Christian Forums

Hi everybody! 

I'm new in the forum, and looking forward to some interesting discussion.

Anybody into English History at all?  (I am fascinated by the Tudor Dynasty, especially Jane Gray, and Queen Elizabeth I)  But recently I have been reading about how Richard III came to power, specifically the accusations that he murdered the Princes in the Tower.

Anybody have any insight or discussion points, or even just opinion to share?

Quote from: dale1257 on Tue Oct 27, 2009 - 16:25:51
Hi everybody! 

I'm new in the forum, and looking forward to some interesting discussion.

Anybody into English History at all?  (I am fascinated by the Tudor Dynasty, especially Jane Gray, and Queen Elizabeth I)  But recently I have been reading about how Richard III came to power, specifically the accusations that he murdered the Princes in the Tower.

Anybody have any insight or discussion points, or even just opinion to share?

I read a fascinating book about this many years ago. It was The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daughter_of_Time

I have not read that particular book, but from the synopsis, I get that the basic point is that the idea that Richard III murdered the princes is just Tudor Propaganda.

Problem is that if you pay close attention, the idea that it is just Tudor Propganda just does not hold up.  Granted, the Tudor's clearly had no incentive to squash such rumors, and quite probably helped them along.  But the general belief that Richard murdered them (Edward and Richard) was around long before the Tudors came to power.  Many felt that he had done so before he (King Richard III) was killed, and Henry VII took the throne.

I am not an expert, but the reading I have done, primarily "The Princes in the Tower" by Alison Wier, and "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower" by A.J. Pollard (Pollard's is, in my opinion, the least pre disposed to a solution), although there is no 'undisputable evidence', at least not by today's standards, there is an avelanche of circumstantial evidence that points to Richard III as the murderer.

The reality is that the best evidence we have today is sketchy at best.  THe surviving letters, diaries, and general comments on the subject are largely 3rd party sources, (My source tells me...that kind of stuff), but they are all we have.  Yet, the writers of Croyland Chronicles, the Thomas Moore,  and  Mancini  were all in a position to have a very good idea of what really happened, yet none can really offer conclusive evidence.  The 'autopsy' if you can call it that, performed in 1964 (or was it 33.  I get the two mixed up) only somewhat verified that the skeletons found were in fact the right size, sex, and ages to be the Princes, but could not even verify that they had died a violent murderous death or were poisoned.  Point is that everything is speculative.  Problem is, that so far as I am aware, attempts to exhume the bodys and do a modern forensic examination, including DNA, which would tell us alot more have been refused.  Such examination would be able to show the age and sex of the skeletons, and possibly give a better indication of how they died.  Even that would not tell exactly who did, or had the deed, done.

From my own personal standpoint, I have read enough to believe that Richard III did kill, or have the Princes killed.  As a King who had basically taken the trhone, his survival and continuation of his reign basically depended on them, especially Edward, being dead.

Quote from: dale1257 on Sat Oct 31, 2009 - 18:20:52
I have not read that particular book, but from the synopsis, I get that the basic point is that the idea that Richard III murdered the princes is just Tudor Propaganda.

Problem is that if you pay close attention, the idea that it is just Tudor Propganda just does not hold up.  Granted, the Tudor's clearly had no incentive to squash such rumors, and quite probably helped them along.  But the general belief that Richard murdered them (Edward and Richard) was around long before the Tudors came to power.  Many felt that he had done so before he (King Richard III) was killed, and Henry VII took the throne.

I am not an expert, but the reading I have done, primarily "The Princes in the Tower" by Alison Wier, and "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower" by A.J. Pollard (Pollard's is, in my opinion, the least pre disposed to a solution), although there is no 'undisputable evidence', at least not by today's standards, there is an avelanche of circumstantial evidence that points to Richard III as the murderer.

The reality is that the best evidence we have today is sketchy at best.  THe surviving letters, diaries, and general comments on the subject are largely 3rd party sources, (My source tells me...that kind of stuff), but they are all we have.  Yet, the writers of Croyland Chronicles, the Thomas Moore,  and  Mancini  were all in a position to have a very good idea of what really happened, yet none can really offer conclusive evidence.  The 'autopsy' if you can call it that, performed in 1964 (or was it 33.  I get the two mixed up) only somewhat verified that the skeletons found were in fact the right size, sex, and ages to be the Princes, but could not even verify that they had died a violent murderous death or were poisoned.  Point is that everything is speculative.  Problem is, that so far as I am aware, attempts to exhume the bodys and do a modern forensic examination, including DNA, which would tell us alot more have been refused.  Such examination would be able to show the age and sex of the skeletons, and possibly give a better indication of how they died.  Even that would not tell exactly who did, or had the deed, done.

From my own personal standpoint, I have read enough to believe that Richard III did kill, or have the Princes killed.  As a King who had basically taken the trhone, his survival and continuation of his reign basically depended on them, especially Edward, being dead.

Very  true. We can only speculate. With such things nobody leaves a trail of documents and evidence and later commentators will have their own spin to put on what they have heard.

My English history professor (brilliant guy, Georgetown degree, grad work in England), alluded that Rich III probably was responsible for the Tower deaths.

I read both Pollard's and Weir's books (and a little more, though these were the main two) when I was in college, and cama away convinced that Richard was the culprit, in spite of historians trying to sell a few books by blaming Henry Tudor.  There's just too much evidence, from the location of the bodies matching contemporary accounts to the rumor spreading that Richard had killed the princes even before Henry came to town.

I don't have a degree, but I was born in Warwichshire.

Lots of people who were killed over the ages all the time, it would be par for the course for Richard to have purged. Lizzy did, Henry did. There were countless civil wars and skirmishes over the centuries. It wouldn't have caused a ripple with the common folk. They weren't involved other than being pressed into service. Press gangs were everywhere.

The common people kept a low low profile in those days.

Why do you think people wanted to bug out to the new world?

That's really what I got from Pollard's book; this was a pretty normal thing.  I always remember the story of the man who was tortured for publishing an anti-Richard pamphlet by having his intestines removed while he was alive (the Shawnees used to do that around here as well) who, when his tormenters reached into pluck out his still-beating heart, said, "What, more trouble?"