You may have seen the original TV cast of this, but here’s more detail. It does seem to be him…
Richard III burial
There’s a great deal strange about his story. He was much maligned in the rumor mills of the day…and accused of the murder of the two princes in the Tower.
The deed is laid at the feet of an otherwise distinguished gentleman who loyally served the king…one Sir Robert Tyrell, who was the boy’s jailer, who, accused of the murder, staunchly refused to disclose where the princes were buried, and who was eventually executed for the crime. His family maintained, later, that the princes were not dead, and that Tyrell had actually rescued them and gotten them to a place of safety, and that he died accepting the blame for a non-crime, because of his loyalty to the king.
Richard III was blamed as the one who gave the orders. But there was a complete tangle of politics surrounding that and other matters during his reign.
People trying to rewrite history and muddling the story is pretty much par for the course.
We’ve run into it with Peter I of Castile, “Pedro the Cruel”. Peter’s daughter Isabella married Edmund of Langley, 4th son of King Edward III.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_of_Castile
“In 1366 began the calamitous Castilian Civil War, which would see him dethroned. He was assailed by his bastard brother Henry of Trastámara at the head of a host of soldiers of fortune, … Peter’s rival Henry of Trastámara continuously depicted Peter as “King of the Jews”, and had some success in taking advantage of popular Castilian resentment towards the Jews. Henry of Trastámara instigated pogroms beginning a period of anti-Jewish riots and forced conversions in Castile that lasted approximately from 1370 to 1390. … Popular memory generally views Peter as a vicious monster. Much but not all of Peter’s reputation comes from the works of the chronicler Pero López de Ayala, who after his father’s change of allegiance had little choice but to serve Peter’s usurper. … Most of the bad stories about Peter are likely to be colored by Black Legend, coined by his enemies, who finally succeeded in their rebellion. The Chancellor López de Ayala, the main source for Peter’s reign, was the official chronicler of the Trastámara, a servant of the new rulers and of Peter’s aristocratic adversaries.”
WHich proves the old adage re newspapers, “Never pick a quarrel with someone who buys ink by the barrel.”
Chroniclers can be a bitch.
I have to say that I’m not a believer in the various revisionist theories, or conspiracy theories, about Richard III.
As far as I can see the whole idea originated in a novel, “The Sunne in Spendour”, which presented Richard as practically a saint, and has little or no basis in serious scholarship.
Richard III enthusiasts have all the symptoms of fanatics and conspiracy theorists in many other cases – an almost hysterical reaction to any doubt about what they believe, a refusal to look objectively at the evidence, and an inability to reason logically or use common sense.
That’s not to say that real conspiracies never exist, or that we shouldn’t re-examine evidence and question traditional historical beliefs. Rather that we need to be careful, and look at the evidence honestly before drawing wild conclusions.
The best short treatment of the subject I’ve seen is Alison Weir’s The Princes in the Tower which considers all the available historical sources and evidence in detail, quietly and methodically.
But be careful of the Amazon reviews on this one. Like any subject that evokes strong passions, some reviewers will distort facts, misrepresent what she says, and criticise her only because she reaches a conclusion they don’t like. Look at some of the 5 star reviews, and some of the 1 star reviews and see what you think.
…And if you read Alison’s Weir’s short Author’s Preface in the Amazon preview (go to the Contents and scroll down), you’ll get a quick feel for the kind of writer she is.
The Daughter of Time was written well before that: 1951. It doesn’t try to make Richard a saint, but it does seem to be well-researched.
GW, certainly we can see no dearth of conspiracy theories fueled by the internet—and I’m sure there were plenty fueled by pubs and the LACK of the internet, so that opinion concentrated thickest (sort of like Facebook) in certain communities of likeminded people.
One thing I do most enjoy about the genealogy thing is finding the family stories: there is one of my lines that can be construed to go through the Tyrells…I don’t think it does: I rejected that connection on grounds of no-proof — but in the meanwhile I found that neat little squib from the Tyrells that clears their ancestor.
It’s also possible there was another kind of murder in the tower—the demise of a career of royal service, in compelling a man who’d served honorably, even gallantly, in other capacities, to do something completely unthinkable, re children in his custody.
Any way you slice it, there’s a story there, and neither ends well, either for the princes, or for Tyrell.
There is also the simple and embarrassing possibility of illness and death by poor conditions, even if the princes were given favorable treatment and conditions in the Tower. Daily life could be a risk even for those with every advantage.
Foul play by someone who wanted to grab power. Whoever it might actually be.
A convenient and strongly emotional distraction to whoever might be a target of scandal, or sympathetic to the boys. Suggesting someone has hurt or killed kids, a very quick way to turn public or noble sympathy through gossip and doubt.
A possible cover up of other matters, such as someone favoring the boys, helping them, or taking some advantage, any of which might not be countenanced by an enemy.
Just altogether not a good position, to put two boys in political prison to gain your own ends. Especially when a real concern for them would find some safe haven, public or secret.
Whether Richard III or Tyrell or some other, it was not a good time to be two royal heirs on the wrong side of the argument. Not one of the shining moments of English history.
If they were spirited away to new lives and identities, by whoever’s orders, well, even if we never know, then good for them.
Strange times. Not a good time to be anyone noble or common, when it’s deemed handy to imprison or execute two heirs for being on the wrong side of the deal.
Or again, more than half the children of that era did not live to reach adulthood, and the tower is notoriously cold and dank…
The victors re-write the history…
Personally, I think that elaborate conspiracies are not worth the time and effort, given their success rate…
You know that evil cannot get good help…
Which explains most B movies and a lot of history.
Re The Princes, I thought most people believed now that it was Henry VII, a theory I think Josephine Tey first put forward in ‘The daughter of time’.
Josephine Tey wrote a contempory mystery on Richard III. It is food for thought. I recomend it as a starting point on the did he or didn’t he debate.
Sorry – “Daughter of Time” by Josephine Tey. So much for proofing comments!
When it comes to the Tower, don’t forget it was a royal residence first and foremost. The image of it as a prison came later — I think with Henry VIII after he built and moved off to Hampton Court (? — don’t have references handy).
So in actuality they would have been in a safe haven, in a fortress built by William the Conqueror.
I always liked Tey’s book. From an Occam’s Razor standpoint Henry killing the boys made perfect sense.
But what a great discovery! Archaeology has certainly had some great ones this week — isolating what a appears to be cacao residue in Anasazi pottery in Utah a century or two before Chaco Canyon became a major center. Nifty stuff!
The Tower of London was almost never used as residence in the 15th century. Westminster Palace was the primary residence in London of the Lancastrian and Yorkist kings. Kings also tended to move around a lot, with the whole court shifting from one palace to another every few months.
Baynard’s Castle in London was also much used by Yorkists. Greenwich Palace (Placentia), was also highly used in the 15th century. Within a reasonable distance of London there were also Eltham Palace, Woodstock Palace and Windsor Castle. Kings also sometimes stayed in great houses owned by other people, like York Place in London.
ISTR… Ah, yes, Hampton Court was built by Cardinal Thomas Woolsey, and when he wouldn’t abet the King’s “search for an heir”, it became “available”. 😉
There’s a tiny bit of the Tower that’s Roman—and the subway stop at Tower Hill has a Roman wall. But the building of it was piecemeal, over centuries, and some parts of it were pretty nice comparatively, as residences. One could often, in certain ages, buy privileges and bring in stuff which could make life easier. But you had to have funds to do that.
And, on the contrary, from an Occam’s Razor standpoint it makes the most sense that Richard III was responsible for the murder of the princes.
After all, it was Richard who deposed Edward V and imprisoned him and his brother in the first place. Richard seized the throne by force, and they were obviously a major threat to his power as long as they were alive.
The consensus of professional medieval historians is that Richard III was responsible for the murder of the princes. It’s only the non-experts who like to come up with a variety of other theories.
In that culture, at that time, considering the consequences of any doubt of the succession—terrible as it is to consider the children a liability and a danger—you also have to weigh the number of other men, women, and children who would die in a battle over the succession. As much as you would like to prevent the death of two boys, a rivalry and civil war would take the country apart, at moderately bad set an enemy in power, and lead to the beheading of your own relatives and allies, and in unthinkably bad so weaken the country or cross some treaty line that could lead to international wars and the death of thousands. So when you’re reckoning modern morality, you have to consider ancient realities, and whether or not you would push the weakest person from the lifeboat—or all die together.
CJ, yes, exactly! That was the reason that Lady Jane Grey was executed in 1554, although everyone knew that she was personally innocent. Elizabeth was also imprisoned during the reign of Mary I, and came very, very close to being executed. Later Elizabeth herself ordered the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots – extremely reluctantly, because she knew from her own experience exactly what the pressures were on Mary.
Today people often make the mistake of looking at all these royal stories in personal terms, but they were almost always ‘strictly business’, not personal.
The same with Henry VIII’s wives. It was not about personal relationships, it was about a male heir to the throne. If Henry died without a legitimate male heir, it could very easily have plunged the country into civil war. This was the reason that Henry never lost the support of the ordinary people of England through all the years of ups and downs with his wives. They knew very well that it was their own security and prosperity that was at stake. It was not about Henry, it was about the stability of government after Henry.
At that time, it was was treason for the Queen to commit adultry. Treason was not a personal offence or a religious offence – it was specifically a political offence, a crime against the state. The reason was that, if there was doubt about whether a child of the Queen was legitimate or not, that doubt itself could result in huge instability and civil war. This was not an abstract theory, or a religious belief, it was a practical reality. Civil war from such causes could, and did, happen. Adultry by the Queen was treason because there was a real possibility that it could result in war and destruction for the country.
Why was it not treason for the King to commit adultry? Because the child of any woman other than the Queen has exactly zero claim to the throne, even if the King is the father. The King could have 20 illegitimate children (Henry I did!) and it made no difference at all politically. It might make a diffence to his personal relationships, and it might be a religious sin, but it didn’t affect the country, so it wasn’t treason.
It’s easy to forget how unstable pre-modern states were. In England, from 1066 until the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (which created the basis for a constitutional monarchy), there were 28 monarchs. Of these, 8 died violently, and 5 more were violently deposed and either imprisoned or fled the country (3 were subsequently restored to the throne). Every single King or Queen, regardless of their personal qualities, policies, and popularity, faced assassination attempts and rebellions by powerful lords. It was simply a consequence of the culture and structure of society.
And alas, one piece of information that Henry VIII would not have liked to hear: it is the male who determines the sex of the offspring. But he had no way of knowing.
Henry did have an illegitimate son quite early in his reign, in 1519. The mother was Lady Elizabeth Blount. He acknowledged the boy as his son from the first. He named him Henry FitzRoy (literally ‘son of the King’), had him brought up as a royal prince, and gave him the title of Duke of Richmond. This was a title very closely associated with the Tudors, and nobody could even hear that name without registering his royal connection.
Henry was very attached to him, but he died young, at the age of about 16.
From Mad Magazine as filtered through my dad’s recollection, and then mine:
“Woe be unto the land where the king is a child”
Because there you have regents, among other problems! 😉 Regents can mean really interesting times!
Wasn’t that an old Curse? ‘May you live in Interesting Times’ (?)
Josephine Tey makes her detective discover after all the research is done, that several had been there before him, it was not new research. but no-one was interested, Shakespeare’s propaganda play had so thoroughly done its work.
We tend to forget what big differences there were in daily life back then, the risks and joys; the lack of scientific knowledge; the unstable living and political and religious situations. We also forget that this was only 400 to 500 years ago and earlier, with the remains of feudalism fading into the Renaissance, Age of Discovery, and Enlightenment. Americans in particular tend to discount things like this as so antiquated, because our system went for a radical change, even from one of the most advanced constitutional monarchies of the day, into a mostly untried political system, a democratic constitutional republic. Most Americans, further, don’t have a real concept of what it is to have foreign countries and languages and ideas, hostile or competing rivals as often as trading partners, only a few tens of miles away. And the idea of people plotting assassinations and coups sounds like a movie or book or crime and politics news, to most, rather than either history or current events. … And yet it’s still not far from the surface, and for some out there, it is current business as usual. — And here these people were, our leaders and ancestors. Heh. These were not stupid people, either. They managed to keep their lands and people mostly free and prosperous and advancing, many of them. They were progressive enough to look for something better. Not all of them, of course, but several. Not bad, to be remembered as a mostly positive influence, five or ten or more centuries later. Too bad we can’t jump back and listen or talk to them.
I quite agree that most Americans have a very naive view of how things ought to be. No doubt everybody here saw the recent news in all the media that roaming house cats are responsible for killing “billions” of creatures. To most of the media reports that was birds, some reported rodents as well. The implication was that we should keep our kittehs indoors. No, I rather like having neighbors cats coming to hunt my back yard. (None of my own, or should I say I am nobody’s?) I don’t fancy having to deal with Hanta Virus.
Americans touring places like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone can be scary too—they refuse to believe there’s any danger that isn’t just for show. Admonitions not to get off the paths—over-coddled folk are just scary, and some have a Darwinian lack of imagination.
I’m for keeping kitty indoors mostly for the cat’s sake. They do like to roam, but they equally enjoy territories, and favorite games: you have to exercise them, and get off your own duff and do it, but they’ll live three times as long: an urban outdoor cat is lucky to make it to five. There are exceptions, but so, so many that prove the rule. I have a quince tree with a gathering of birds, the shelf inside for the cats, and the birds aren’t spooked, and the cats are mightily entertained.
The secret to contented, non-roaming and non-hunting cats is to keep them in at night. Very few of them actually want to go out at night anyway – they know when they are better off in the warm.
Mine sleeps with me. Cats have an unerring instinct for the exact center of the bed. Seishi is so laid back you can pick up the whole area of blanket and slide him sideways so you can turn over…he won’t even wake up, or if he does, he pretends to be oblivious.
Oh, and the joy of indoor cats when the people come alive again and serve breakfast… sleeping under a bush in the damp is not nearly as good as that.
Zorro is a highly effective alarm clock. I am never permitted to sleep in past 6:45, because that is when her breakfast is — or at least when she thinks it ought to be! Meow! Mew! Meow!! Meow!! Meaow!!! (with increasing volume and emphasis)
Sometimes I think we need Bren moderating the rate of change: it’s hard to explain to modern kids that cell phones aren’t in the picture for 1930’s situations; or that you couldn’t fire a flintlock rapidly: you had to stand and stare at the oncoming enemy while remembering the loading sequence, quite a precision operation, and hoping not to fire your ramrod at them…Henry, with no knowledge of biology as we know it; operations in the field with no anaesthetic; docs believing there’s ‘healing virtue’ in nasty old bandages from a wound which actually got well, so using them to pack a wound…Not to mention just the work of getting a light to your bedroom and the skill to light an oil lamp without burning the house down—often a child’s job….
Well, they did have one thing right–using maggots to clean a wound with a lot of dead tissue. 😉 Leeches are still used in modern medicine too.
Bite — pour — spit — tamp — fire! 😀
Newly so. And not gotten from a swamp recently. 😉 We have learned about bacteria!