently he would have arranged for a perfectly ordinary departure of the
boys, probably by the water gate, together with all their belongings and a
hand-picked retinue for the journey. Nobody at the Tower would have regarded
this as odd or suspicious, everybody had doubtless been expecting it, and no one
would have thought it particularly worth remembering.

Ordinary folk would not have expected to be told their destination, a fact known
only to their attendants, but we may speculate that to transfer them to an
alternative location in England was scarcely a safe option. Their overland
passage would have attracted unwelcome attention, especially as the younger boy
at least would not have been capable of riding hours at a stretch on horseback,
so a litter or carriage would have been necessary. Hence my deduction that the
sensible solution was to send them over by sea to the care of their aunt in
Flanders, there to await developments.

That is my answer to the question 'why wasn't anyone asking about them?' And
contrary to the so-called evidence adduced by historians, there is no extant
record written by any subject of Richard's that accuses him of killing them.
Plenty voiced their opinions after his death, when the boys were missing and the
new king was busy blackening Richard's name. One contemporaneous record, written
by Robert Ricart, Recorder of Bristol, says that they were 'put to silence in
the Tower of London', but doesn't suggest by whom. We must ask ourselves how
this gentleman from Bristol came by such information, and how reliable was his
source (of course we know such rumours were widespread among the rebels involved
in 'Buckingham's Rebellion'), and whether we are prepared to believe in the
murders taking place in the Tower anyway. As our friend Thomas More appositely
said, people involved in capital crimes rarely take along a notary to record
exactly what happened - which he would have done well to remind himself when
libelling Richard III.

Finally, didn't anybody ask questions? Well yes, somebody did ask questions,
probably a lot of questions. This was Dominic Mancini, who was in London until
the time of Richard's coronation and reported events to his immediate master,
the Archbishop of Vienne. On 1 December 1483 Mancini completed a written account
to be circulated to others of the archbishop's colleagues, people who moved in
French court and government circles. Mancini was openly antipathetic to
Richard's seizure of the throne, and stated outright that people feared for the
fate of the deposed Edward V. Nevertheless, by the time he came to write his
report, he admitted that he had been unable to find anything out. Writing in the
present tense, he stated: "An autem sublatus sit, et quo genere mortis nihil
adhuc compertum habeo" ("Whether, however, he has been taken by death, and by
what manner of death, so far I have not at all discovered" - this translation of
the word "sublatus" as "taken by death" being preferred by some modern Latin
scholars as more accurate than CAJ Armstrong's "done away with").

This frank admission by Mancini did not suit the French chancellor, who only a
few weeks afterwards announced publicly that the sons of Edward IV had been
murdered and the crown given to their murderer (a reversal of the usual
accusation - deposition followed by murder - that shows he really wasn't closely
concerned with inconvenient facts). Unfortunately the statement of the
chancellor is usually cited nowadays in ringing tones, while Mancini's modest
admission is either glossed over or selectively quoted. I have just borrowed a
book from the library by Jonathan Hughes which says on page 2 that Mancini
"admitted he had not been able to find out how the princes had died" -
conspicuously omitting what Mancini actually said first, which was that he
hadn't found out "whether" Edward V had died. Precisely the same omission from
the same quotation appears in the book "The Year of Three Kings" written by an
Eton history master, Giles St Aubyn. That's why I always advise enquirers to
consult the original sources.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: The Princes

Hi Mo,

First welcome!

My theory as to what happened to the princes in the tower is that
Richard secreted them out of the country. I think there's a good chance
that Perkin Warbeck may well have been Richard of York as he claimed to
have been, and his forced confession to Henry VII that he was an
impostor was to protect his wife (Katherine Gordon) and their son. I
expand on this theory in both of my books about Richard III in the
21st-century. In short, because of a lack of extant evidence (in primary
sources) that the boys died during Richard's reign, I have developed
what I and others think is a plausible theory as to how they could have
survived him.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

--- In , Mo Harris
<moharris483@...> wrote:
>
> The princes in the tower, so what did happen to them? there
doesnt seem to
> be any one asking about them, surely some body wondered where they
were, or did
> they know, could they have died from natural causes, wouldnt they have
been
> buried with some honours? come on somebody help me out here, Mo
>
>
>
>

Hi (again), Mo - I can't get used to how this laptop is so sensitive that you only have to breathe on it and it sends the message unfinished! As I was about to say, the only details we have of servants are (a) the record of payment of wages in July 1483 to a list of named attendants, which tells us little unless it is to confirm that Edward V and his brother were still at the Tower with attendants in the month of July. The one person about whom we DO know something is (b) Dr John Argentine, Edward's physician, and the last of his personal attendants to be dismissed after the Hastings affair. Argentine was also one of Mancini's main informants.

Elizabeth Woodville was indeed granted a slightly more generous pension by Richard than by her son-in-law. It also appears that Henry Tudor harboured suspicions about her (as he did about her son Thomas Grey) when the pretender 'Lambert Simnel' appeared on the scene, and some take the view that for this reason he packed her off to live in obscurity at that point. This is contested, and you'll have to look at the evidence to decide which side you come down on.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Mo Harris
To:
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Re: The Princes



Hi Annette, I thank you for your interest, and may I say common sense seems the
only way to think of the fate of the princes, you are right had they been
murdered in the tower some one would have been talking, servants always know
their masters business, it would not have been possible to keep everyone quiet,
and why did no one rush to tell Henry? do we know what happened to any of the
servants that were with the princes,while they were at the tower, and am I right
in thinking Elizabeth Woodville did better with Richard than she did with
Henry,in spite of her daughters marraige to the latter, I look forward to
hearing more of your thoughts, best wishes Mo Harris

________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Mon, 23 May, 2011 13:11:21
Subject: Re: Re: The Princes


Welcome to Mo from me, too. I just want to add that I feel I can't leave Joan as
the only respondent to put forward the theory that I myself espouse, although
I'm delighted to hear so many people think it's plausible. I once thought of
writing a book about all the different possible answers to your question, but
abandoned the idea as there were so many. And - what's worse for an author
trying to make sense of them - I knew I couldn't do justice to most of the ideas
since I saw them as patently silly.

For my money, when it comes to a choice between an elaborate conspiracy and a
simple explanation, I vote for the simple explanation every time. If someone
(Richard, Buckingham, Tyrell, insert your choice of name) aimed to commit a
double homicide while concealing the fact of the murder as well as the identity
of the perpetrator, the last thing he'd do would be to have the conspiracy known
to as many as eight people at minimum, most of whose stations in life left them
vulnerable to bribery, the pangs of conscience and/or intimidation. Plain common
sense also tells us that no one would be so daft as to commit a secret murder in
a well populated and garrisoned royal palace, then hang around the scene of the
crime for several hours while they excavated a pit into which to place the
bodies AND covered up the results of their handiwork afterwards and no one any
the wiser!

This, together with the fact that it IS still regarded as a mystery, must surely
rule out Thomas More's alleged solution. And, I contend, any other version of
the story that suggests they were killed at the Tower. Again I call upon common
sense to ask what the reaction would have been, on the part of the hundreds of
people who resided or had daily business there, if the attendants arriving the
next morning had found their quarters suddenly and suspiciously empty, with
their books, clothes, playthings and other possessions unaccountably left
behind. It would have been a nine days' wonder, with everyone speculating darkly
what had happened to them. Within hours the tale would have been known by
hundreds, and within weeks by thousands, and it would have been an occurrence
and a date that would remain imprinted on many memories. Yet Henry VII after
Bosworth was unable to learn anything that allowed him to announce their murder.

By contrast, my suggestion is that Richard, realising the degree to which unrest
was being stirred up, recognised that they simply could not stay in London.
Consequently he would have arranged for a perfectly ordinary departure of the
boys, probably by the water gate, together with all their belongings and a
hand-picked retinue for the journey. Nobody at the Tower would have regarded
this as odd or suspicious, everybody had doubtless been expecting it, and no one
would have thought it particularly worth remembering.

Ordinary folk would not have expected to be told their destination, a fact known
only to their attendants, but we may speculate that to transfer them to an
alternative location in England was scarcely a safe option. Their overland
passage would have attracted unwelcome attention, especially as the younger boy
at least would not have been capable of riding hours at a stretch on horseback,
so a litter or carriage would have been necessary. Hence my deduction that the
sensible solution was to send them over by sea to the care of their aunt in
Flanders, there to await developments.

That is my answer to the question 'why wasn't anyone asking about them?' And
contrary to the so-called evidence adduced by historians, there is no extant
record written by any subject of Richard's that accuses him of killing them.
Plenty voiced their opinions after his death, when the boys were missing and the
new king was busy blackening Richard's name. One contemporaneous record, written
by Robert Ricart, Recorder of Bristol, says that they were 'put to silence in
the Tower of London', but doesn't suggest by whom. We must ask ourselves how
this gentleman from Bristol came by such information, and how reliable was his
source (of course we know such rumours were widespread among the rebels involved
in 'Buckingham's Rebellion'), and whether we are prepared to believe in the
murders taking place in the Tower anyway. As our friend Thomas More appositely
said, people involved in capital crimes rarely take along a notary to record
exactly what happened - which he would have done well to remind himself when
libelling Richard III.

Finally, didn't anybody ask questions? Well yes, somebody did ask questions,
probably a lot of questions. This was Dominic Mancini, who was in London until
the time of Richard's coronation and reported events to his immediate master,
the Archbishop of Vienne. On 1 December 1483 Mancini completed a written account
to be circulated to others of the archbishop's colleagues, people who moved in
French court and government circles. Mancini was openly antipathetic to
Richard's seizure of the throne, and stated outright that people feared for the
fate of the deposed Edward V. Nevertheless, by the time he came to write his
report, he admitted that he had been unable to find anything out. Writing in the
present tense, he stated: "An autem sublatus sit, et quo genere mortis nihil
adhuc compertum habeo" ("Whether, however, he has been taken by death, and by
what manner of death, so far I have not at all discovered" - this translation of
the word "sublatus" as "taken by death" being preferred by some modern Latin
scholars as more accurate than CAJ Armstrong's "done away with").

This frank admission by Mancini did not suit the French chancellor, who only a
few weeks afterwards announced publicly that the sons of Edward IV had been
murdered and the crown given to their murderer (a reversal of the usual
accusation - deposition followed by murder - that shows he really wasn't closely
concerned with inconvenient facts). Unfortunately the statement of the
chancellor is usually cited nowadays in ringing tones, while Mancini's modest
admission is either glossed over or selectively quoted. I have just borrowed a
book from the library by Jonathan Hughes which says on page 2 that Mancini
"admitted he had not been able to find out how the princes had died" -
conspicuously omitting what Mancini actually said first, which was that he
hadn't found out "whether" Edward V had died. Precisely the same omission from
the same quotation appears in the book "The Year of Three Kings" written by an
Eton history master, Giles St Aubyn. That's why I always advise enquirers to
consult the original sources.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: The Princes

Hi Mo,

First welcome!

My theory as to what happened to the princes in the tower is that
Richard secreted them out of the country. I think there's a good chance
that Perkin Warbeck may well have been Richard of York as he claimed to
have been, and his forced confession to Henry VII that he was an
impostor was to protect his wife (Katherine Gordon) and their son. I
expand on this theory in both of my books about Richard III in the
21st-century. In short, because of a lack of extant evidence (in primary
sources) that the boys died during Richard's reign, I have developed
what I and others think is a plausible theory as to how they could have
survived him.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

--- In , Mo Harris
<moharris483@...> wrote:
>
> The princes in the tower, so what did happen to them? there
doesnt seem to
> be any one asking about them, surely some body wondered where they
were, or did
> they know, could they have died from natural causes, wouldnt they have
been
> buried with some honours? come on somebody help me out here, Mo
>
>
>
>

There's the view that it was in Richard's interest to get rid of the princes as they were seen as more of a threat than the obscure Tudor. Mancini had indicated that Edward V had put up a spirited defence of his uncle Rivers, who had been his surrogate father for years and half-brother Grey, which meant that if Rivers and Grey were to be executed, as indeed they were, then Edward V and his brother would have to go, too.

There were many contemporary rumours flying around about Richard ordering the deaths of the princes, which clearly weren't doing Richard much good, so why didn't he deny their deaths, as he did over the suggestion that he wanted to marry their sister: Elizabeth? If Buckingham was responsible why not blame him?

I think Richard III was in a catch 22. If he'd allowed Edward V to reign he probably would've been got rid of by the grasping Woodville clan, as they did with Clarence. If he opposed them he faced the problems which culminated in his defeat at Bosworth just over two years into his reign.




--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi (again), Mo - I can't get used to how this laptop is so sensitive that you only have to breathe on it and it sends the message unfinished! As I was about to say, the only details we have of servants are (a) the record of payment of wages in July 1483 to a list of named attendants, which tells us little unless it is to confirm that Edward V and his brother were still at the Tower with attendants in the month of July. The one person about whom we DO know something is (b) Dr John Argentine, Edward's physician, and the last of his personal attendants to be dismissed after the Hastings affair. Argentine was also one of Mancini's main informants.
>
> Elizabeth Woodville was indeed granted a slightly more generous pension by Richard than by her son-in-law. It also appears that Henry Tudor harboured suspicions about her (as he did about her son Thomas Grey) when the pretender 'Lambert Simnel' appeared on the scene, and some take the view that for this reason he packed her off to live in obscurity at that point. This is contested, and you'll have to look at the evidence to decide which side you come down on.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mo Harris
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 2:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: The Princes
>
>
>
> Hi Annette, I thank you for your interest, and may I say common sense seems the
> only way to think of the fate of the princes, you are right had they been
> murdered in the tower some one would have been talking, servants always know
> their masters business, it would not have been possible to keep everyone quiet,
> and why did no one rush to tell Henry? do we know what happened to any of the
> servants that were with the princes,while they were at the tower, and am I right
> in thinking Elizabeth Woodville did better with Richard than she did with
> Henry,in spite of her daughters marraige to the latter, I look forward to
> hearing more of your thoughts, best wishes Mo Harris
>
> ________________________________
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> To:
> Sent: Mon, 23 May, 2011 13:11:21
> Subject: Re: Re: The Princes
>
>
> Welcome to Mo from me, too. I just want to add that I feel I can't leave Joan as
> the only respondent to put forward the theory that I myself espouse, although
> I'm delighted to hear so many people think it's plausible. I once thought of
> writing a book about all the different possible answers to your question, but
> abandoned the idea as there were so many. And - what's worse for an author
> trying to make sense of them - I knew I couldn't do justice to most of the ideas
> since I saw them as patently silly.
>
> For my money, when it comes to a choice between an elaborate conspiracy and a
> simple explanation, I vote for the simple explanation every time. If someone
> (Richard, Buckingham, Tyrell, insert your choice of name) aimed to commit a
> double homicide while concealing the fact of the murder as well as the identity
> of the perpetrator, the last thing he'd do would be to have the conspiracy known
> to as many as eight people at minimum, most of whose stations in life left them
> vulnerable to bribery, the pangs of conscience and/or intimidation. Plain common
> sense also tells us that no one would be so daft as to commit a secret murder in
> a well populated and garrisoned royal palace, then hang around the scene of the
> crime for several hours while they excavated a pit into which to place the
> bodies AND covered up the results of their handiwork afterwards and no one any
> the wiser!
>
> This, together with the fact that it IS still regarded as a mystery, must surely
> rule out Thomas More's alleged solution. And, I contend, any other version of
> the story that suggests they were killed at the Tower. Again I call upon common
> sense to ask what the reaction would have been, on the part of the hundreds of
> people who resided or had daily business there, if the attendants arriving the
> next morning had found their quarters suddenly and suspiciously empty, with
> their books, clothes, playthings and other possessions unaccountably left
> behind. It would have been a nine days' wonder, with everyone speculating darkly
> what had happened to them. Within hours the tale would have been known by
> hundreds, and within weeks by thousands, and it would have been an occurrence
> and a date that would remain imprinted on many memories. Yet Henry VII after
> Bosworth was unable to learn anything that allowed him to announce their murder.
>
> By contrast, my suggestion is that Richard, realising the degree to which unrest
> was being stirred up, recognised that they simply could not stay in London.
> Consequently he would have arranged for a perfectly ordinary departure of the
> boys, probably by the water gate, together with all their belongings and a
> hand-picked retinue for the journey. Nobody at the Tower would have regarded
> this as odd or suspicious, everybody had doubtless been expecting it, and no one
> would have thought it particularly worth remembering.
>
> Ordinary folk would not have expected to be told their destination, a fact known
> only to their attendants, but we may speculate that to transfer them to an
> alternative location in England was scarcely a safe option. Their overland
> passage would have attracted unwelcome attention, especially as the younger boy
> at least would not have been capable of riding hours at a stretch on horseback,
> so a litter or carriage would have been necessary. Hence my deduction that the
> sensible solution was to send them over by sea to the care of their aunt in
> Flanders, there to await developments.
>
> That is my answer to the question 'why wasn't anyone asking about them?' And
> contrary to the so-called evidence adduced by historians, there is no extant
> record written by any subject of Richard's that accuses him of killing them.
> Plenty voiced their opinions after his death, when the boys were missing and the
> new king was busy blackening Richard's name. One contemporaneous record, written
> by Robert Ricart, Recorder of Bristol, says that they were 'put to silence in
> the Tower of London', but doesn't suggest by whom. We must ask ourselves how
> this gentleman from Bristol came by such information, and how reliable was his
> source (of course we know such rumours were widespread among the rebels involved
> in 'Buckingham's Rebellion'), and whether we are prepared to believe in the
> murders taking place in the Tower anyway. As our friend Thomas More appositely
> said, people involved in capital crimes rarely take along a notary to record
> exactly what happened - which he would have done well to remind himself when
> libelling Richard III.
>
> Finally, didn't anybody ask questions? Well yes, somebody did ask questions,
> probably a lot of questions. This was Dominic Mancini, who was in London until
> the time of Richard's coronation and reported events to his immediate master,
> the Archbishop of Vienne. On 1 December 1483 Mancini completed a written account
> to be circulated to others of the archbishop's colleagues, people who moved in
> French court and government circles. Mancini was openly antipathetic to
> Richard's seizure of the throne, and stated outright that people feared for the
> fate of the deposed Edward V. Nevertheless, by the time he came to write his
> report, he admitted that he had been unable to find anything out. Writing in the
> present tense, he stated: "An autem sublatus sit, et quo genere mortis nihil
> adhuc compertum habeo" ("Whether, however, he has been taken by death, and by
> what manner of death, so far I have not at all discovered" - this translation of
> the word "sublatus" as "taken by death" being preferred by some modern Latin
> scholars as more accurate than CAJ Armstrong's "done away with").
>
> This frank admission by Mancini did not suit the French chancellor, who only a
> few weeks afterwards announced publicly that the sons of Edward IV had been
> murdered and the crown given to their murderer (a reversal of the usual
> accusation - deposition followed by murder - that shows he really wasn't closely
> concerned with inconvenient facts). Unfortunately the statement of the
> chancellor is usually cited nowadays in ringing tones, while Mancini's modest
> admission is either glossed over or selectively quoted. I have just borrowed a
> book from the library by Jonathan Hughes which says on page 2 that Mancini
> "admitted he had not been able to find out how the princes had died" -
> conspicuously omitting what Mancini actually said first, which was that he
> hadn't found out "whether" Edward V had died. Precisely the same omission from
> the same quotation appears in the book "The Year of Three Kings" written by an
> Eton history master, Giles St Aubyn. That's why I always advise enquirers to
> consult the original sources.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: joanszechtman
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 4:28 PM
> Subject: Re: The Princes
>
> Hi Mo,
>
> First welcome!
>
> My theory as to what happened to the princes in the tower is that
> Richard secreted them out of the country. I think there's a good chance
> that Perkin Warbeck may well have been Richard of York as he claimed to
> have been, and his forced confession to Henry VII that he was an
> impostor was to protect his wife (Katherine Gordon) and their son. I
> expand on this theory in both of my books about Richard III in the
> 21st-century. In short, because of a lack of extant evidence (in primary
> sources) that the boys died during Richard's reign, I have developed
> what I and others think is a plausible theory as to how they could have
> survived him.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , Mo Harris
> <moharris483@> wrote:
> >
> > The princes in the tower, so what did happen to them? there
> doesnt seem to
> > be any one asking about them, surely some body wondered where they
> were, or did
> > they know, could they have died from natural causes, wouldnt they have
> been
> > buried with some honours? come on somebody help me out here, Mo
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Welcome to Mo from me, too. I just want to add that I feel I can't leave Joan as the only respondent to put forward the theory that I myself espouse, although I'm delighted to hear so many people think it's plausible. I once thought of writing a book about all the different possible answers to your question, but abandoned the idea as there were so many. And - what's worse for an author trying to make sense of them - I knew I couldn't do justice to most of the ideas since I saw them as patently silly.


Hi, Annette...

As an admirer of your thorough research, I'm wondering if you know of some source that said that the last place the boys were seen in the Tower complex was in the room that houses the mechanism for raising the portcullis of the Water Gate.

I originally became interested in Richard III in the late 70s, and though I read everything I could find on the subject, I didn't know anyone else who shared my interest and I had no one to discuss it with. Consequently, I took no notes and all I can say is "I read somewhere that..." which I'm sure drives everyone here crazy.

Kay

Ah, Kay, would that I could research all the questions I would love to answer! My recollection was that I picked up this reference to the room with the portcullis mechanism for the first time in an article by Peter Hancock in the Ricardian Register of Fall 2007, where he describes the alleged place of murder as being a top floor of the Bloody Tower. However, on finding and quickly re-reading it, I don't think the reference actually comes from there after all!

Nevertheless I will comment on Hancock's article, because it deals with some of the myths associated with where Edward IV's sons were lodged and allegedly killed. His article locates this on a third storey (we Brits would say 'on the 2nd floor', whereas Americans would say 'on the 3rd floor') of the Garden Tower, subsequently known as the Bloody Tower, which apparently the authorities who provide information for the public deemed it appropriate to define as the place where the boys were murdered. For all I know, maybe they still do.

However, Hancock notes that at the time of the alleged murder, the building had no third storey. His authority for this is a paper given to the US branch of the Richard III Society by D. MacLachlan in Seattle in September 1995, for which Hancock gives the web address http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/bunkum.html. MacLachlan said that the extra storey was added in 1605-6 to increase the height of the Garden Tower to accommodate Sir Walter Raleigh and his party. Hancock finds support for MacLachlan's date of the modifications (1605-6) in the 2001 book by Anna Keay, a ToL curator, but notes that Keay claims that rather than adding an extra floor, actually the top floor of the time was merely divided into two storeys (although the roof was *slightly* heightened). She adds that the intermediate floor was later removed, then reinserted in the 1970s.

My book was already with the publishers by the time I read this, so I was keen to check on the tales being told by the tour guides. Since I had contact with a particularly helpful curator at the Tower, I asked her about it. She told me that what Keay said was correct, so all that existed in 1483 was an undivided upper storey. However, the tradition that they were lodged/killed in the Garden Tower has never been substantiated. I had already established with this curator that although it had been refurbished to luxurious standards a century earlier when Edward III stayed there, it was probably seldom inhabited in 1483, when the royal apartments of the time were located in the well-appointed Lanthorn Tower. So the latter is where the council undoubtedly would have arranged for Edward V to stay prior to his coronation.

I asked her about the Bloody Tower being indicated as the place of murder by the Tower authorities, and she said that unfortunately they were just following myth and tradition because it was what the public expected to be shown.

Sorry I haven't identified the source of the room with the portcullis mechanism after all! But if you read the Peter Hancock article you may find something I have missed. I believe I am right in saying that this mechanism is located in the Wakefield Tower, which adjoins the Garden Tower, and maybe it will occur to me where I read it myself.

Meanwhile may I just add that I do not believe that the brothers remained in the Lanthorn Tower, based on Mancini's observation that after the Hastings affair they were 'withdrawn into the Tower proper'. Since all the towers mentioned above are turrets in the outer curtain wall of the castle, it seems to me that Mancini's phrase indicates they were moved into the interior. Unfortunately we don't have a plan of the Tower as it was in 1483, but this could mean that arrangements were made to accommodate them in the White Tower. Certainly I think there is little likelihood that they remained where they were initially lodged, so once again this would rule out the Garden/Bloody Tower, as well as the Lanthorn and the Wakefield.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: The Princes





--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Welcome to Mo from me, too. I just want to add that I feel I can't leave Joan as the only respondent to put forward the theory that I myself espouse, although I'm delighted to hear so many people think it's plausible. I once thought of writing a book about all the different possible answers to your question, but abandoned the idea as there were so many. And - what's worse for an author trying to make sense of them - I knew I couldn't do justice to most of the ideas since I saw them as patently silly.

Hi, Annette...

As an admirer of your thorough research, I'm wondering if you know of some source that said that the last place the boys were seen in the Tower complex was in the room that houses the mechanism for raising the portcullis of the Water Gate.

I originally became interested in Richard III in the late 70s, and though I read everything I could find on the subject, I didn't know anyone else who shared my interest and I had no one to discuss it with. Consequently, I took no notes and all I can say is "I read somewhere that..." which I'm sure drives everyone here crazy.

Kay

OK, this is what I've established. The entranceway to the inner ward, known as the 'Bloody Gate', was originally built adjoining the Wakefield Tower. Later a tower was built above the gate and the portcullis machinery was housed there. This became known as the Garden Tower and, later, the Bloody Tower. Ergo the machinery must have been housed below the upper floor(s) later occupied by Raleigh. Hope this is correct!
Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re: The Princes



Ah, Kay, would that I could research all the questions I would love to answer! My recollection was that I picked up this reference to the room with the portcullis mechanism for the first time in an article by Peter Hancock in the Ricardian Register of Fall 2007, where he describes the alleged place of murder as being a top floor of the Bloody Tower. However, on finding and quickly re-reading it, I don't think the reference actually comes from there after all!

Nevertheless I will comment on Hancock's article, because it deals with some of the myths associated with where Edward IV's sons were lodged and allegedly killed. His article locates this on a third storey (we Brits would say 'on the 2nd floor', whereas Americans would say 'on the 3rd floor') of the Garden Tower, subsequently known as the Bloody Tower, which apparently the authorities who provide information for the public deemed it appropriate to define as the place where the boys were murdered. For all I know, maybe they still do.

However, Hancock notes that at the time of the alleged murder, the building had no third storey. His authority for this is a paper given to the US branch of the Richard III Society by D. MacLachlan in Seattle in September 1995, for which Hancock gives the web address http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/bunkum.html. MacLachlan said that the extra storey was added in 1605-6 to increase the height of the Garden Tower to accommodate Sir Walter Raleigh and his party. Hancock finds support for MacLachlan's date of the modifications (1605-6) in the 2001 book by Anna Keay, a ToL curator, but notes that Keay claims that rather than adding an extra floor, actually the top floor of the time was merely divided into two storeys (although the roof was *slightly* heightened). She adds that the intermediate floor was later removed, then reinserted in the 1970s.

My book was already with the publishers by the time I read this, so I was keen to check on the tales being told by the tour guides. Since I had contact with a particularly helpful curator at the Tower, I asked her about it. She told me that what Keay said was correct, so all that existed in 1483 was an undivided upper storey. However, the tradition that they were lodged/killed in the Garden Tower has never been substantiated. I had already established with this curator that although it had been refurbished to luxurious standards a century earlier when Edward III stayed there, it was probably seldom inhabited in 1483, when the royal apartments of the time were located in the well-appointed Lanthorn Tower. So the latter is where the council undoubtedly would have arranged for Edward V to stay prior to his coronation.

I asked her about the Bloody Tower being indicated as the place of murder by the Tower authorities, and she said that unfortunately they were just following myth and tradition because it was what the public expected to be shown.

Sorry I haven't identified the source of the room with the portcullis mechanism after all! But if you read the Peter Hancock article you may find something I have missed. I believe I am right in saying that this mechanism is located in the Wakefield Tower, which adjoins the Garden Tower, and maybe it will occur to me where I read it myself.

Meanwhile may I just add that I do not believe that the brothers remained in the Lanthorn Tower, based on Mancini's observation that after the Hastings affair they were 'withdrawn into the Tower proper'. Since all the towers mentioned above are turrets in the outer curtain wall of the castle, it seems to me that Mancini's phrase indicates they were moved into the interior. Unfortunately we don't have a plan of the Tower as it was in 1483, but this could mean that arrangements were made to accommodate them in the White Tower. Certainly I think there is little likelihood that they remained where they were initially lodged, so once again this would rule out the Garden/Bloody Tower, as well as the Lanthorn and the Wakefield.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: The Princes

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Welcome to Mo from me, too. I just want to add that I feel I can't leave Joan as the only respondent to put forward the theory that I myself espouse, although I'm delighted to hear so many people think it's plausible. I once thought of writing a book about all the different possible answers to your question, but abandoned the idea as there were so many. And - what's worse for an author trying to make sense of them - I knew I couldn't do justice to most of the ideas since I saw them as patently silly.

Hi, Annette...

As an admirer of your thorough research, I'm wondering if you know of some source that said that the last place the boys were seen in the Tower complex was in the room that houses the mechanism for raising the portcullis of the Water Gate.

I originally became interested in Richard III in the late 70s, and though I read everything I could find on the subject, I didn't know anyone else who shared my interest and I had no one to discuss it with. Consequently, I took no notes and all I can say is "I read somewhere that..." which I'm sure drives everyone here crazy.

Kay

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> OK, this is what I've established. The entranceway to the inner ward, known as the 'Bloody Gate', was originally built adjoining the Wakefield Tower. Later a tower was built above the gate and the portcullis machinery was housed there. This became known as the Garden Tower and, later, the Bloody Tower. Ergo the machinery must have been housed below the upper floor(s) later occupied by Raleigh. Hope this is correct!
> Annette


Is the Water Gate (now colorfully called the Traitor's Gate) in the Garden/Bloody Tower? I know that it is in the lower level of some tower, and when I toured the Tower of London complex in 2007 we were shown a two-story tower in the outer wall, above the Water Gate, and told it was where the "princes" had been housed.

I didn't climb the twisting spiral stone stairs to the upper level, though my son did. Those stairs are a death trap. Every step is a different width, narrow, like a long triangle, and the height of the risers varies -- one is twice as high as the others. I think that if Richard had wanted to do away with the boys, he could have said they were killed in a fall down those stairs while playing hide-and-seek, and it would have been quite believable.

Kay

Yes, those steps were terrible; my friend Joy, who has CP, waited for me at the bottom. I've a photo of the way up, somewhere. And a little enamel sign: To Bloody Tower.

(We did better at Middleham, 1980...young Ricardian named Edgar from Australia helped us climb up some broken walls, while Dorothy Mitchell (Yorks.) and her friend Joyce played "lookout" for us. Later, we all investigated Sheriff Hutton church by electric torch....)

Judy


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: The Princes


 


--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> OK, this is what I've established. The entranceway to the inner ward, known as the 'Bloody Gate', was originally built adjoining the Wakefield Tower. Later a tower was built above the gate and the portcullis machinery was housed there. This became known as the Garden Tower and, later, the Bloody Tower. Ergo the machinery must have been housed below the upper floor(s) later occupied by Raleigh. Hope this is correct!
> Annette

Is the Water Gate (now colorfully called the Traitor's Gate) in the Garden/Bloody Tower? I know that it is in the lower level of some tower, and when I toured the Tower of London complex in 2007 we were shown a two-story tower in the outer wall, above the Water Gate, and told it was where the "princes" had been housed.

I didn't climb the twisting spiral stone stairs to the upper level, though my son did. Those stairs are a death trap. Every step is a different width, narrow, like a long triangle, and the height of the risers varies -- one is twice as high as the others. I think that if Richard had wanted to do away with the boys, he could have said they were killed in a fall down those stairs while playing hide-and-seek, and it would have been quite believable.

Kay

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

> (We did better at Middleham, 1980...young Ricardian named Edgar from Australia helped us climb up some broken walls, while Dorothy Mitchell (Yorks.) and her friend Joyce played "lookout" for us. Later, we all investigated Sheriff Hutton church by electric torch....)


We had Middleham all to ourselves, since we got there half an hour before closing time on a misty drizzly day. We were escorted around the ruins by the castlekeeper's white cat...there's a picture of her in the Photos section here.

Kay

Kay - Quickly as I have to go out - the Water Gate was in St Thomas's Tower in the outer curtain wall. I may have been imprecise in what I wrote previously: the Tower of London had an outer curtain wall and an inner curtain wall. The wharf was next to the outer curtain wall, with entrance and exit via the Water Gate/Traitor's Gate, whereas the Garden/Bloody Tower and the Wakefield Tower (immediately behind the Water Gate) controlled the entrance to the inmost ward wherein the keep was situated.

One other thing - see Ann Wroe page 298 for the statement (a) that 'Perkin Warbeck/Richard of York' and Katherine Gordon had a son born in September 1496, and (b) Bernard Andre and the Venetian envoy both thought that 'Perkin/Richard' had more than one son by the time he left Scotland. Nothing more was ever heard of these infants after he was captured and executed, but of course historians don't bother about children who were imprisoned or disappeared under Henry VII.
Regards, Annette

> OK, this is what I've established. The entranceway to the inner ward, known as the 'Bloody Gate', was originally built adjoining the Wakefield Tower. Later a tower was built above the gate and the portcullis machinery was housed there. This became known as the Garden Tower and, later, the Bloody Tower. Ergo the machinery must have been housed below the upper floor(s) later occupied by Raleigh. Hope this is correct!
> Annette

Is the Water Gate (now colorfully called the Traitor's Gate) in the Garden/Bloody Tower? I know that it is in the lower level of some tower, and when I toured the Tower of London complex in 2007 we were shown a two-story tower in the outer wall, above the Water Gate, and told it was where the "princes" had been housed.

I didn't climb the twisting spiral stone stairs to the upper level, though my son did. Those stairs are a death trap. Every step is a different width, narrow, like a long triangle, and the height of the risers varies -- one is twice as high as the others. I think that if Richard had wanted to do away with the boys, he could have said they were killed in a fall down those stairs while playing hide-and-seek, and it would have been quite believable.

Kay

The Garden Tower is on the other side of the road from Traitors Gate inside the curtain wall. Now renamed Bloody Tower after all the terrible things that happened there during the Tudor period, and not because of the deaths of the princes as most are led to believe, the top floor now contains details of the "murder of the princes" according to More, along with portraits of Richard and Henry Tudor, and on a loop, the scene from Olivier's Shakespeare film.
[Not biased then?]
There is a poll one can answer asking the visitors who they think killed the boys!!! Of course nobody suggests visitors stand and look towards the White Tower and see how ridiculous More's tale is in reality before voting, so naturally Richard gets most of the votes.
At least the bed and Dante Rossetti painting that used to be there are gone, but this half hearted attempt to give visitors a more informed view of history is pathetic. Attempts to have this changed have met with deaf ears.
'Print the legend' still rules.
Paul




On 24 May 2011, at 10:26, Annette Carson wrote:

> Kay - Quickly as I have to go out - the Water Gate was in St Thomas's Tower in the outer curtain wall. I may have been imprecise in what I wrote previously: the Tower of London had an outer curtain wall and an inner curtain wall. The wharf was next to the outer curtain wall, with entrance and exit via the Water Gate/Traitor's Gate, whereas the Garden/Bloody Tower and the Wakefield Tower (immediately behind the Water Gate) controlled the entrance to the inmost ward wherein the keep was situated.
>
> One other thing - see Ann Wroe page 298 for the statement (a) that 'Perkin Warbeck/Richard of York' and Katherine Gordon had a son born in September 1496, and (b) Bernard Andre and the Venetian envoy both thought that 'Perkin/Richard' had more than one son by the time he left Scotland. Nothing more was ever heard of these infants after he was captured and executed, but of course historians don't bother about children who were imprisoned or disappeared under Henry VII.
> Regards, Annette
>
>> OK, this is what I've established. The entranceway to the inner ward, known as the 'Bloody Gate', was originally built adjoining the Wakefield Tower. Later a tower was built above the gate and the portcullis machinery was housed there. This became known as the Garden Tower and, later, the Bloody Tower. Ergo the machinery must have been housed below the upper floor(s) later occupied by Raleigh. Hope this is correct!
>> Annette
>
> Is the Water Gate (now colorfully called the Traitor's Gate) in the Garden/Bloody Tower? I know that it is in the lower level of some tower, and when I toured the Tower of London complex in 2007 we were shown a two-story tower in the outer wall, above the Water Gate, and told it was where the "princes" had been housed.
>
> I didn't climb the twisting spiral stone stairs to the upper level, though my son did. Those stairs are a death trap. Every step is a different width, narrow, like a long triangle, and the height of the risers varies -- one is twice as high as the others. I think that if Richard had wanted to do away with the boys, he could have said they were killed in a fall down those stairs while playing hide-and-seek, and it would have been quite believable.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

>
> Medieval Castle steps were deliberately made that way as a defensive
> measure - called trick or stumble steps. These were steps that had
> different rise height or thread depth from the rest and would cause anyone
> running up the stairs to stumble or fall, so slowing down the attackers'
> progress.
>
> <<Is the Water Gate (now colorfully called the Traitor's Gate) in the
> Garden/Bloody Tower? I know that it is in the lower level of some tower, and
> when I toured the Tower of London complex in 2007 we were shown a two-story
> tower in the outer wall, above the Water Gate, and told it was where the
> "princes" had been housed.
>
> I didn't climb the twisting spiral stone stairs to the upper level, though
> my son did. Those stairs are a death trap. Every step is a different width,
> narrow, like a long triangle, and the height of the risers varies -- one is
> twice as high as the others. I think that if Richard had wanted to do away
> with the boys, he could have said they were killed in a fall down those
> stairs while playing hide-and-seek, and it would have been quite believable.
>
>
> Kay>>
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com

--- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Medieval Castle steps were deliberately made that way as a defensive
> > measure - called trick or stumble steps. These were steps that had
> > different rise height or thread depth from the rest and would cause anyone
> > running up the stairs to stumble or fall, so slowing down the attackers'
> > progress.


The design was successful, I'm sure. Even the broader spiral stairs in the corners of the White Tower defeated me, even after my son showed me the trick of climbing turned towards the outer side rather than facing forward.

Kay

Annette wrote:

<snip> the Water Gate was in St Thomas's Tower in the outer curtain wall. I may have been imprecise in what I wrote previously: the Tower of London had an outer curtain wall and an inner curtain wall. The wharf was next to the outer curtain wall, with entrance and exit via the Water Gate/Traitor's Gate, whereas the Garden/Bloody Tower and the Wakefield Tower (immediately behind the Water Gate) controlled the entrance to the inmost ward wherein the keep was situated. <snip>

Carol responds:

What conclusions, if any, can you draw from this information? Also, what is a curtain wall?

Carol, not sure what to infer from these details

Oh, nothing to infer really, I was just responding to a request for clarification from Kay.

I'm not an expert on castles and their terminology, but a castle's curtain wall was a continuous defensive wall which usually surrounded it and enclosed all the grounds inside. There would be battlements and turrets/towers from which to shoot or hurl missiles at attackers, and ingress through the wall would be by drawbridge (if there was a moat), with a portcullis blocking entry through the gates in the wall until it was raised. I believe I read that it took 30 men to raise the portcullis at the Tower of London until machinery was installed to do the job automatically.

I think the point of this discussion is that tradition says that Edward IV's sons were murdered in the Bloody Tower (Garden Tower in pre-Tudor days), which also housed the portcullis mechanism and was where Raleigh was imprisoned a century later. Evidently the ToL authorities have an exhibition there which perpetuates this myth, even though the curators at Historic Royal Palaces know there's no truth to it, and it was unlikely to have been used for Edward V because the royal apartments in 1483 were in the Lanthorn Tower.

If you look at plate 18 of "Maligned King", you can see the outer curtain wall and inner curtain wall at the bottom of the picture. I'm afraid you don't get the effect of the full Haiward & Gascoyne drawing because I wanted to concentrate on the section I've shown in detail, but you can certainly see the words "The Wharfe" and the river beside it with a little rowing boat: the square castellated tower marked "V" is St Thomas's Tower with the water gate in the outer curtain wall. Once inside, you would disembark and proceed on foot through the entryway marked "T" in the inner curtain wall, assuming the portcullis was up. Then you were in the bailey from which you could access the inmost ward via the Coldharbour Gate marked "X" on the drawing. The edifice marked "T" is the Garden/Bloody Tower and the one next to it ("S") is the Wakefield Tower. The Lanthorn Tower is marked "R". This is as it looked in 1597, of course.
Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: The Princes



Annette wrote:

<snip> the Water Gate was in St Thomas's Tower in the outer curtain wall. I may have been imprecise in what I wrote previously: the Tower of London had an outer curtain wall and an inner curtain wall. The wharf was next to the outer curtain wall, with entrance and exit via the Water Gate/Traitor's Gate, whereas the Garden/Bloody Tower and the Wakefield Tower (immediately behind the Water Gate) controlled the entrance to the inmost ward wherein the keep was situated. <snip>

Carol responds:

What conclusions, if any, can you draw from this information? Also, what is a curtain wall?

Carol, not sure what to infer from these details

Annette wrote:
 
Ordinary folk would not have expected to be told their destination, a fact known
only to their attendants, but we may speculate that to transfer them to an
alternative location in England was scarcely a safe option. Their overland
passage would have attracted unwelcome attention, especially as the younger boy
at least would not have been capable of riding hours at a stretch on horseback,
so a litter or carriage would have been necessary. Hence my deduction that the
sensible solution was to send them over by sea to the care of their aunt in
Flanders, there to await developments.
 
****
 
At age 8, Richard went to Burgundy with his brother George to escape Margaret of Anjou's army that was threatening London.  They stayed with David, bishop of Utrecht until Edward IV sent for them, around June 1461.
 
On his 18th birthday, Richard, along with Edward IV, Hastings, Anthony Woodville, and about 1,500 other Yorkists sailed for Burgundy just ahead of their Lancastrian pursuers.  They stayed in Burgundy about 6 months.  While he was there, Richard became acquainted with Lord Gruthuuyse, who may have encouraged his interest in artillery; he visited Margaret of York, duchess of Burgundy at her various homes, and he joined Hastings and other Yorkists in hiring and provisioning ships for their return to England.  So he had opportunities to get to know Burgundy.
 
During the 1475 English invasion of France, Richard, Edward IV, and Clarence were entertained by Margaret of York at her castles.
 
It seems reasonable that these experiences would encourage Richard III to send his nephews to Burgundy for safe-keeping.  As the widowed duchess of Burgundy, Margaret of York was probably able to assure Richard of their safety.  Their mother, Cecily Neville, may have encouraged Richard to adopt this solution.  I can't agree with Michael Jones' theory that Cecily Neville and Richard agreed on killing his nephews.  But I can believe that they agreed to send them to Margaret of York, and that she agreed to care for them.
 
Marion

Spot on, Marion. Like all young noblemen, Richard was schooled in the game of chess and I believe that as soon as he realized he'd have to supplant Edward V he began planning many moves ahead, one of which would have been to get word to Margaret of York to prepare for contingencies. It's a major problem to second-guess his calculations because we just don't know the prevailing circumstances, but why oh why did he go on progress so soon? My guess (and it IS a guess) is that he was lulled into a false sense of security by the vote of confidence given him by the quasi-Parliament and by the popularity of his coronation. He knew he had to be back for his first Parliament which at the time was scheduled for November, so I suppose he thought this would be his only chance to be away in the next 12 months. Also the exchequer was pretty much empty and he must have been running out of credit in the Home Counties. Maybe that's why. I just wish he hadn't.


----- Original Message -----
From: marion davis
To:
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: The Princes



Annette wrote:

Ordinary folk would not have expected to be told their destination, a fact known
only to their attendants, but we may speculate that to transfer them to an
alternative location in England was scarcely a safe option. Their overland
passage would have attracted unwelcome attention, especially as the younger boy
at least would not have been capable of riding hours at a stretch on horseback,
so a litter or carriage would have been necessary. Hence my deduction that the
sensible solution was to send them over by sea to the care of their aunt in
Flanders, there to await developments.

****

At age 8, Richard went to Burgundy with his brother George to escape Margaret of Anjou's army that was threatening London. They stayed with David, bishop of Utrecht until Edward IV sent for them, around June 1461.

On his 18th birthday, Richard, along with Edward IV, Hastings, Anthony Woodville, and about 1,500 other Yorkists sailed for Burgundy just ahead of their Lancastrian pursuers. They stayed in Burgundy about 6 months. While he was there, Richard became acquainted with Lord Gruthuuyse, who may have encouraged his interest in artillery; he visited Margaret of York, duchess of Burgundy at her various homes, and he joined Hastings and other Yorkists in hiring and provisioning ships for their return to England. So he had opportunities to get to know Burgundy.

During the 1475 English invasion of France, Richard, Edward IV, and Clarence were entertained by Margaret of York at her castles.

It seems reasonable that these experiences would encourage Richard III to send his nephews to Burgundy for safe-keeping. As the widowed duchess of Burgundy, Margaret of York was probably able to assure Richard of their safety. Their mother, Cecily Neville, may have encouraged Richard to adopt this solution. I can't agree with Michael Jones' theory that Cecily Neville and Richard agreed on killing his nephews. But I can believe that they agreed to send them to Margaret of York, and that she agreed to care for them.

Marion

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Spot on, Marion. Like all young noblemen, Richard was schooled in the game of chess and I believe that as soon as he realized he'd have to supplant Edward V he began planning many moves ahead, one of which would have been to get word to Margaret of York to prepare for contingencies. It's a major problem to second-guess his calculations because we just don't know the prevailing circumstances, but why oh why did he go on progress so soon?


Could it have been to draw attention -- and maybe a few specific people -- away from London in general and the "princes" in particular, while he had them quietly conveyed out of the Tower and of to...someplace?

Kay

Annette wrote:  Also the exchequer was pretty much empty and he must have been running out of credit in the Home Counties.
 
*****
 
I believe someone accused Richard of wasting the money Edward IV left in the exchequer to buy "false friendship?"  Was it the Croyland Chronicler?
 
I read something in "The Road to Bosworth" that makes me think that accusation could be wrong. 
 
In early June, 1483, a group of lawyers for merchants who wanted to save themselves some customs taxes protested that Edward V had no right to collect those taxes until his first parliament re-granted them.  The protest was upheld, and a major source of Edward V's government revenue was cut off.   Richard, duke of Gloucester, contributed 800 pounds of his own money to pay Edward V's household expenses. 
 
If Edward V had been crowned and his first parliament had been held, maybe 3 weeks worth of customs revenue would have been lost.  But once Richard became king, he apparently went without, roughly, 7 months worth of customs revenue.  I can't remember reading that he managed to get the customs decision reversed.  If he didn't, it accounts for an important part of Richard's financial problems. 
 
Marion

Yes, it was the chronicler of Croyland/Crowland who repeatedly claimed that Edward IV's coffers were full when he died and Richard of Gloucester squandered his treasure. All poppycock, of course. It's obvious at a glance from the fact that there were insufficient funds even to fulfil Edward's will and pay for his funeral without selling off plate. Not only did Richard contribute hundreds of pounds to Edward V's upkeep, he also probably had to pay for his own coronation.

Chapter and verse can been found in some financial memoranda found at Longleat which show what a parlous condition the treasury was in. I suppose Edward was keen to give the opposite impression, especially as he had been banging on to Parliament that he proposed teaching Louis XI a lesson, not to mention consolidating his recent military successes against Scotland, for which he needed new taxes. He was so strapped that he even started collecting tithes from the Church before there had been a convocation to allocate them. ("Oh what a servile and pernicious ruin for the Church!" etc, etc.)

----- Original Message -----
From: marion davis
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: The Princes



Annette wrote: Also the exchequer was pretty much empty and he must have been running out of credit in the Home Counties.

*****

I believe someone accused Richard of wasting the money Edward IV left in the exchequer to buy "false friendship?" Was it the Croyland Chronicler?

I read something in "The Road to Bosworth" that makes me think that accusation could be wrong.

In early June, 1483, a group of lawyers for merchants who wanted to save themselves some customs taxes protested that Edward V had no right to collect those taxes until his first parliament re-granted them. The protest was upheld, and a major source of Edward V's government revenue was cut off. Richard, duke of Gloucester, contributed 800 pounds of his own money to pay Edward V's household expenses.

If Edward V had been crowned and his first parliament had been held, maybe 3 weeks worth of customs revenue would have been lost. But once Richard became king, he apparently went without, roughly, 7 months worth of customs revenue. I can't remember reading that he managed to get the customs decision reversed. If he didn't, it accounts for an important part of Richard's financial problems.

Marion

There's record of Richard pawning numerous personal objects. The one I recall most vividly was a salt cellar with "pearls and blackamoors" to a London merchant for just over L 60. I wrote this down in '85, but it "came loose" from its source reference over the years. I do have the name and exact amount somewhere here, however....

I've been at this a while : )
Judy


________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: Re: The Princes


 
Yes, it was the chronicler of Croyland/Crowland who repeatedly claimed that Edward IV's coffers were full when he died and Richard of Gloucester squandered his treasure. All poppycock, of course. It's obvious at a glance from the fact that there were insufficient funds even to fulfil Edward's will and pay for his funeral without selling off plate. Not only did Richard contribute hundreds of pounds to Edward V's upkeep, he also probably had to pay for his own coronation.

Chapter and verse can been found in some financial memoranda found at Longleat which show what a parlous condition the treasury was in. I suppose Edward was keen to give the opposite impression, especially as he had been banging on to Parliament that he proposed teaching Louis XI a lesson, not to mention consolidating his recent military successes against Scotland, for which he needed new taxes. He was so strapped that he even started collecting tithes from the Church before there had been a convocation to allocate them. ("Oh what a servile and pernicious ruin for the Church!" etc, etc.)

----- Original Message -----
From: marion davis
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: The Princes

Annette wrote: Also the exchequer was pretty much empty and he must have been running out of credit in the Home Counties.

*****

I believe someone accused Richard of wasting the money Edward IV left in the exchequer to buy "false friendship?" Was it the Croyland Chronicler?

I read something in "The Road to Bosworth" that makes me think that accusation could be wrong.

In early June, 1483, a group of lawyers for merchants who wanted to save themselves some customs taxes protested that Edward V had no right to collect those taxes until his first parliament re-granted them. The protest was upheld, and a major source of Edward V's government revenue was cut off. Richard, duke of Gloucester, contributed 800 pounds of his own money to pay Edward V's household expenses.

If Edward V had been crowned and his first parliament had been held, maybe 3 weeks worth of customs revenue would have been lost. But once Richard became king, he apparently went without, roughly, 7 months worth of customs revenue. I can't remember reading that he managed to get the customs decision reversed. If he didn't, it accounts for an important part of Richard's financial problems.

Marion

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, it was the chronicler of Croyland/Crowland who repeatedly claimed that Edward IV's coffers were full when he died and Richard of Gloucester squandered his treasure. All poppycock, of course. It's obvious at a glance from the fact that there were insufficient funds even to fulfil Edward's will and pay for his funeral without selling off plate. Not only did Richard contribute hundreds of pounds to Edward V's upkeep, he also probably had to pay for his own coronation.
>
<snip>

Carol responds:

What about the treasure that Dorset took from the Tower (with permission from the council though I expect that they were bribed, coerced, or deluded), some of which he gave to his uncle Edward Woodville, ostensibly to defend England from France? That theft would account for Richard's treasury problems in and of itself.

Also, if that treasure was in the Tower for Dorset to misappropriate, why wasn't some of it used to fund Edward IV's funeral? Or had Dorset already taken it by the time his stepfather was buried?

Carol, too strapped for time to look things up

As far as we know, both Dorset and Edward Woodville were authorized by the council to set up defences against sea piracy and incursions emanating from France. The piracy existed, but whether the resources used to counteract it were appropriate is a different question. The funding for this probably cleaned out whatever liquid state funds existed in the treasury (I've got the figures somewhere). This was before Gloucester arrived in London with the king, whereupon Woodville was recalled but resisted the order, and instead of protecting England's coastal waters he then made it his business to abscond with ships and money. Edward's private assets were not, of course, the same as state assets; I suspect his funeral was considered a personal rather than a state expense. Matters of the treasury are a specialized subject on which I'm not an expert, but it is clear that the state coffers were in a desperate plight. Sorry I have visitors at the moment, so this note has to be a bit brief ....
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: The Princes





--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, it was the chronicler of Croyland/Crowland who repeatedly claimed that Edward IV's coffers were full when he died and Richard of Gloucester squandered his treasure. All poppycock, of course. It's obvious at a glance from the fact that there were insufficient funds even to fulfil Edward's will and pay for his funeral without selling off plate. Not only did Richard contribute hundreds of pounds to Edward V's upkeep, he also probably had to pay for his own coronation.
>
<snip>

Carol responds:

What about the treasure that Dorset took from the Tower (with permission from the council though I expect that they were bribed, coerced, or deluded), some of which he gave to his uncle Edward Woodville, ostensibly to defend England from France? That theft would account for Richard's treasury problems in and of itself.

Also, if that treasure was in the Tower for Dorset to misappropriate, why wasn't some of it used to fund Edward IV's funeral? Or had Dorset already taken it by the time his stepfather was buried?

Carol, too strapped for time to look things up