|
Post by louise on Mar 6, 2017 17:59:27 GMT
They were under the ultimate protection of their uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester yes, but the only proof that he was a treacherous uncle comes from Tudor propaganda, namely from Shakespeare, and Sir Thomas More written long after the events. Morton, a sworn enemy of the Yorkists, was a mentor of the young Sir Thomas More. More served as a page in Morton's house, acted in revels at Morton's court at Knole House, the archiepiscopal palace, and later mentioned him in his work Utopia. Although most scholars credit More with authoring the History of King Richard III, they debate the issue of the original authorship. Morton is believed by many to be the originator of the account that More rewrote. Modern Ricardians thereby accuse Morton of inventing the account later endorsed by Shakespeare. I think it highly likely that he did. But that's speculation as much of the mystery is. Obviously someone did, but that's the mystery. There were other suspects besides Richard, and most with equally good motives. Putting a prince in the tower prior to his coronation was the normal procedure. I suggest you delve a little deeper Louise. Those who had the opportunity besides Richard include the 2nd Duke of Buckingham, Margaret Beaufort (the Lady Margaret, mother of Henry Tudor), John Argentine (tutor to the Princes), Henry Tudor himself at a later date, and even others. If Richard could have had it done by agents as Shakespeare and More accuse him of, then couldn't agents of others have also done the deed? Not at all. Other skeletons have been discovered in the Tower. There is no proof whatsoever any whichway. One reason could be that it may be discovered that the wrong line of royal House is on the throne. The rightful House of York was extinguished by the Tudors, except for H7's marriage to Elizabeth of York. There are many in the UK who are republican-minded. Any proof that the current royal House and monarch are based on false claims of the past would certainly give them fuel. When there is no proof, there's no embarrassment. richard III's usurping of the throne from his nephews is treacherous. he ws a man without any scruples, and he had means, motive, and opportunity to do away with the princes. Margraet Beaufort had no way of getting at the princes even if she had wanted to. Henry VII took the throne by right of conquest, so any surviving descendents of the princes would be irrelevent today. and anyway the act of settlement of 1701 says that only legitimate Protestant descendents of sophia of Hanover (George i's mother) can inherit the throne. wheher those skeletons are the princes or not is irrelevent.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Mar 6, 2017 19:17:51 GMT
One reason could be that it may be discovered that the wrong line of royal House is on the throne. The rightful House of York was extinguished by the Tudors, except for H7's marriage to Elizabeth of York. There are many in the UK who are republican-minded. Any proof that the current royal House and monarch are based on false claims of the past would certainly give them fuel. When there is no proof, there's no embarrassment. Exactly, they have nothing at all to gain by having the remains examined.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Mar 6, 2017 20:45:02 GMT
--------------
OK, so let's break this down:
The claim of Richard's was that his bother Edward 1V was already married before he married Elizabeth Woodville (the mother of the princes), and as such the latter marriage was bigamous and the princes illegitimate. This was backed up by Robert Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells. It can be argued that Stillington had a gripe against Edward, but it was well known that he (Edward) was a serial philanderer.
Perhaps Richard did use this as an opportunity to save the throne from the clutches and control of the hated Woodville clan, which would undoubtedly have happened had Prince Edward gained the throne, but treachery towards the princes, no, I don't think so. There was no need to harm them.
Strange then that in the north which he administered and where the people loved him there was nothing but praise for his ability, his fairness, and his loyalty.
The next in line to the throne after the young Edward, Prince of Wales (Edward V), was Richard. As the princes had already been deemed as illegitimate and thus barred from the throne, there was no reason for Richard to have them killed. There was an even better claimant to the throne than Richard, and that was Edward, Earl of Warwick, the son of George, Duke of Clarence his elder brother barred as a traitor. Yet Richard kept him protected and well cared for until Richard himself was killed at Bosworth. It was Henry who then imprisoned Warwick and then had him murdered.
Henry also had murdered any possible legitimate claimants to his usurped throne, and one pretender, Perkin Warbeck. He even had his mother locked away in a convent where she died.
Henry Tudor dated his reign from a day before the Battle of Bosworth Field so it would appear that he was the legitimate king fighting the usuper Richard, when it was actually Henry who was the usurper.
The man without scruples was Henry VII, not Richard III.
Richard was touring the country at the time. According to the Tudor version of events, he had ordered Sir James Tyrell to do the job, who in turn delegated two assassins. But as said that's the Tudor version. Others had equal "means, motive, and opportunity to do away with the princes". The bodies were never found. Only skeletons found years later in the 17th century, but in a different place than the Tudor version says the bodies were dumped.
She had every opportunity. She was staying at the time in the vicinity of the Tower with the mother of the Princes. Quite easy to send in an assassin as Richard is accused of doing. As said above Richard was touring the country at the time.
Buckingham, who had designs on the throne for himself, was also in the vicinity of the "crime". So he too had "means, motive, and opportunity to do away with the princes".
The two princes were seen happily playing in the Tower grounds a day or so before their disappearance. They weren't prisoners. It must be remembered that in the 15th century the Tower of London was not only a fortress and a prison, but a royal palace, and it was in the royal apartments in the Tower that the princes were put to prepare for the coronation. Buckingham Palace was yet to be be built (by Cardinal Wolsey as a present for Henry VIII).
He had no claim to the throne. Actually of all the nobles on the field of Bosworth Henry Tudor probably had the least claim of any of them. He had a tenuous claim through the wife of Henry V who had married Owen Tudor after Henry's death, but then that Lancastrian line emanating from John of Gaunt=Kathrine Swynford had been barred from succession.The legal line was the Yorkist line.
OK, Henry Tudor usurped the throne by right of conquest, as Henry Bolinbroke did to become Henry IV, but the conquest really has no relevance in the mystery of the Princes. It's what Henry did after Bosworth that matters. He deliberately had Richard's erstwhile good name destroyed, and it was Tudor propaganda which set out the false rumours and accusations of Richard. Why? It was to protect the extremely tenuous hold on Henry's right to the throne. Nothing else, unless of course he himself or his mother had a hand in the fate of the princes. And that cannot be ruled out.
They're irrelevant as far as current line of succession is concerned, except as I said for possible embarrassment. But they're not irrelevant as far as the mystery is concerned. The Tudor case rests on the bones being those of the Princes. So why won't they press to prove their case and have the bones tested with modern forensics? What are they afraid of? On the other hand the Ricardians want them tested to help to prove Richard's innocence.
There's more to this Louise than the version of events that you were probably taught at school, which would undoubtedly have been the Tudor version that's been handed down. A version that is being slowly ripped apart and uncovered as vicious propaganda against Richard.
A little research goes a long way.
|
|