Skip to main content

View Diary: Richard III’s Body Found? (310 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I consider Buckingham may have (8+ / 0-)

    done it, but wiki asks for whom did he do it?

    Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham was Richard's right-hand man and sought personal advantage through the new king. Some, notably Paul Murray Kendall, regard Buckingham as the likeliest suspect: his execution, after he had rebelled against Richard in October 1483, might signify that he and the king had fallen out because Buckingham had taken it on himself for whatever reason to dispose of Richard's rival claimants; alternatively, he could have been acting on behalf of Henry Tudor (later to become King Henry VII).

    On the other hand, if Buckingham were guilty he could equally well have been acting on Richard's orders, with his rebellion coming after he became dissatisfied with Richard's treatment of him. As a descendant of Edward III, through John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster and Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester, Buckingham may have hoped to accede to the throne himself in due course. Buckingham's guilt depends on the princes having already been dead by October 1483, since he was executed the following month.

    In the 1980s, within the archives of the College of Arms in London, further documentation was discovered which states that the murder was conducted "be (by) the vise of the Duke of Buckingham". Another reference, surfacing this time in the Portuguese archives, states that "...and after the passing away of king Edward in the year of 83, another one of his brothers, the Duke of Gloucester, had in his power the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, the young sons of the said king his brother, and turned them to the Duke of Buckingham, under whose custody the said Princes were starved to death."  However neither document states whether Buckingham acted for himself, on Richard's orders, or in collusion with the Tudor party.

    Join us at Bookflurries-Bookchat on Wednesday nights 8:00 PM EST

    by cfk on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 02:58:16 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Regardless of who killed the princes... (9+ / 0-)

      I count myself among the "Richard III revisionists", although the real revisionist was Shakespeare. (Despite that, "King Richard III" is still my favorite Shakespeare work.)

      However, since it was Richard who put the princes in the tower, that made him responsible for their safety. So, even if he didn't order their murder, he holds the ultimate responsibility for their deaths.

    •  Buckingham -- no, not without Richard's consent (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a gilas girl

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 04:24:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, without Richard's consent... maybe (5+ / 0-)

        Richard went off on a progress and Buckingham followed him a day or so later from London. They had a falling out and Buckingham rode off to start his own ill-fated rebellion, supposedly on behalf of Tudor.

        It seems to me that Buckingham may have hung back, killed the boys after Richard left, told Richard of the deed, then when Richard was angry rather than grateful, fled and rebelled in order to save his own skin.

        I'm not convinced that is the way it happened but I think it is a definite possibility.

        Frankly, the boys has to die once Richard seized the throne. I can see him being advised of that but resisting or mulling it over but not yet deciding and Buckingham, who had his own agenda of climbing the power ladder, making the decision for him, which would also benefit Buckingham by eliminating two of the only males in the world with a better claim to the throne then him (there weren't many left at that point).

        Possibly that seen goes the other way around. Richard has the boys killed, Buckingham finds out about it, argues with Richard then takes off and rebells. But if that is the case why would Richard let him go? If he has already killed Rivers, Hastings and now his nephews why would he hesitate to kill Buckingham who might reveal his secret? When you reverse the scenario I can see him not killing Buckingham because he knew the deed had to be done, but if he did then why not eliminate the potential problem Buckingham became?

        "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

        by Andrew C White on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 04:55:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think your second scenario more likely. Only (4+ / 0-)

          someone with the King's authorization would dare murder a king.  Henry VI for example was likely killed by Richard with Edward IV's consent.  Also, the story is that Edward Lancaster, Henry VI's son, was murdered by Edward, Gloucester, and Clarence after the Battle of Tewkesbury, and if he had been taken alive, I don't see how anyone else would have dared touch him.

          You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

          by Cartoon Peril on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 05:19:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think that is a good point (5+ / 0-)

            but I can also see a scenario such as Becket ("Will no one rid me of this meddling priest") in which Richard muses to Buckingham about the need for the boys to die which Buckingham then follows up on.

            I'm not at all convinced that is how it happens but I can't rule it out either. Buckingham was essentially second in power to Richard at the time. He may have felt he was empowered to do it.

            "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

            by Andrew C White on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 05:23:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  No way (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            citylights, Cartoon Peril

            would Richard "murder" anyone without Edward's consent and command.  My guess is Edward of Lancaster was killed on the battlefield, much as Richard III would himself be, years later - and that Edward also arranged for Henry VI to be quietly offed.  After all, he'd just been deposed - he wasn't going to risk it happening again.

            •  Richard may have killed Henry VI (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              At Edward IV's order. It was done while Henry was in the Tower of London after Edward won back the throne.

              Anne Neville's first husband, Eduard of Lancaster, Henry VI's son, was probably killed by the Duke of Clarence, brother to both Edward and Richard.

              Eduard of Lancaster, Le Fleur d'Anjou, is said to have claimed sanctuary in Tewkesbury Abbey and was dragged out by victorious Yorkists troops and slain.

      •  Possibly without Richard's consent... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Remember Henry II and Thomas a Beckett.

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 05:20:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site