Jupiter Images
I would like to discuss this if anyone is up for it. Like many "Ricardians" I don't believe he killed the "Princes in the Tower" though I do accept that he COULD have.
There is valid evidence to suggest that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was illegal and therefore their children, including the boys, were illegitimate, so could not inherit. Indeed recent evidence has come to light that Edward himself may have been illegitimate.
There were always rumours to that effect, since hre mother herself said he was, but evidence may now bear this out, in which case Richard was rightful king.
Certainly in the late 15thC any rival is a problem, but the evidence against Richard is circumstantial to say the leats, and downright dodgy at times.
When the main evidence comes from the people who overthrew him, and is put besides their descriptions of him as hunchbacked and born with teeth you have to, at the very least, take a second look.
![Polling Station signage [Image: kagey b under CC-BY-NC-ND licence]](/openlearn/files/ole/ole_images/places/general-urban-scenes/polling-station-sign/polling station sign_0_0.jpg)
Login or Register to post comments
Dare I say it: Richard III is not guilty?
I would like to discuss this if anyone is up for it. Like many "Ricardians" I don't believe he killed the "Princes in the Tower" though I do accept that he COULD have. There is valid evidence to suggest that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was illegal and therefore their children, including the boys, were illegitimate, so could not inherit. Indeed recent evidence has come to light that Edward himself may have been illegitimate. There were always rumours to that effect, since hre mother herself said he was, but evidence may now bear this out, in which case Richard was rightful king. Certainly in the late 15thC any rival is a problem, but the evidence against Richard is circumstantial to say the leats, and downright dodgy at times. When the main evidence comes from the people who overthrew him, and is put besides their descriptions of him as hunchbacked and born with teeth you have to, at the very least, take a second look. Ann Wroe believes Perkin Warbeck is "kosher" and having spoken to her at length she may be right. There is even a candidate for a survived prince Richard, though I am not convinced. Nor is the evidence of his killing several other people at all convincing - his wife, for instance, who almost certainly died of tb, and his brother George who seems to have been killed by Edward. And if he's innocent of them, and not a hunchback, then he may be innocent of this too. I don't want to write a long post outlining the whole case that may bore everyone so I won't, but I hope people will find this a topic with some mileage in it.
Catherine
Re: Dare I say it: Richard III is not guilty?
Does Ann Wroe indeed claim that "Perkin Warbeck" was indeed Richard IV? It's a while since I have read her book "Perkin" but if I remember correctly, she did not go quite that far in this work, although she left open the possibility. One of its merits, as I remember it, is that it leaves unanswered questions unanswered... While admittedly insinuating rather a lot.
As for the guilt of Richard III, there is a lack of reliable evidence, and perhaps the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty should extends to history as well. What always surprised me is that there seems to have been no serious attempt to figure out what happened to the two princes, until years later after the events. Perhaps Henry VII considered the matter irrelevant (after all he regarded himself as king by right of conquest) but there must have been enough other people with a wish to find out what happened, including people in high places. Their sister, for example. (The contrast with the very public washing of dirty linen that is called the Diana Inquest could hardly be any greater.)
As for the assumption that the boys were "illegitimate, so could not inherit", I wonder how true this was to the medieval mind. Contemporary attitudes seem to have been quite direct, calling a spade a spade, but illegitimacy was no bar to holding a high (worldly) office, and probably an illegitimate heir would have been preferred over none at all.
Re: Dare I say it: Richard III is not guilty?
Certainly it was relevant by the 15thC. William the Conqueror was probably the last to get away with it. Certainly Robert of Gloucester, would have been an ideal candidate for the throne after his father Henry I died, but he was illegitimate and I seem to recall that his illegitimacy was a major stumbling block. Henry II's bastard son Geoffrey had any regnal notions that were in his head quashed when he was forced into the priesthood. The notion that 'bastard slips shall not take root' certainly gained ground during the earlier middle ages and would have been a legitimate (pun intended!) from debarring them from the inheritance.
Re: Dare I say it: Richard III is not guilty?
Jacqueline, Buckingham is my candidtae of choice too: motive, means, opportunity. He was also descended from Edward III by his youngest son Thomas of Woodstock and by Joan Beaufort. He may well have felt he had not been rewarded enough by Richard when he revolted against him, and probably that Edward IV had pretty much insulted him by almost completely ignoring him. And we know how he reacted to Richard; maybe killing the boys was his reaction to Edward. Or maybe he thought it would buy him great favour with Richard, in which case he was mistaken. Certainly something brought about the parting of the ways when he met Richard while the latter was on his progress.
I am not 100% convinced about Edward's illegitimacy either. His mother said it after his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville when she was pretty cross with him. Strictly speaking the boys' legitimacy did matter; fine points of rights did matter enough for Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard and Henry Tudor all to have acts of Parliament declare their rights. Henry VI may have been mad at times but neither this nor his incompetence when sane were enough to reject him in favour of Duke Richard of York, so just being an adult male and a better ruler simply isn't enough. Both Richard II and Henry VI had been kings as children, both with adult uncles who were well respected. Neither were overthrown as children, so age is not enough.
Richard was a very just king. It was why York city went so far as to decalre him "piteously slaim and murdered" after Bosworth - a risky thing to do. He had won their love through the justice of his rule in the north. And he continued that by creating the Council of Requests to hear the cases of poor men who would not otherwise receive justice. Only extreme circumstances and a total lack of alternative, and for the greater good, would a man like that, to my mind, have killed the boys.
Catherine
Re: Dare I say it: Richard III is not guilty?
I forgot to address the question about Ann Wroe's view. In her book she is certainly careful and somewhat equivocal about who Warbeck was. In conversation, however, she is much more forthright. One of the most interesting pieces of evidence for Pekin is the fact that his face was smashed up before he was hanged, and it begs the question why? Was Henry afraid he would be recognised by Londoners for a family resemblance? (Something that may not have beenknown elsewhere in the country.)
Of course one contemporary rumour was that he was the son of Margaret of Burgundy. There are certainly accounts of her bringing up a boy and having him trained in her court, and this could have been Warbeck. The alleged letter to his "mother" is also dubious since he appears to have got her name wrong. In any case, having lived in Tournai would not make him incompatible with Prince Richard if he were smuggled out and given to the Warbeck family to raise anonymously.
Catherine
Re: Dare I say it: Richard III is not guilty?
Sorry, that last was by me and I didn't notice I was logged out.
Catherine
Re: Dare I say it: Richard III is not guilty?
It's possible to make a case for Richard having had the princes murdered, but it's also possible to make a case against Henry Tudor, Margaret Beaufort or the Duke of Buckingham. There just isn't enough evidence to say one way or another. It certainly can't be stated as a fact that Richard had them murdered, because it's not even known for sure that they died in his lifetime!
I don't think the legitimacy, or otherwise, of Edward IV or the princes is really an issue, although I think Edward IV was probably legitimate and that Richard probably believed the pre-contract story. I think what mattered to the English people was that Edward and Richard were adult men who were capable of bringing strong, stable government to the country.
People could remember the minority of Henry VI - weakness, faction, over mighty subjects and eventually a breakdown of order and government at all levels. With Edward V on the throne in a Woodville dominated minority, the English people had the prospect of more of the same. I would guess that many breathed a sigh of relief when Richard took the crown, and didn't care how he justified it.
In those circumstances, Richard didn't really need to do away with the princes. Once he'd established himself on the throne, no-one seemed too bothered about them - even their own mother!
If the Princes were murdered in Richard's lifetime, I'd plump for Buckingham as the villain. But, as I said, there really is no evidence.