Author Topic: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower  (Read 85025 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Elisabeth

  • Guest
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #105 on: November 21, 2006, 02:31:39 PM »
Thanks for stating that so cleary, Elisabeth, I understand and agree. Just for the record, I'm not hostile to Elizabeth Woodville - I find her extremely interesting.

Well, thank you, Prince, for your kind words, and I apologize if I was a little too vehement in my arguments. I admit I get a little cross when I hear the same points brought up again and again in Richard's favor, at the expense of everyone else - just as I imagine Ricardians get tired of hearing the same old arguments brought up against the last Plantagenet king... Still, excuse me for saying so - but since we are on the subject of the Princes once again - Richard's "Titulus Regius" indicting Edward IV for being a bigamist (and by extension, his sons for being illegitimate) always reminds me of the Starr Report on Bill Clinton. It's just so scandal-mongering, prurient, and beside the point. And understand, I was never even a big fan of Clinton... he was just the lesser of two evils.  ;)

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #106 on: November 21, 2006, 02:38:54 PM »
Has anyone read CJ Sansom's novel 'Sovereign'? The Titulus Regius is mentioned in it, as is the rumour that Edward IV's father was 'Blaybourne'. Sorry, wildly off topic, just wondering if anyone had read it - it's a great book.  :)
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #107 on: November 21, 2006, 02:41:24 PM »
First time I've ever been called that, but ok.  ::)

I meant that in the best possible way, PL  :). But seriously, you should never assume that doing the best for one's offspring is always instinctual... But Elisabeth is right, this was such a complicated situation for Elizabeth, almost like she couldn't win either way.

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #108 on: November 21, 2006, 02:52:09 PM »
First time I've ever been called that, but ok.  ::)

I meant that in the best possible way, PL  :). But seriously, you should never assume that doing the best for one's offspring is always instinctual... But Elisabeth is right, this was such a complicated situation for Elizabeth, almost like she couldn't win either way.

Then the compliment is gratefully accepted, Helen.  ;) And yes, I see what you both mean now - I was thinking of Elizabeth as acting impulsively, but as Elisabeth rightfully pointed out, the whole 'episode' took place over the course of a few weeks, giving her time to weigh up pro's and con's.
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #109 on: November 21, 2006, 03:35:02 PM »
Well, if Elizabeth really and truly did NOT trust Richard, surely she would have resisted as much as she could, even physically, but there's no evidence of that.

I don't know how trustworthy Strickland's books are - apparently they're very good, but she tends to romanticise. I'm sure Kim'll know!
IMHO I think you need to be VERY careful if you are going to use Strickland as a source. I quote; "Her writings are of no value for history but are full of interesting tid-bits of history". She was a Victorian Lady and a minor poet and I son't know of the veracity of her sources.
Member of the Richard III Society

bell_the_cat

  • Guest
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #110 on: November 21, 2006, 06:41:19 PM »
She was quite a respectable historian in her day, but Starkey for example holds her responsible for several nasty rumours ( e.g the Katherine Parr "nursing" Henry one) - and I expect the meek Jane Seymour legend!  ;D

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #111 on: November 22, 2006, 12:39:26 AM »
Well, if Elizabeth really and truly did NOT trust Richard, surely she would have resisted as much as she could, even physically, but there's no evidence of that.

I don't know how trustworthy Strickland's books are - apparently they're very good, but she tends to romanticise. I'm sure Kim'll know!
IMHO I think you need to be VERY careful if you are going to use Strickland as a source. I quote; "Her writings are of no value for history but are full of interesting tid-bits of history". She was a Victorian Lady and a minor poet and I son't know of the veracity of her sources.

i do not use her as a source. however, i find it interesting that the part that i bolded is in her book used as a quote. that was not absolutely necessary, because if she left it without the "" it would simply have been interpreted as a interpretation of the actual words. so i tend to think that was a quote (unless she put it there on purpose to deceive us  ::)). and i'd be most interested to find out where she found that particular quote, since there is no source mentioned.

as for elizabeth woodville's attitude... it's very hard to know everything that happened then. i'm sure she didn't want to give up her children, and i read she was quite a ruin in the last years of her life (which i believe testifies that whatever happened did not just pass by her and she was emotionally involved in everything).

and as for richard's attitude... i agree with elisabeth. i am still not convinced he killed his nephews, but i am convinced that he didn't have their best interest at heart and that not the care for his family's prestige made him take the crown rather than his own ambitions. he, of course wouldn't have been the first to do so, nor the last, but he most definitely was not that strong man of character that you yorkists tried to portray (imo). had he been that, he would have stood behind his nephews and defended their throne. and he would have also gotten some power out of it - he could have been a regent if he were smart.

Offline Lucien

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7349
  • Courtier
    • View Profile
Je Maintiendrai

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #113 on: March 22, 2007, 04:25:12 AM »
Thanks for that Lucien, I was aware of the hair in the locket. I think the difficulty is going to be getting access to "those bones" :(
Member of the Richard III Society

Kurt Steiner

  • Guest
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #114 on: March 22, 2007, 05:11:19 AM »
Beign a Yorkist myself (ey, I'm a lover of Lost Causes, what else an I say ;D) I hate to say that I found hard that anyone but Richard could be regarded as the most plausible candidate. Once he took the path to become king, he sealed the fate of two princess. I would like to believe that Buckingham or Henry Tudor did it, but I'm afraid that I'm quite not convicend about those theories -Well, Buckigham was an ambitious turncoat, but he lacks something to make him a possible murderer.




Has anyone considered the possibility of Jack the Ripper travelling backwarsds in time? Ok, he only killed ladies "in distress". Shame on me... I had to try, yoou know ;D ;)

bell_the_cat

  • Guest
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #115 on: March 22, 2007, 07:28:05 PM »
Kurt, what does Buckingham lack to make him a possible murderer?

Kurt Steiner

  • Guest
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #116 on: March 23, 2007, 04:16:15 AM »
Kurt, what does Buckingham lack to make him a possible murderer?

He was an ambitious being, indeed, but, in my opinion, he knew he was quite difficult for him to reach the throne. Perhaps I'm wrong, but sometimes I think that Buckingham moved when was ordered, not on his own.

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #117 on: March 24, 2007, 02:05:12 AM »
Kurt, what does Buckingham lack to make him a possible murderer?

He was an ambitious being, indeed, but, in my opinion, he knew he was quite difficult for him to reach the throne. Perhaps I'm wrong, but sometimes I think that Buckingham moved when was ordered, not on his own.

buckingham was - after richard - the strongest candidate for the throne. we must remember that henry 7th - although a descendant of an older son - had the taint of illegitimacy not only on his mother's side (the beauforts) but also on his father's side (no-one proved yet beyond a doubt that catherine de valois and owen tudor ever married!). he became a viable candidate when all the other candidates were either dead or too young to do anything about it (i'm talking here about the duke of clarence's offspring)

Kurt Steiner

  • Guest
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #118 on: March 24, 2007, 04:40:25 PM »
Shame on me! Of course! Henry, duke of Buckingham, was a member of the branch of Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester!!!

Removed Margaret's Edward, he only had the two Princes and Richard himself,, as Henry was... well... not really suitable, so to speak.


ilyala

  • Guest
Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« Reply #119 on: March 25, 2007, 07:09:14 AM »
exactly! he had every reason to believe that if he eliminated richard he could be the next king. he probably thought he could use henry tudor and organize a rebellion with him and then get to be the king.

he was, i believe, married to catherine woodville, elizabeth's sister. through her he contacted elizabeth who was in contact with henry tudor and organized everything.