Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Touching on the trial again, many people assume that both Laurence Tanner and Prof William Wright had concluded that the bones in the urn were those of Edward and Richard.

In the book covering the trial is a quote from the 1935 report 'While the bones of Richard lll have long since disappeared, trampled into the common clay, those of the Princes, freed from all undignified associations, rest secure in the company of those of their mighty ancestors at the very heart of the national shrine'. Now I don't know who wrote this passage and its strange because years later in his book Recollections of a Westminster Antiquary', (1969), Tanner goes to great pains to explain that the conclusion of himself and Wright was a verdict of 'not proven'. In his book he said 'It will be noted that Prof Wright for convenience assumed that the bones were those of 'Edward' and 'Richard'. This was perhaps unfortunate for it has led some people to suppose that we definitely identified the bones with those of the princes. No such claim was made and I was, in fact,particularly careful in the paper which we read before the Society of Antiquities to make no such identification, and to adopt a cautious and 'not proven' attitude throughout'.

Touching on the trial again, many people assume that both Laurence Tanner and Prof William Wright had concluded that the bones in the urn were those of Edward and Richard.

In the book covering the trial is a quote from the 1935 report 'While the bones of Richard lll have long since disappeared, trampled into the common clay, those of the Princes, freed from all undignified associations, rest secure in the company of those of their mighty ancestors at the very heart of the national shrine'. Now I don't know who wrote this passage and its strange because years later in his book Recollections of a Westminster Antiquary', (1969), Tanner goes to great pains to explain that the conclusion of himself and Wright was a verdict of 'not proven'. In his book he said 'It will be noted that Prof Wright for convenience assumed that the bones were those of 'Edward' and 'Richard'. This was perhaps unfortunate for it has led some people to suppose that we definitely identified the bones with those of the princes. No such claim was made and I was, in fact,particularly careful in the paper which we read before the Society of Antiquities to make no such identification, and to adopt a cautious and 'not proven' attitude throughout'.

https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/recent-investigations-regarding-the-fate-of-the-princes-in-the-tower-by-l-e-tanner-and-william-wright-1933/

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 04 June 2017 18:38
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Tanner and Wright's report on the bones in the urn/Richard lll trial.

Touching on the trial again, many people assume that both Laurence Tanner and Prof William Wright had concluded that the bones in the urn were those of Edward and Richard.

In the book covering the trial is a quote from the 1935 report 'While the bones of Richard lll have long since disappeared, trampled into the common clay, those of the Princes, freed from all undignified associations, rest secure in the company of those of their mighty ancestors at the very heart of the national shrine'. Now I don't know who wrote this passage and its strange because years later in his book Recollections of a Westminster Antiquary', (1969), Tanner goes to great pains to explain that the conclusion of himself and Wright was a verdict of 'not proven'. In his book he said 'It will be noted that Prof Wright for convenience assumed that the bones were those of 'Edward' and 'Richard'. This was perhaps unfortunate for it has led some people to suppose that we definitely identified the bones with those of the princes. No such claim was made and I was, in fact,particularly careful in the paper which we read before the Society of Antiquities to make no such identification, and to adopt a cautious and 'not proven' attitude throughout'.

Romanemio I have read that article but not recently. I will read it again.thank you.

If, as the evidence suggests, Richard hid his nephews for their own safety, he is most unlikely to have announced their new location when faced with a rumour of their deaths.

M&B also have an article on Charles II’s position just before the bones turned up.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of romanenemo
Sent: 05 June 2017 08:57
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Tanner and Wright's report on the bones in the urn/Richard lll trial.

Thank you very much Stephen. I'll try to find that article from Helen Maurer. I wonder what interest Charles II could have had in faking the discovery of the remains of the two princes, but it could be another piece of the puzzle. Besides, even if the discovery was genuine, it doesn't mean of course that these children were the princes. From what I read elsewhere, these skeletons are not the only ones that were found under the floor or inside the walls of the Tower... creepy !

Let's hope that within a few years, the ecclesiastic authorities will change their mind about further investigations.

The results of course would be important, for if the bones are not those of the princes, they could have died elsewhere than in the tower. But IMHO, they were dead in 1583. If not, why wouldn't Richard have put a stop to the rumors of their death by showing them alive ?

From what I read in Horspool's book, many men who had remained faithful to Edward IV deserted Richard's cause and associated with the Lancastrians to support Henry. Considering how weak was Henry's claim to the throne, the reason must have been that these people didn't believe that the princes were bastards and were outraged at the idea that they had been murdered. It was of vital importance for Richard to show the children alive.Murdering children, especially kin, was not better accepted in the Middle Age than nowadays. If Richard didn't produce the children, it has to be because he couldn't.

If, as the evidence suggests, Richard hid his nephews for their own safety, he is most unlikely to have announced their new location when faced with a rumour of their deaths.

M&B also have an article on Charles II's position just before the bones turned up.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of romanenemo
Sent: 05 June 2017 08:57
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Tanner and Wright's report on the bones in the urn/Richard lll trial.

Thank you very much Stephen. I'll try to find that article from Helen Maurer. I wonder what interest Charles II could have had in faking the discovery of the remains of the two princes, but it could be another piece of the puzzle. Besides, even if the discovery was genuine, it doesn't mean of course that these children were the princes. From what I read elsewhere, these skeletons are not the only ones that were found under the floor or inside the walls of the Tower... creepy !

Let's hope that within a few years, the ecclesiastic authorities will change their mind about further investigations.

The results of course would be important, for if the bones are not those of the princes, they could have died elsewhere than in the tower. But IMHO, they were dead in 1583. If not, why wouldn't Richard have put a stop to the rumors of their death by showing them alive ?

From what I read in Horspool's book, many men who had remained faithful to Edward IV deserted Richard's cause and associated with the Lancastrians to support Henry. Considering how weak was Henry's claim to the throne, the reason must have been that these people didn't believe that the princes were bastards and were outraged at the idea that they had been murdered. It was of vital importance for Richard to show the children alive.Murdering children, especially kin, was not better accepted in the Middle Age than nowadays. If Richard didn't produce the children, it has to be because he couldn't.

I completely agree that Richard can't have killed his nephews, else both Henry and Elizabeth would have accused him after Bothworth. And I'm perfectly convinced that Henry would have gone as far as to present doctored evidences if he'd had the possibility to do so. That he didn't tends to suggest that he himself didn't know exactly what had happened to the children, if they were dead of alive.

It is not true that Henry never accused Richard of killing the Princes. Although the statements are not in the kind of language you would expect today. I am sure I will be corrected if I have it wrong, but there are two instances - - unnatural homicide - shedding infants' blood
RegardsDavid
On 6 Jun 2017 1:58 p.m., romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

I completely agree that Richard can't have killed his nephews, else both Henry and Elizabeth would have accused him after Bothworth. And I'm perfectly convinced that Henry would have gone as far as to present doctored evidences if he'd had the possibility to do so. That he didn't tends to suggest that he himself didn't know exactly what had happened to the children, if they were dead of alive.

    romanenemo wrote: Thank you very much, Hilary. I posted that, and then I thought that these people 'loyal to Edward IV' who deserted Richard, according to Horspool, might well be of the Woodville faction. And that's what P. Kendal says. But neither of them provides a more detailed account, such as the names and the connections of the rebels. I didn't really have the means of checking that point. That's why I'm glad I have the opportunity to discuss with people like you, who have studied the question for a long time. These books, even written by scholars, are general audience books and they are never as detailed as I'd like them to be.   Doug here: FWIW, perhaps the failure to include the names of those Edwardian defectors may have been because everyone knew Richard had been deserted by many of his brother's supporters? Which would a shocking lapse in standards for the writing of history, but that wouldn't be the first time something such as that has occurred in regards to Richard and the events of 1483-85.   romanenemo continued: Anyway, it would have been very important for Richard to prove that the children were alive, if he'd been able to do so, because the children being alive would have made Henry's claim far less convincing without his pledge to marry Elizabeth as Edward's only remaining heiress. And it would have deprived him of the Woodvil le supports. So if Richard didn't show the children alive, it must have been that he couldn't ?   Doug here: To the best of my knowledge, Tudor's original pledge to marry EoY wasn't based on her being the oldest surviving child of Edward IV, but on the fact that she was the eldest female heiress of Edward IV; it was only later that Tudor claimed EoY's brothers were dead. Of course Tudor couldn't have sworn to marry Edward or Richard, what with them being the same sex as himself, so his only option to legitimize his own dynastic claim and bring over supporters of Edward IV/Woodvilles was to pledge to marry EoY. And even then, Tudor based his claim on the throne on that of conquest and not of descent  most likely because he knew that, legitimate or not, EoY had a better claim to the throne than he! As for those rumors, we need to remember that, if the rumors were so widespread, why are there only one or two contemporary references to the boys' deaths? While Edward and Richard were lodged in the Tower, whether the Royal apartments or a more secure, inner spot, there was nothing to prevent anyone who'd heard the rumors from going and seeing for himself that the boys were still alive and well. The Tower wasn't, as today, off-limits to the average person; tradesmen, workers, the people who actually lived on the Tower grounds, were all continually coming and going. Even if the inquirer didn't want to go through official channels and alert the authorities of his wish to see for himself that the boys were still alive, there would have plenty of opportunity to grease a palm or two and enter as part of a group of tradesmen or workers. Or even engineer an invitation from someone of those who lived on the Tower grounds. It seems to me that those rumors are nothing more or less than the usual gossip that circulated through-out those who lived outside of the capital; something on the order of What's the latest from London? Well, so-and-so was caught by his wife with whats-her-name  finally! Oh, and BTW, Edward and Richard haven't been seen for a while and there's a rumor they're dead. Or the 15th century equivalent. IOW, Richard didn't need to show that the boys were alive because there were plenty of people, covering all social classes, who knew they were. The only reason for any emphasis on the rumors was that, after Bosworth, the fate of the boys again became of national interest  and especially to Henry Tudor.   romanenemo concluded: Of course, the ones who base on that their conclusion that Richard killed them ignore some other questions, such as the absence of that particular accusation in the Act of Attainder. According to what I read, this Act only accused Richard in a very general way, of 'the shedding of infant blood', with no explicit reference to the princes, as if Henry didn't dare to go that far. And as if he himself didn't know what had happened to the children. Maybe they died of illness, or during a journey to Burgundy, or murdered by Buckingham. In any of these cases, Richard would have been all the more accused to have killed them, so he was forced to let people talk and could not clarify the situation.   Doug here: It's only my opinion, but I tend to think that phrase shedding of infants' blood does refer to Edward and Richard and was very carefully crafted. To begin with, there's that very emotive word infants', suggesting a very young child, even though Edward was 12 in 1483 and Richard was 10. They weren't teens, let alone adults, but neither were they infants. Notice also there's no mention of the boys' names. Tudor, even more than Richard, wanted the boys to be forgotten; in Richard's case it was to forestall any further rebellions to return Edward V to the throne, and in Tudor's case it was because his repeal of Titulus Regius reversed the official position that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were illegitimate. IOW, while Henry could claim the throne by right of conquest; if the boys were alive, then they were the legitimate heirs of Edward IV, not Elizabeth of York and a deadly threat to his continued possession of the throne. Had the boys, either or both, died of any illness while in Richard's care, there was no reason for Richard not to publicly declare them dead, display their bodies and give them a proper funeral; the failure to do the latter was, I believe, a sin. The same reasoning applies to the boys having died through some plot by Buckingham, there was no reason for Richard to not acknowledge the deaths, place the blame where it belonged, on Buckingham, and move on. If any death/s had occurred, and under such circumstances as to not have any body/ies to provide verification the boys were dead, there'd still have been no reason for Richard to not have had masses said for his nephews. After all, if, say, they'd died en route to Flanders, he hadn't killed them, and had, in fact, been attempting to secure their safety. Again, there'd be no need not to have the proper ceremonies carried out. To sum up then, we have no idea of wide-spread any rumors about the fates of Edward and Richard were and, in fact, have only two or three (semi)contemporary references to their having been killed. Their fates may have been the constant talk of everyone not in earshot of Richard  but I seriously doubt it and it's more likely any talk of their fate was limited, off-hand and not taken any more seriously than any other bit of gossip concerning a medieval monarch. It was only when Tudor got the throne that the fate of the boys became, literally, a life-or-death matter to the throne's occupant. Doug      
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Wow, you make some very good points, Doug. It made me see better how many different perspective one can have.

Wow, you make some very good points, Doug. It made me see better how many different perspective one can have.

Well, as far as I know, King John has a vey bad image in public memory. But you're right, strangely it's not because of what he actually did to young Arthur, but because of the legend of Robin Hood and its many adaptations, until the hilarious one by Disney.

Into all of this let me throw the other King accused of murdering the rightful heir, which in the case of Arthur of Brittany and King John was correct, as Arthur was not a bastard and the son of John's older brother. In spite of there being eye witness testimony saying John had actually killed Arthur himself, there was no great outcry. Some say because Arthur was a child and therefore an adult king was a better prospect, or that his mother Constance was so unpopular people were pleased to see her completely out of the picture. Echoes of that with EW.Now John hung onto his throne, in spite of the overly powerful legend of the Magna Carta, which was dead in the water only a few weeks after John signed it, and the enmity of the French king Philippe Augustus, whose military prowess was so much more than John could muster. Administratively speaking John was a genius, instituting the form of Royal government that became the civil service, ensuring laws were implemented and justice secured for the many. But from the military point of view he was a disaster, losing most of the Angevin empire in a a few short years, the empire built up by his father Henry 2.  And this was what angered people and built up such an opposition, not that he has taken the throne of á younger heir, one he actually had killed, not that rumour only accused him of killing. And the irony was that when John died his son succeeded him at the tender age of nine, and nobody attempted to take his place or question his rights. Mind you Henry III  had the amazing William the Marshall at his side, the most fiercely loyal supporter of the Angevin dynasty throughout his  life. Amazes me he is not better known, and that no film has ever been made about the life of this extraordinary man. But that apart, were attitudes so different three hundred years later about the killing of the young heir that supposed rumours during Richard's reign could have such, we are told, a big effect on loyalties? I even doubt that rumours were that prevalent, though of course the child king deposed by lords and commons, not robbed of his rights as John robbed Arthur, had not been foreign, and Society not so dominated by baronial power as at the time of King John's accession. Primogeniture had also not been totally established, and the English royal family was in fact French! Why do people not get into such a state about the witnessed murder of Arthur as they do about the 'supposed' and unwitnessed, only possible deaths of the sons of Edward IV? Though like I think Doug said, Warbeck to me probably was Richard of York.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 6 juin 2017 à 19:27, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> a écrit :

 

Wow, you make some very good points, Doug. It made me see better how many different perspective one can have.

Well, as far as I know, King John has a vey bad image in public memory. But you're right, strangely it's not because of what he actually did to young Arthur, but because of the legend of Robin Hood and its many adaptations, until the hilarious one by Disney.

Not only that, but Richard I ordered the slaughter 2700 muslim prisoners after the siege of Acre. And in France, to keep his possessions and carry on his many wars against some of his vassals or other lords, he relied strongly on the services of a man called Mercadier, leader of an army of cutthroats, who any time he took a city used to butcher the entire population, including the children, and had the habit of skinning his prisoners alive. Pope Innocent III said in a letter that the man had been sent on earth by 'the enemy of human kind", and considering the usual exploits of the warriors of the time, that says something. Yet the so-called Lionheart considered him a good servant, almost a friend, and rewarded him many times, especially with lands, for his deeds. Of course, the victims of Richard I's excesses were only infidels and french peasants or burghers, but that's not enough to explain why they are completely forgotten and why he has such a good image in public memory : as for our Richard, but in reverse, fictions, not facts, are what determined his reputation. Richard III was unfortunate enough to interest Shakespeare. Richard I benefited from Robin Hood's legend.
But I wouldn't say that the fate of Richard's would only be a footnote, even if he'd had the reign his promising beginnings allow to suppose.  Child murder had always been considered as the most horrible crime. Arthur, at least, was 16, he'd just reached adulthood for the people of the time. Richard of York was only 9. If I thought that Richard had killed his nephew, I'd thought his black reputation well deserved.

I'm interested in Richard for many reasons. Before his accession to the throne, some aspects of his life look like a chivalry novel : his unwavering loyalty to Edward that led him to share his fate even in exile,  and his rescuing of Anne Neville, in particular. This a material for a novelist. But the few glimpses we can get of his personality, his ideals, are very commendable as well. Whether as Lord of the North or as king, he seems to have been a very fair ruler, concerned by justice, especially for the commoners.And there is that extraordinary slandering campagne, from the "rumors" during his reign, to what was built up under the Tudors. Historians say it's not possible to speak about Tudor propaganda. But what is Polydore Vergil's 'Anglica Historia' then ?
Yet there are things that bother me about what he did to take the throne. I believe that the pre-contract actually existed. What happened to Stilington on several occasions, in particular, is a strong clue. But were the Woodville such a threat that Richard had to execute Anthony Woodville, who seemed a rather harmless fellow ? And what about Hasting's execution, without even a trial ? We seem to know so little about the conspiration he's supposed to have led. No wonder some people think that his only crime was to be faithful to Edward IV. 


---In @ yahoogroups.com, <bale.paul-trevor@...> wrote :

Yes, the Lionheart was the one only interested in the taxes he could get from the English so he could go on crusade, hardly spent any time in his kingdom, and left the running of the country to his deputies, Lanfranc being one of them. Arthur depart John' s réputation has a lot to do with his arguments with the pope, and the fact that most of the chronicles were written by churchmen. Biased by any chance? John actually threatened to turn England to Islam if he didn't get his way in one argument with the papacy! Don't you love history?But it always surprises me he doesn't get more stick over Arthur.Poor Richard. Had he survived and had the long and enlightened reign he would have had, the fate of the sons of Edward IV would be but a footnote. But then it would not be a mystery.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 7 juin 2017 à 10:56, romanenemo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> a écrit :

 

Well, as far as I know, King John has a vey bad image in public memory. But you're right, strangely it's not because of what he actually did to young Arthur, but because of the legend of Robin Hood and its many adaptations, until the hilarious one by Disney.

Not only that, but Richard I ordered the slaughter 2700 muslim prisoners after the siege of Acre. And in France, to keep his possessions and carry on his many wars against some of his vassals or other lords, he relied strongly on the services of a man called Mercadier, leader of an army of cutthroats, who any time he took a city used to butcher the entire population, including the children, and had the habit of skinning his prisoners alive. Pope Innocent III said in a letter that the man had been sent on earth by 'the enemy of human kind", and considering the usual exploits of the warriors of the time, that says something. Yet the so-called Lionheart considered him a good servant, almost a friend, and rewarded him many times, especially with lands, for his deeds. Of course, the victims of Richard I's excesses were only infidels and french peasants or burghers, but that's not enough to explain why they are completely forgotten and why he has such a good image in public memory : as for our Richard, but in reverse, fictions, not facts, are what determined his reputation. Richard III was unfortunate enough to interest Shakespeare. Richard I benefited from Robin Hood's legend.

Well, as far as I know, King John has a vey bad image in public memory. But you're right, strangely it's not because of what he actually did to young Arthur, but because of the legend of Robin Hood and its many adaptations, until the hilarious one by Disney.

I agree that the Woodville were plotting, it's just that Anthony didn't seem to be the worse of the lot. Richard forgave many plotters, too many sometimes. I don't really understand why Anthony and Richard Woodville were executed, whereas they were already in prison and thus couldn't have taken part in Hasting's plot, whereas Stanley was set free shortly after.
As for Hasting having a trial, I've absolutely no idea if it"s possible that he had one without any record of it. Do we have other examples for that time ? We don't really know what Hastings had done, either, to be treated that harshly, whereas he'd been Richard's comrade-in-arms, and politically as loyal to Edward IV as he'd been himself. But I wonder if Richard didn't have other reasons for being that merciless with him. For example, he might have already disliked him and held him responsible for his brother Edward's early death, because he encouraged his debauched way of life and led by example on that matter. He might have seen him somehow as a disloyal friend to Edward, for he had secured Edward's favor through dubious means. So when Hastings betrayed him, he was so angry he overreacted, then regretted it. But of course, this is only imagination. We don't know anything. I found that explanation in a novel.
Thank you for your advice, I'll try to find that book, it seems interesting. I hope the author quotes her sources, and gives some clue about their reliability. Too many history book for general audience don't do that.
Romane

---In @ yahoogroups.com, <maryfriend@...> wrote :

I don't think that the Woodvilles were innocent by any means. There is evidence to suppose that there was definitely a Woodville plot to stop Richard coming to London before Edward V was crowned. Edward IV had named Richard as Protector. Edward died on 9 April but no one sent north for Richard for several days. The Woodvilles took over the Council but Lord Hastings sent for Richard and told him to come with all haste and to bring 2000 men with him as the Woodvilles had 2000 men in their retinue bringing the young king to London.
There is a book written by Richard Collins which tries to discover how Edward died and the conclusion that he comes to is that Edward was poisoned by arsenic by the Woodvilles, because he was no longer the goose that laid the golden egg for them and also there was the problem of the pre-contract, which it is thought was the real reason for Clarence's execution.They would be in charge of the young Edward V if they could get him crowned before Richard reached London.
Whether or not they did kill Edward we will probably never know, however, evidence exists to show that on, I think, March the 8th 1483 Anthony Woodville, who was in charge of the household of Prince Edward at Ludlow, wrote to his agent Andrew Dymock to get confirmation of Woodville's right to to raise troops in Wales and also gave his right to be Deputy Constable of the Tower of London to his nephew the Marquis of Dorset. The Constable of the Tower was one Lord Dudley who was old and infirm and could not start an uprising against Edward and the Deputy Constable was Woodville who was miles away in Ludlow. That was how Edward ensured that the Tower couldn't be taken over by any disaffected subjects. However, the Marquis of Dorsett was capable and was in London. Also it was Edward's decision who should be Deputy Constable not Woodville's. Woodville then remained in Ludlow until 24th of April before he set off with the young king. Richard did not bring 2000 men with him from York, he only brought 300men and added to Buckingham's men they had 600 men in total against Woodvilles 2000. Woodville was arrested by Richard but he was not executed until after the plot on 13th of June which involved Hastings. As for the supposed fact that Hastings didn't have a trial there is absolutely no evidence to support this. Richard was Lord Constable and members of the Council were present at the Tower so it is very likely that Hastings did have a trial although no record exists.
I suggest that you read "The Maligned King" by Annette Carson to get a well researched view of what happened in 1483. Annette has also written a book about Richard as Lord Constable and Protector and that explains his role at the time. Elizabeth went in to sanctuary at Westminster Abbey taking a great deal of Edward's treasury with her and her brother Edward Woodville fled London and took some of the treasury with him. He then joined Henry Tudor and gave the money to him and this happened while his nephews were alive. The Woodvilles were definitely plotting in my opinion.
Mary

I agree that the Woodville were plotting, it's just that Anthony didn't seem to be the worse of the lot. Richard forgave many plotters, too many sometimes. I don't really understand why Anthony and Richard Woodville were executed, whereas they were already in prison and thus couldn't have taken part in Hasting's plot, whereas Stanley was set free shortly after.

I agree that the Woodville were plotting, it's just that Anthony didn't seem to be the worse of the lot. Richard forgave many plotters, too many sometimes. I don't really understand why Anthony and Richard Woodville were executed, whereas they were already in prison and thus couldn't have taken part in Hasting's plot, whereas Stanley was set free shortly after.