Skip to main content

View Diary: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower (w/poll) (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They were dead by the fall of 1483 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2

    and only Richard could have authorized their murder.  Buckingham may have had a hand in it, but not independent of Richard.

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

    by Cartoon Peril on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 07:04:57 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  There is certainty (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cartoon Peril, mayim, tardis10

      that they were dead by the fall of 1483. It appears to be the most likely time frame but there is no way to make that claim with certainty.

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

      by Andrew C White on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 07:14:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  title line should contain "no" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mayim, tardis10

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

        by Andrew C White on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 07:15:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I have found no evidence they were alive (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Andrew C White, dotsright

        afterwards, and it seems that by that time all the key players regarded them as dead.  It's very unlikely that Elizabeth Woodville would have consented to marry her eldest daughter to Henry Tudor unless she believed her sons were dead.  Also, while did not get into this level of detail, by 1484, foreign sources were also viewing the princes as dead.  

        Given the precedents of Edward II, Richard II, and Henry VI, it seems quite unlikely that any recently deposed King could have long survived deposition.  Henry VI was only kept alive after he fell into Yorkist custody in 1465 because the Lancastrian heir, Edward Westminster, was overseas and outside of the Yorkist reach.  When at Battle of Tewksbury, in 1471, Edward Westminster was killed, his father was permitted to live only a few days longer, and was secretly murdered by the Yorkists.

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

        by Cartoon Peril on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 07:46:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  who said (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cartoon Peril

      he had to authorize it? It could have been done by someone trying to 'help'.

      (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

      by PJEvans on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 07:30:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh come now! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cartoon Peril, TheOtherMaven

      I got him off in my first trial in my college Shakespeare class. No reliable history is extant because the Tudors and Lancasters killed of all friendly sources to Richard! You either accepted that "history" or you were a traitor! And Henry the VII was a miserable man. He had the Star Chamber and he was an usurper after all.

      Shakespeare wrote a wonderful play and did a great villain in his vision of Richard, but his patron was Elizabeth I and he was no dope!

      In our sleep,pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes understanding through the awful grace of God RFK

      by vcmvo2 on Sun Jan 30, 2011 at 12:21:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Au contraire, we have Croyland, Mancini, and (0+ / 0-)

        Commines, the last two not even English.  Commines really has to be read, in terms a fully realistic appraisal of the diplomatic and espionage situation in Europe.  The translation I read was very modern, very precise.

        My position is really that the Princes were dead by the fall of 1483, that they did not die of natural causes, and tht they could not have been killed without the authority of Richard.  That doesn't excuse Buckingham, whose role in this whole affair remains suspicious.

        It is possible that the princes were killed in a failed rescue scenario, but there is no evidence of that.  

        Also, Henry Tudor certainly had a motive to bump them off, but it seems unlikely that Elizabeth Woodville would have consented to have him marry her daughter if that were the case.  Also, there has to be some evidence they were alive in August 1485, and this I have not seen.

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

        by Cartoon Peril on Sun Jan 30, 2011 at 02:00:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (150)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Culture (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • International (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site