King Richard III and the Princes in the Tower

[Peter B]

I'm not sure if there's a thread elsewhere on this board about Richard III, so I thought I might start one here.

Tedward said:

It is interesting where history is shown to be correct or shown that the information is incorrect. Richard III got a bit of a character assassination after the Stanleys stabbed him in the back. Yet there are many clues and evidence as to the propaganda being made up. There was a good reason to slate him as well, if you were a new ruler and wanted the old swept out. So history does not seem to change without anyone noticing especially in the long run.

Gillianren said:

Have you read The Daughter of Time?  Lots of interesting stuff about the spin of history in that, not to mention a pretty clear argument that Henry VII, not Richard III, ordered the deaths of those two little boys.  I'm not an expert (my main focus of knowledge when it comes to English history is Henry VII's next couple of generations of descendants), but it makes sense to me.

I was interested to read the comments above about the people likely responsible for the deaths of the Princes in the Tower. I've long accepted the argument presented by Alison Weir in "The Princes in the Tower", who concludes that King Richard III was responsible. There's a relatively long summary of her book at http://alisonweir.org.uk/books/bookpages/more-princes-in-tower.asp, including some new thoughts and her comments on other books, including "The Daughter of Time".

I'd be interested to hear what people think about the topic.

= = = =

For those unfamiliar with the story, I'll attempt a brief summary.

In 1483, Edward IV was King of England. His wife, Elizabeth Woodville, had given birth to two sons, Edward Prince of Wales (age 12) and Richard Duke of York (age 9), as well as five daughters who survived to adulthood. King Edward IV also had a younger brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester.

In April that year, King Edward IV died, and his son Edward was pronounced King Edward V, with his uncle Richard of Gloucester as Lord Protector. Edward V was due to be crowned in June, but the Duke of Gloucester arranged for the coronation to be delayed.

It was then announced that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville wasn't legitimate, meaning that Edward V could not be king (obviously, neither could his younger brother). Edward V was declared deposed, and as the next in line to the throne the Duke of Gloucester was declared King Richard III in late June 1483.

Edward V was now confined to the Tower of London, and was shortly afterwards joined by his brother. Together they've become known as the Princes in the Tower. They were last seen by outsiders in August 1483.

A few months later one of King Richard III's most powerful supporters, Henry Stafford Duke of Buckingham, rebelled against the King, but his rebellion collapsed and he was captured and executed.

Two years later there was another rebellion against King Richard III, led by Henry Tudor, a descendant of an earlier English king, Edward III. Henry's army defeated that of Richard at the Battle of Bosworth Field. Richard was killed, and Henry became King Henry VII. A few months after the battle, he married Elizabeth of York, the oldest sister of the Princes in the Tower.

There are a number of theories as to what happened to the Princes in the Tower, including:

1. They were killed on the orders of King Richard III.

2. They died of natural causes while Richard was still king.

3. King Richard had them secretly removed from the Tower and they lived the remainder of their lives in obscurity.

4. They were killed by the Duke of Buckingham against King Richard's wishes.

5. They survived King Richard but were then killed on the orders of King Henry VII.

Incidentally, for those who've been following the news, you might remember that the skeleton of King Richard III was recently discovered in Leicester, showing among other things the curvature of his spine from scoliosis, and the horrific injuries inflicted on him at the Battle of Bosworth Field.

[gillianren]

Josephine Tey has convinced me of number five.  My knowledge of English history is not very strong in that era, but if what she describes of the family's actions during Richard's reign is correct, it is unthinkable that they would have done what they did if there was even a rumour that he'd killed the boys.  It also seems extremely out of character for what we know about Richard in the rest of his life, and it's not as though Henry VII didn't make a point of killing all the other people with a better claim to the throne than he, except the boys' sister, whom he declared legitimate--and married.

[Tedward]

Get back on this, it is interesting but I am a casual reader of history. Few things come across and I am divided but lineage was always a thing for the powers to follow and it did get very fractious (and plots and schemes were always abound).

One other is someone unbeknown to Richard doing the deed thinking they were doing him and the title a favour.

The main point of my comment though was the way Richard was portrayed after his death. That was back to lineage and rubbishng that claim to the thrown. From Memory Henry's claim was even less but the powers behind the throne (edit, not throne, powers in the land) wanted out and this is what happened. Shakespeare I believe also has a lot to answer for.

Again, from memory, the last charge Richard made was a bit of oddy, it would seem a gamble to get to Henry on a 1 to 1 fight, one that Henry would have lost as Richard was a very marshal King (correct term?), yet he is given as being incapable as such in later years.

[ka9q]

Weren't two bodies found that have been alleged to be those of the Princes? Or am I thinking of something else?

[gillianren]

Two bodies were found that could have been those of the princes.  From memory, it's because they were the right age and wrapped in velvet.  Also from memory, it was under a staircase or some such.  It is my understanding that no testing has ever been done on the skeletons, and I don't think anything was recorded about how they were positioned when found or whatever, but if they were wrapped in velvet, it's quite clear that they hadn't just been left were they fell, so I don't think examining what remained of the scene would have done any good anyway.

Henry VII legally didn't have a claim to the throne at all until he married the boys' sister; he was descended from a king, but it was illegitimate descent several generations back.  There were plenty of people running around with far better claims to the throne, or at least there were when he took the throne.  The last of them was executed under the reign of Henry VIII.  On his father's advice, apparently.  The only ones alleged to have failed to survive Richard's were the boys, and we do not know when they died.  Or, I'll admit, if, but it seems unlikely they survived after all.

[Tedward]

Busy with other stuff at the moment but under the impression the bodies were found when there were alterations done to the tower? Have the book somewhere.

[gillianren]

I think so, yes.

[Tedward]

Been thinking about this over the few days and fancy I need to revisit the tomes, I remember the overall impression I got that Richard was was between a rock and a hard place with the Princess and he knew it.

I liked the idea of them living out a life but that is fanciful for that day and age I think, people (the ones with power) wanted you alive or dead depending on their and your allegiance. Somewhere along this story I came across heraldry and its attachments (for want of a better uneducated term) as it stood then. There were some interesting things going on such as the son not inheriting the crimes of the father and so on. Seemed to be that a King would need power from the Barons etc at some point so whilst so and so might have let a family keep lands yet lop the head off the father (or far worse, a traitors death). So the machinations in the tale go quite deep.

I get distracted as this (reading historical stuff) is a hobby more than a vocation. Looking next to the books (book, loaned one out and others borrowed from family) and I have The Black Prince, Henry V, along side The Dam busters, Trafalgar and Owain Glyndwr.

[Peter B]

Josephine Tey has convinced me of number five.  My knowledge of English history is not very strong in that era, but if what she describes of the family's actions during Richard's reign is correct, it is unthinkable that they would have done what they did if there was even a rumour that he'd killed the boys.

This is an interesting point. It's worth noting that early in Edward V's reign, Richard ordered the arrest of Elizabeth Woodville's brother Earl Rivers and her son (from her first marriage) Sir Richard Grey. After Richard became king he had them executed. Both arrest and execution appear to have been illegal. So even if Richard wasn't responsible for the deaths of the Princes in the Tower (PitT) he had form against the Woodville family.

Yet it's also true that in 1485 Richard seriously courted Elizabeth of York (older sister of the PitT and later wife of Henry VII). Not only that, but he did so while his wife was still alive, although seriously ill. Alison Weir's interpretation is that Elizabeth of York, like her mother, was entranced by political power and willing to consider many paths to achieve it.

It also seems extremely out of character for what we know about Richard in the rest of his life...

Well, in addition to the likely illegal arrest and execution of Rivers and Grey, Richard also arranged for the arrest and immediate execution of Lord Hastings, an influential member of the royal council. Hastings had been a loyal supporter of King Edward IV and consequently of his son, Edward V. Hasting's arrest and execution was also illegal - as a nobleman he was entitled to a trial before the House of Lords.

Likewise, the execution of Buckingham after his failed rebellion raised a few eyebrows. Yes, he was guilty of treason but he also was entitled to a trial.

Yes, after this Richard III has a good claim to being an enlightened monarch. But there's the nagging feeling that his actions were intended to restore his public image after the rumours he was involved in the death of the PitT.

...and it's not as though Henry VII didn't make a point of killing all the other people with a better claim to the throne than he, except the boys' sister, whom he declared legitimate--and married.

Well, most of these people did actually conspire against him. The one who probably didn't is also the most tragic - Edward Plantagenet Earl of Warwick. He was the son of George Duke of Clarence, a brother of King Edward IV and Richard III. George was a habitual schemer and pushed his luck too far once too often. He was tried for treason and executed by Edward IV in 1478. George was attainted for his treason, meaning Edward of Warwick was legally barred from the throne (he kept his earldom because he inherited it from his mother). However, this bar could be lifted by Parliament, and if it was Edward had a better claim to the throne than Richard of Gloucester, as George was Richard's older brother. Nevertheless, while the bar remained in place he had no claim to the throne.

[Tedward]

I should really start to read up on this again.

[Peter B]

Get back on this, it is interesting but I am a casual reader of history. Few things come across and I am divided but lineage was always a thing for the powers to follow and it did get very fractious (and plots and schemes were always abound).

One other is someone unbeknown to Richard doing the deed thinking they were doing him and the title a favour.

True, although that would have required getting access to them. According to Weir, their jailer would only follow instructions signed by Richard, who was his employer.

The main point of my comment though was the way Richard was portrayed after his death. That was back to lineage and rubbishng that claim to the thrown. From Memory Henry's claim was even less but the powers behind the throne (edit, not throne, powers in the land) wanted out and this is what happened. Shakespeare I believe also has a lot to answer for.

Absolutely his name was blackened by Tudor historians. But it's also worth noting that contemporaries - ordinary people in England and kings in other countries - were already convinced of Richard's guilt in 1483.

Again, from memory, the last charge Richard made was a bit of oddy, it would seem a gamble to get to Henry on a 1 to 1 fight, one that Henry would have lost as Richard was a very marshal King (correct term?), yet he is given as being incapable as such in later years.

I think you mean martial (as in, of Mars the god of war).

Richard's problem in the battle was the unreliability of the leaders with him. The force he personally led included contingents led by the Dukes of Norfolk and Northumberland, while Thomas Stanley Earl of Derby, kept his distance. Richard's own force was about 10,000 men, while Stanley's was about 6000 men.

Henry's army was smaller than either, probably about 5000 men. His willingness to give battle against such odds strongly suggests he thought he had Stanley in his pocket.

The Duke of Norfolk led the first attack of Richard's army, but around the time Richard led his reinforcements to Norfolk's aid, Norfolk was killed. Shortly after this Richard called on Northumberland to bring his troops into battle, but Northumberland refused. With Stanley also still refusing to join Richard, suddenly Richard found himself effectively surrounded by enemies, his forces outnumbered as badly as Henry had been at the start of the battle.

Therefore it's likely at this point that Richard decided he had to kill Henry.

The charge was a close-run thing - just failing to reach Henry before Stanley's men reached Richard.

[Peter B]

...Henry VII legally didn't have a claim to the throne at all until he married the boys' sister; he was descended from a king, but it was illegitimate descent several generations back.

It's true that Henry VII was descended from an illegitimate union - King Edward III's son John Duke of Lancaster had children by his third marriage. But these children had been declared legitimate by their cousin King Richard II in 1397. A further problem for Henry was that his descent was through a woman - his mother Lady Margaret Beaufort.

Nevertheless he was seen by contemporaries as the Lancaster heir following the deaths of King Henry VI, his son Prince Edward the Prince of Wales, and the male Beaufort relatives of Lady Margaret.

There were plenty of people running around with far better claims to the throne, or at least there were when he took the throne.

Bizarrely (or not, depending on how you see these matters) members of the royal families of Castile and Portugal had better claims, as they were descended from John Duke of Lancaster and his second wife.

The last of them was executed under the reign of Henry VIII.  On his father's advice, apparently.  The only ones alleged to have failed to survive Richard's were the boys, and we do not know when they died.  Or, I'll admit, if, but it seems unlikely they survived after all.

As a result, Henry partly based his claim to the throne on the simple fact that he held it. Add in his own wobbly legitimacy, and the stronger legitimacy of his queen, and he considered himself to have a better claim on it than anyone else. He also took seriously the fact that no one succeeded in removing him. Thus he obviously had God on his side. This last claim shouldn't be laughed at. English speaking people tend to make a huge issue out of which heir has the greater claim - just look at the popularity of a deposed line of kings being restored in fantasy fiction (JRR Tolkien and Katherine Kurtz are two which come to mind). The Byzantines for example, by contrast, had a very pragmatic view of legitimacy - it was conferred or taken away by God's will alone. So to them a successful rebel was entirely legitimate, regardless of the lowliness of his birth.

[twik]

I think it's a safe presumption the bones in the Tower were the Princes - after all, where else would they have gotten themselves to? They had to end up somewhere.

I'm always perplexed by the situation, and I think perhaps Richard was himself. I think he wanted the throne - he did not, at first at least, want his nephews dead. The result was a very unstable political situation. A normal medieval king would have solved it by having them die publicly, whether by execution on trumped-up treason charges, or by a dubious "accident". The public part was important - without a public acknowledgement the princes were dead, it left an opening for someone to attempt to take the throne by claiming to be working for the princes, or even pretending to be them. Which is what actually happened at one point in Henry VII's reign.

Dead princes were much safer, even if Richard was suspected of their murder, than merely missing ones. Such things had been pulled off before, in the murders of Richard II and Henry VI. People might talk, but they wouldn't be taking up the cause of a dead prince.

I have a pet theory that the boys died suddenly of natural causes - goodness knows, locked up in the Tower there were plenty of ways to get sick and die. One meal contaminated with salmonella could easily have done it as effectively as an assassin's knife. Richard's panicked response was to pretend that nothing had actually happened - that they were still alive, while he tried to decide the best way to spin things to reveal their deaths. Unfortunately, before he'd figured out that particular problem, he'd been killed at Bosworth.

[ka9q]

Were the bones in the tower ever analyzed for DNA traces?

It's amazing how useful DNA has been in all sorts of cold cases. Maybe even some this cold.

[gillianren]

I went and looked it up to double-check my memory that the last examination of the bodies was before the discover of DNA, and the Wikipedia page is interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower#Bodies