Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
8:14 am
February 24, 2012
Offline
Just to add one more name to the list of suspects….Margaret Beaufort. 
10:58 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
Yes I can see your point here. I got to thinking after I’d read your posting, that it is possible these 2 skeletons found under the stairs were perhaps 2 children who were perhaps helping with construction work and died as the result of an accident, it was said that these 2 skeletons bre signs of suffocation, so wouldn’t that suggest it’s possible that whilst constructing this stairway or repairing it perhaps part of it collapsed burying the 2 boys alive?. In which case this certainly Throws More’s theory out of the window, unless the history books including More’s theory was re written to make Richard look the bad year blimp in the years to come.
I can understand you reasoning about doubting Buckingham, after all like Richard he was the Prince’s Uncle, and he was fiercely loyal to Edward V1, so I couldn’t see how he would want to kill the Prince’s, Richard had a lot of enemies and to be honest and I think him usurping the throne was the straw that broke the camels back, even with Bosworth I don’t think Richard would have ruled for long, as his reign since 1483 had taken the form of putting down uprising upon uprising, I’m not saying he wasn’t a good King in his way he probably was but he wasn’t a very happy or stable one I don’t think. But that doesn’t make me think he would have murdered the Prince’s either, and I don’t think Henry did either, so taking my theory of Buckingham out of the equation, who does it leave? and when exactly did they die, and of what? It is possible that the caught a tertian fever and both died? and were buried as befitting their status, but even so surely it would have been said somewhere in the scant records kept at the Tower that the Princes died because of such and such? and why bury them with what I feel is indecent haste?
As for Richard marrying Elizabeth I agree with you there, I don’t think he had any intention whatsoever to marry her and mearly kept in court so she could be plotting with her mother to get arms and money for Henry’s cause perhaps. If Richard had remained on the throne I think he would have perhaps married either someone from the French courts or perhaps even one of KOA’s older sisters possibly Isabella DOB 1470 or perhaps Joanna.DOB 1479. Now there’s food for thought. I would think through personally it would have been a French bride Richard would have chosen as it would have cemented peace between the 2 countries. Although they were a little thin on the ground, so the only possible French bride would have been Anne of Brittany, which would have tied in just nicely as Henry Tudor was Sculking in Brittany, so if Richard had have married Anne, the Duke of Brittany would have had to have either turfed Henry out or handed him over to Richard . This purely speculation of course and please don’t take it as sancrosanct.
Maggyann The whole point about these forums is to discuss the issues of what we feel happened in times gone by, so I’m not miffed by you not agreeing with my suggestion about Buckingham killing the Princes, these forums are a place for us to throw ideas in a melting pot and see what happens, and I value each and every opinion whether I agree with them or not, it’s a place where like minded indivduals can share their thoughts and feelings with others who feel the same. These forum are for us to have lively debate about issue, and perhaps share our own issues, thoughts and to share a joke or 2 too. Not everyone likes History, Dinosaur is one of them, so at times till I discovered this forum I felt a little lonely with no one to throw my ideas at. I’ve made so wonderful freinds yourself included here, so please don’t feel I’m offended in anyway by your opinions.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
1:20 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Janet said
Just to add one more name to the list of suspects….Margaret Beaufort.
SWMNBN Threw this theory out in the Red Queen, Personally I think it would be highly unlikely.
I’ve just had another wild off the latch idea however, How about Jasper Tudor being the Prince’s killer he had a lot to gain by the boy’s deaths?
Uncle to the King of England, but I don’t think Katherine Woodville would have married him if she though he was behind the death’s of her nephews? An idea for you all to play with…
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
1:28 pm
February 24, 2012
Offline
My head hurts! 
11:43 am
June 5, 2010
Offline
Janet said
My head hurts!
Every time I try to work my way through this one I get a headache so I fully understand.
I’m just now having a chance to catch-up on all of the posts about this (the ones since mine), and all I can say is that this is why I love this forum. Whether you agree (or disagree) with the various speculations, they all make you think. As a crime scene tech, this sad story has always had me fascinated. I just wish we had enough actual clues to prove or disprove who all was involved in the boys’ disappearance and likely murders; to prove what exactly happened to them; to know the true identities of the bodies discovered at the Tower. I deal in current murders (and when I say current, we’re talking say 30 or 40 years where they’re full-blown cold cases and up through present day) and sometimes you wonder if our detectives will be able to sort it all out through the evidence collected, interviews, etc. Solving a 400+ year old cold case — *sigh* I wish. But boy does all of this makes me think.
Henry: Mistress Anne, will you teach the king of England how they dance in the French court?
Anne: There is nothing that France can teach England, your majesty.
King Henry VIII: Well said. Well said.
– Anne of the Thousand Days (1969)
3:55 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Janet said
My head hurts!
Your head hurts? How do you think mine feels? LOL. These forums are extremely lively you must admit, but then isn’t that what it’s all about here?
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
8:15 am
April 11, 2012
Offline
It is crucial to remember that Henry VII was in exile at the time of Richard’s accession and the princes’ murders. However, his mother was in England and very active in the politics of the war and extremely capable of murdering children to advance herself and her son. Margaret Beaufort was extremely aware, as well as very smart and calculating. She was also married into the Stafford family, and her relative the Duke of Buckingham was in cahoots with Elizabeth Woodville about rescuing the princes after their imprisonment. He very easily could have murdered the boys on Margaret’s orders during their attempted rescue mission and pretended that the situation was reverse and that Richard’s men killed them, therefore lifting the suspicion from Margaret and paving the way for Henry VII to take on Richard without the threat of Yorkist heirs.
Equally selfish, Elizabeth Woodville may have seen that her only opportunity to protect herself would be to ally herself with Margaret. Therefore, she may have given up hope for her sons and sought out her daughter Elizabeth’s marriage to Henry VII. She may not have directly had her sons murdered, but again, she and Margaret, as well as members of the Stafford family, were in contact during Richard’s reign and after the imprisonment of the princes.
The answers to the mystery of the princes do not lie in Perkin Warbeck, who was likely a political tool, just as Edward IV himself was under Richard Neville “The Kingmaker.” The answers lie with Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville, who surely knew the measures they would need to take to insure their power and position. Speculation over Perkin Warbeck is interesting, but only Elizabeth knew what had happened to her son Richard, or at least where she sent him. It would be much more productive to look further into her motives, or what we can gather from her actions at the time, to find answers. Margaret Beaufort was without doubt hell-bent on putting her son on the throne, but Elizabeth’s true ambition remains shady due to her inconsistent actions of selfishness and familial preservation.
8:38 am
May 7, 2010
Offline
Hello and what an interesting post.
I too am of the opinion that Elizabeth had a hand in the mystery surrounding her sons. I feel she knew there was no way they would ever be in a position to reclaim their rights. Her only way to keep some influence and power of a sort as well as see her daughters married well was to put her efforts into her daughter Elizabeth and the proposed marriage to Henry.
It is quite possible that she and Margaret colluded. They were both determined women, Elizabeth on a more selfish level than Margaret who was totally focused on her son. I don’t think they were particularly close or friendly but they may well have worked together.
Let us show them that they are hares and foxes trying to rule over dogs and wolves - Boudica addressing the tribes Circa AD60
10:10 am
February 24, 2012
Offline
Richard III has never struck me as a stupid person and he would have to have been rather stupid to have put the princes in the Tower and then have them murdered. It’s just a little tooo obvious. I think Margaret B had more reason to have them done away with. She wanted her Henry on that throne. Getting rid of the princes takes care of that little problem and at the same time makes Richard look like the bad guy. Good plan on her part.
11:45 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
If Margaret B and Elizabeth Woodville were in cahoots with each other, I rather think that the pair of them should hang by heels. Allowing the murder of 2 innocent little boys to pave the way for M.B son to take the throne etc. Makes me wonder what Elizabeth Woodville really thought about Edward 4th did she truly love him or was it just a way of her saving her family from Edward’s henchman (for want of a better word) After all her family were staunch Lancastians, before Edward clapped his eyes on Elizabeth, and it was only when Edward expressed an interest in her that the family turned their coat. M.B well there was never any doubt to where her heart lay, she was a Lancastian to the core, but even she turned her coat, well sort of when she was married to Henry Stafford and Thomas Stanley. For a time as well her husband was her jailor as Richard found out she was up to no good, and in order to keep Stanley where he could see him Richard held on to Thomas’s son as a hostage.
The War of the Roses was an extremely complex period of history, with more twists and turns than a tornado.
Whatever happened to the Princes I actually do find it difficult to accept that Elizabeth would actually be party to the murder of her sons or even contemplate such a thing. Elizabeth was a lot of things but even so would she be capable of committing the murder of 2 boys of her own flesh and blood in cold blood without so much as a backward glance?
M.B Well……..She might have had something to do with their disappearence, but she was a pious woman so again I find it difficult to believe that she would damn her immortal soul by commiting murder. But I suppose it’s is possible. She certainly had a lot to gain from the boy’s deaths, as there was no one to stand in the way of her son’s ambitions.
I actually wonder what would have happened if both Henry and Richard had died that day at Bosworth? Would Elizabeth of York became Queen instead?
It would have been an all out free for all battle royale with the crown going to the winner. Although the only possible candidate for King would be the Duke of Buckingham.
How did Elizabeth od York view the murder of her brothers? Did she just forget they existed and just got on with doing her duty by Henry, or did she do a bit of investigating for herself? I would be interested to learn her thoughts and feelings about the whole matter, and if her mother/mother in law did have something to do with the boy’s murders how did she view them?
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
12:13 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
I do not think that Richard or Henry knew about the plot to kill the boys. My theory is that Margaret wanted them gone and Buckingham obliged her. Now whether she ordered the deaths, I’m not sure. She was a devout Catholic; but from what I’ve seen of some of these people who claim to be devout and yet want to rule, on their way to the throne, murder is okay with them. As long as Margaret wasn’t the actual murderer, her hands were clean. I know Elizabeth may have conspired with Margaret behind Richard’s back to have her daughter Elizabeth marry Henry, but I can’t see her conspiring to murder her two sons. I would think she was hoping that if Henry married Elizabeth, there would be a chance her sons could be saved.
12:46 pm
May 7, 2010
Offline
In 1487 Elizabeth Woodville was on the orders of Henry VII sent off to live a life of seclusion at Bermondsey.
He had taken her into his court where she was acknowledged as the dowager Queen and treated well so why in 1487 did that change?
In 1487 Lambert Simnel appeared on the scene. I propose that when that happened and some people began to think of supporting him Elizabeth told Henry the truth about the Princes. He was a cold man apparently but not a monster. I think he was disgusted by her and so sent her off to the nunnery.
Let us show them that they are hares and foxes trying to rule over dogs and wolves - Boudica addressing the tribes Circa AD60
2:02 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Richard I believe wouldn’t have harmed the boys of his brother despite what his personal feelings were about Elizabeth of York, although I think he was responsible for putting them in the Tower, but not to do with anything more sinister but to protect them from their mother’s bad influence. As I said in another post I can actually see part of Richard’s reasoning in taking the throne from the boys, as the Wars of the Roses were kind of at unsteady and shaky peace but if anything did start up again (which it did of course) a 12 year old boy couldn’t realisitically lead and command an army into battle. and remember plenty of people hated the Woodville clan with a vengence, so theorectically Edward could have found himself in the middle of a battle ground all on his own with the wolves waiting to tear him to shreads. Richard was by far the safest option for England at this time, but not neccesarly the best option. Richard at least commanded respect and had proved his worth on the battlegrounds along side his father and his brothers.
I think that Richard would have seen to it that his nephews had the upbringing worthy of a prince of the realm, and given them titles worthy of their rank, but his first duty as King was to bring some much needed order and stability back to England.
I mentioned in another posting here, what about Jasper Tudor killing them. He had as much to gain as everyone else had, and no one would know how or why he got in and out so quickly. SWMNBN, in her book the Red queen wrote about a plot to rescue the boys by getting one of M.B lackeys to open the doors to allow them in etc of course that failed, but did it? perhaps the so called rescuers muffed up the whole rescue plan on purpose so to allow one of M.B minions in to kill the boys and then slip out and away before anyone noticed that the boys had been killed, and that wouldn’t be noticed until the next day when the servents went into the room the boys were and found them dead. No one could blame M.B as her maids would say quite truthfully that she was at prayer all night, Richard I believe was up North somewhere when the boys died so he can’t be accused of it. If the history books are right however it was one of Richard’s lackeys who did the deed not Richard.
Henry well he was in Brittany or was he? he could have just as easily snook into England did the deed and be back out to sea before anyone would know better or as I said Jasper the same way as Henry could have. Nobody actually knew what Henry looked like other than the fact he had red hair, well hooey hooey lots of people had red hair he would have just been another bloke with red hair walking around the Tower.
I know that when Henry did come to England prior to the battle of Bosworth he had a lot of trouble getting men to follow him as a lot of the Welsh men didn’t recognise him at all, so Henry’s army was a real rag tag bag of soliders mercenries and prisoners who would rather fight and die or go free if they lived through the battle/s then rot in a prison cell.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
2:08 pm
February 24, 2012
Offline
I just found an interesting bit on Richard III Society website.
“Once he was king, Henry made no attempt to investigate the rumours that the Princes were dead.” I find it odd that he wouldn’t want to find out what had happened to his wife’s brothers. Of course, if Richard was being painted as their murderer, perhaps Henry thought it best to leave well enough alone…..or perhaps he knew his mother was involved and didn’t want her implicated.
3:25 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Boleyn said
Richard I believe wouldn’t have harmed the boys of his brother despite what his personal feelings were about Elizabeth of York, although I think he was responsible for putting them in the Tower, but not to do with anything more sinister but to protect them from their mother’s bad influence. As I said in another post I can actually see part of Richard’s reasoning in taking the throne from the boys, as the Wars of the Roses were kind of at unsteady and shaky peace but if anything did start up again (which it did of course) a 12 year old boy couldn’t realisitically lead and command an army into battle. and remember plenty of people hated the Woodville clan with a vengence, so theorectically Edward could have found himself in the middle of a battle ground all on his own with the wolves waiting to tear him to shreads. Richard was by far the safest option for England at this time, but not neccesarly the best option. Richard at least commanded respect and had proved his worth on the battlegrounds along side his father and his brothers.
I think that Richard would have seen to it that his nephews had the upbringing worthy of a prince of the realm, and given them titles worthy of their rank, but his first duty as King was to bring some much needed order and stability back to England.
I mentioned in another posting here, what about Jasper Tudor killing them. He had as much to gain as everyone else had, and no one would know how or why he got in and out so quickly. SWMNBN, in her book the Red queen wrote about a plot to rescue the boys by getting one of M.B lackeys to open the doors to allow them in etc of course that failed, but did it? perhaps the so called rescuers muffed up the whole rescue plan on purpose so to allow one of M.B minions in to kill the boys and then slip out and away before anyone noticed that the boys had been killed, and that wouldn’t be noticed until the next day when the servents went into the room the boys were and found them dead. No one could blame M.B as her maids would say quite truthfully that she was at prayer all night, Richard I believe was up North somewhere when the boys died so he can’t be accused of it. If the history books are right however it was one of Richard’s lackeys who did the deed not Richard.
Henry well he was in Brittany or was he? he could have just as easily snook into England did the deed and be back out to sea before anyone would know better or as I said Jasper the same way as Henry could have. Nobody actually knew what Henry looked like other than the fact he had red hair, well hooey hooey lots of people had red hair he would have just been another bloke with red hair walking around the Tower.
I know that when Henry did come to England prior to the battle of Bosworth he had a lot of trouble getting men to follow him as a lot of the Welsh men didn’t recognise him at all, so Henry’s army was a real rag tag bag of soliders mercenries and prisoners who would rather fight and die or go free if they lived through the battle/s then rot in a prison cell.
I meant Elizabeth Woodville, not Elizabeth of York..
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
12:25 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Maggyann said
In 1487 Elizabeth Woodville was on the orders of Henry VII sent off to live a life of seclusion at Bermondsey.
He had taken her into his court where she was acknowledged as the dowager Queen and treated well so why in 1487 did that change?In 1487 Lambert Simnel appeared on the scene. I propose that when that happened and some people began to think of supporting him Elizabeth told Henry the truth about the Princes. He was a cold man apparently but not a monster. I think he was disgusted by her and so sent her off to the nunnery.
Here’s my thinking on this:
Henry may have sent Elizabeth away for several reasons. There are no reasons given for the move, so we can speculate. She may have made the decision on her own, but I doubt this. Elizabeth was a strong and willfull woman. So was Margaret Beaufort. I think there was a lot of animosity between them once Henry took the crown. Elizabeth thought her daughter was being overshadowed by MB. And she was. EW was upset that her daughter was not yet crowned. She thought her daughter was ‘not advanced, but depressed.’ I wouldn’t put it past MB to have Henry remove Elizabeth. Or Henry decided one of these two termagents had to go and it was EW.
Another reason may have had to do with her possible involvement in the Simnel ie Edward Earl of Warwick, conspiracy. There doesn’t seem to be any record that would put her in the conspiracy. There were so many Royals/nobles who were in this conspiracy, that it is entirely possible EW was also. She was moved to the Abbey in February of 1487 directly after the disturbance with Simnel began. In November of that year Henry was considering marriage between her, her two daughters and James III of Scotland and his sons.
Henry and EW remained on friendly terms and she was invited to court occasionally. In 1490 he gave her a money grant of 50 marks for Christmas. She was allowed to court to visit with a kinsman of hers. She saw her daughter and her grandchildren. She was visited by her Dorset sons at the Abbey. She died in 1492. It was after the Simnel uprising was stopped that Henry’s friendliness towards Elizabeth changed.
8:41 pm
April 11, 2012
Offline
Maggyann said
In 1487 Elizabeth Woodville was on the orders of Henry VII sent off to live a life of seclusion at Bermondsey.
He had taken her into his court where she was acknowledged as the dowager Queen and treated well so why in 1487 did that change?In 1487 Lambert Simnel appeared on the scene. I propose that when that happened and some people began to think of supporting him Elizabeth told Henry the truth about the Princes. He was a cold man apparently but not a monster. I think he was disgusted by her and so sent her off to the nunnery.
Elizabeth Woodville was most likely sent to a nunnery at Margaret Beaufort’s behest because Margaret did not want any rivals. While Henry was the king, Margaret was most certainly behind most of the operations at court.
9:02 pm
May 7, 2010
Offline
I agree Margaret would have been a bit of a power at court but I really don’t think once he was King that Henry would be dictated to her no matter how much he respected her. Let her lord it over Elizabeth his wife yes but tell him what to do? Well that doesn’t sit well to my mind.
Let us show them that they are hares and foxes trying to rule over dogs and wolves - Boudica addressing the tribes Circa AD60
10:26 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Maggyann said
I agree Margaret would have been a bit of a power at court but I really don’t think once he was King that Henry would be dictated to her no matter how much he respected her. Let her lord it over Elizabeth his wife yes but tell him what to do? Well that doesn’t sit well to my mind.
I agree Maggy on this one. M.B was happy just be my lady the king’s mother, she did indeed hold a lot of power over the females of the court, but I think that is a far as her power went, she may have perhaps voiced an opinion to Henry, about how she would do things, but ultimetly it was Henry decision that was relied and acted upon by his lackey’s. I think she also had a lot of say in how the Royal Nursery should be governed, and she certainly ruled the Childbirth Chambers. Under her strict guideline the birth chamber was to be completly dark, save for one tiny window which was to allow for a little bit of light presumably so the ladies in the chamber with Elizabeth of York could see to sew and perhaps to allow for a little air too. The braziers were to be kept burning day and night even if it was a blazing hot summer, and that the walls were to be hung with only religious images such and Mary Mother of God, the Apostles and perhaps the odd Angel or Chereb too. There was to be a cross at all time visiale in front of the bed, and a Rosary, ever present in the hands of the soon to be mother. When giving birth you mustn’t cry out as it would invite demons to enter the child, in short you must bear your pains and simply keep quietly praying and asking Mary mother of God to help you to bear the child safely and smoothly. Once the child was born he/she was given over to the care of the wetnurse and rockers etc,.. ant the mother saw very little of the child after that, The mother must be confined to bed for a further 6 weeks, then she would be churched and be allowed to leave the birth Chamber and resume her role of being Queen, or as in the case of Elizabeth of York trying to be Queen.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
