Boleyn said
I have to ask why Stilington waited till Edward was dead before opening his mouth too.

It does all seem a little ‘convenient’…a bit like Henry 8th’s selective reading of Leviticus (in a way).

I wonder if Edward did go a form of marriage with Eleanor Butler. A morganic marriage.
In the context of royalty, a morganatic marriage is a marriage between people of unequal social rank, which prevents the passage of the husband’s titles and privileges to the wife and any children born of the marriage. Now rare, it is also known as a left-handed marriage because in the wedding ceremony the groom traditionally held his bride’s right hand with his left hand instead of his right.

Generally, this is a marriage between a man of high birth (such as from a reigning, deposed or mediatised dynasty) and a woman of lesser status (such as a daughter of a low-ranked noble family or a commoner). Usually, neither the bride nor any children of the marriage has a claim on the bridegroom’s succession rights, titles, precedence, or entailed property. The children are considered legitimate for all other purposes and the prohibition against bigamy applies. It is also theoretically possible for a woman to marry a man of lower rank morganatically.

In which case E.W and Edward’s marriage was legal, There are rumours that Eleanor did have a child by Edward, but I can’t say if this is true or not, but supposing it was it would mean that, that child would be the next in line, not Richard. If true there was a child what happened to him/her? That taking of course if Eleanor’s marriage to Edward was a true one to start with.
I’m inclined to think it was a morganic marriage rather than a true marriage.
E.W married Edward in 1464. Eleanor was possibly in the convent by then so again the marriage between E.W and Edward was legal right from the word go.
Stillington’s “confession” I think was just trying to gain power for himself. I can understand Richard’s view about the Woodville’s domination of the Boy King that was a big no no, and he Richard had grown up with the knowledge of boy kings Henry 6th was still a babe in arms when he came to the throne, and all his life he was told what to do and how to do it, not to mention being dominated by his French Harpy of a wife, so Richard certainly didn’t want that to happen again.
Personally I feel Richard has been slammed and villified as a murderer, usurper etc very unfairly. He was just trying to do what was best for England at the time. Although the York dynasty was firmly on the throne now, a boy King at this time would be a mistake. The wars of the Roses had cost England a lot of money, and England needed to rebuild it’s treasury etc. How could a boy king do that?
England needed a strong sword arm at the helm, not a child, who would little more than a puppet, with little or no voice of his own.
Richard was in my opinion the best man for that job at that time. As for the boys murderer? Gut reaction tells me that the Duke of Buckingham was responsible, whether he did it off his own back or on the orders of someone else I don’t know.

Thank you Bob

Is it just possible that Eleanor’s father agreed to letting a morganic marriage take place? Edward had pooled his lot with the Neville’s and what better way to secure that tie, than through marriage in whatever form? Edward knew that if he became King he would need to marry legally some princess or other, so he couldn’t marry Eleanor in the fullest sence of the word (for a start off a marriage between a commoner and a King or any nobility was considered a big no no. It was viewed I believe as disgusting) so a morganic marriage IMO opinion does seem likely here.
Does anyone know of the date that Eleanor entered the convent? and what happened to her alledged child?

AnnaKarenina said
Also, if he weren’t I believe he would have gone to great lengths to prove it. Ditto if the boys had died of natural causes. They showed HVI to the people after his death, I think he would have done the same if illness had befallen the boys….

i’ll say first off that, to me, little about the dissaperance of the two princes makes much in the way of logical sense regardless of who is to blame…

with regards to this bodies however, i think RIII could be something of a victim of timing or happenstance – if we accept that he had them killed with the intention of blaming some illness for their deaths, it could be that either the bodies were damaged in a way that meant that nobody who saw the bodies would believe they died of plague or whatever, or that public speculation on their whereabouts meant that nobody in Richards circle believed that the public would swallow the idea that they fell foul of some malady, regardless of how unmarked the bodies were.

it could be that they did die of natural causes, but that the rampant suspicion about Richards actions meant that publicly admitting to their deaths would have been politically disasterous, or indeed it could be that some underling had a ‘who will rid me of this turbulent preist..?’ moment and did Richard a ‘favour’ that Richard couldn’t punish, but couldn’t admit to either.

the accepted story of the two princes being killed in late summer 1483 and secretly buried by Richard makes no real sense from Richards point of view, or from the Tudors, or from Buckinghams. much as i think that conspiracy theories are for the hard of thinking, i’m very much coming to the view that our understanding of the events of 1483 (regardless of whether we blame or exonorate Richard..) is very seriously flawed – its like we’re missing the middle bit of the political jigsaw, so not disimilar to trying to understand the changes to the Labour Party between 1983 and 1997 while being unaware of the existance of Margeret Thatcher…

i personally think that the likelyhood of Tudor involvement in the deaths, assumming they happened in 1483, is miniscule – firstly, in 1483, the Tudors are nobodies: Richard is heathly, is 31 or so, he has a young wife and a legitimate son, he has a nephew, John de la Pole, who is in in early twenties, and Earl of Lincoln, and even after the death of the two princes, Henry Tudor is about 25th in line to the throne – as well as the fact that he’s virtually peniless, in exile, and having problems finding a safe place to live with Edward IV and Richard III’s ’embassies’ on the prowl looking for him.

in that situation, who is going to stick their neck out for an impoverished nobody with no battle experience living on the other side of the channel with only marginally more claim to the throne than the woman who cleans all the muck out of the stables?

even then, why was Richard never openly accused by the Tudors in their invasions of 1483 and 1485 of killing the princes – obvious smear tactic, yet never done, why? indeed if the Tudors were involved in the deaths (and we’re talking about the use of agents and allies, not JT swimming the channel and shinning up the Towers drainpies with a dagger between his teeth..), why were they never able to produce the bodies post-1485 when they were plagued by pretenders claimning to be the princes?

this, for me, is the clincher: Henry VII could really, really have done with the bodies both to denegrate RIII after his usurpation in 1485, and to prove that the pretenders who seriously destabilised the crown between 1487 and 1499 were not who they claimed. that he did not produce the bodies tells me that he, and Jasper Tudor, Margeret Beaufort and the Stanleys, did not know where they were – which is a pretty good indication that they didn’t do it.

AnnaKarenina said …I do have a question regarding the remains discovered in EIV and EW’s tomb: we’re those remains not thought to be the remains of their children who died young? A 14 year old girl and a 2-3 year old boy? Or am I mistaken?

my understanding – with all the caveats that implies – is that the records (church records, bills for funerals and burials etc..) have long told us that George Plantaganet and Mary Plantaganet were both buried in the Wolsey/Lady Chapel at Windsor and that coffins with those names enscribed were found in the Wolsey/Lady Chapel and then moved to the Edward IV/EW tomb in St Georges Chapel in 1813. thats great, the problem is that some 20 years previously work had been done on the EIV/EW tomb and two coffins, marked as George Plantgenet and Mary Plantaganet were found within that tomb – so there are four coffins of what should be two children, all in the EIV/EW tomb. nobody, apparently, thought this was odd…

however, the word of caution is that, to my knowledge, not only were the coffins not opened at the time, so no one knows who (ish) was inside them, but that uptil very recently, we have been very slap-dash about the physical traces of history, and recording the physical traces of history. it quite possible that the ‘four’ coffins are infact two coffins, but that the 1790 dig couldn’t even be bothered to record correctly which chapel they were working in.

this would not be unknown…

i know that in the 1990’s work was done on the Edward IV tomb and that considertion was given to addressing this anomaly, however it came to nothing, and i’m not even sure if they were able to confirm whether there were the four coffins in the tomb, let alone what was in the coffins…

The trouble is that over the years bodies have been shifted all over the place in Westminster Abbey, if memory serves Charles 1st’s coffin was found purely by accident so to speak, when whoever it was messing about in the Abbey was looking for James 1st body. Charles the poor sod as if beheading was enough for him was laid to rest with face ache (H.8)
Even the Great Elizabeth isn’t buried in the tomb that she was originally put in, her body was shifted in 1612, to lie with her sister Mary, so that James could bury his mother in Elizabeth’s original tomb. James 1st’s body by the way was found in with (H.7)
The Princes may well have been buried with their parents originally, but got shifted when the tomb was opened in 1790, to where? well that’s the mystery. These 2 missing coffins could be anywhere within the Abbey, it’s a big place. Wherever they were placed it wouldn’t have been too far from E.1V and E.W tomb.. I’m taking a wild stab here but were they perhaps reinterred in H8’s chapel?.

Exactly Jasmine.. There is no way in my opinion that the boys could have been buried that far down without some one noticing and especially since it was at the bottom of a used staircase. Plus 10 feet is a lot to dig out and where was the soil put from the hole (unless they dug another hole and put the soil down that one LOL) Even by todays standards a 10 foot hole would still take probably 2 days, given the modern equiptment. With a few shovels and men working in shifts to dig a hole that deep would most likely take months in those days. The tower was a thriving community on it’s own so anyone doing anything in the least bit dodgy would be asked what they are doing.. Personally I don’t think the Skeletons unearthed all those years ago are the boys. I think they are 2 boys that happened to be in the exact spot where more they said they would be, but from a much earlier period in time, and subsequently when the Tower was improved or rebuilt they just became part of the legend. They may even be from when the Saxon’s had a Mott and Bailey castle where the Tower now stands.
There were reports that Young Eddy wasn’t a well bunny during his time in the Tower and that the doctor, had to attend and give him some vile concoction to help him (I shudder to think what might have been in it) But here’s another possibilty for you? What if the Doctor inadvertely poisoned both boys? If he did have to attend them if they had gone down with some ague, he would have given them a concoction. Medicine was still being played with then, and the affects of some medicines weren’t fully understood. I believe Hemlock, and mandrake were quite commonly used in medicines, so what if whatever else was mixed with the base of these medicines somehow reacted with whatever else was put in there and bingo 2 dead boys…. I have mentioned before about the possiblity of a idea on where the boys were buried (loosely worded) The Tower people would have been iin deep mucky stuff if the boys had been found dead, and there could be a possibility that heads and hemipheres would roll big time. so to get rid of the bodies a bit sharpish would be a lot better. I.e chuck them in the moat, job done, and no one gets chopped up.

Good Question Jasmine, perhaps it was easier to impersonate Richard of Shrewsbury more easily that Edward V. Edward was heir apparant and as such would not have spent a lot of time in London, so very little was known about him, his likes and dislikes etc. Plus he would have his own intimate circle of servants etc, and many of them were still about at the time H7 claimed the throne, they would have known Young Eddy straight away.
Like you I did at first blame R3 for the boy’s deaths, amazing what a bit of Shakespearean properganda can do to the old psychy? (Bad spelling) But either way for hundreds of years R3 was held responsible. Now I’ve come to know R3 better, basically that hypothosis is crap… R3 had nothing to do with the boy’s deaths, he was held to blame purely because he was dead and therfore unable to defend himself against the allegations made against him. H7 was seen as a conquering Hero who floated into England like superman, and killed the evil child murdering villian and rescued the damsel in distress, again all properganda. Henry believed his right to the throne was legitimate and went for it simple as that. He got lucky at Bosworth, for I believe if Lord Stanley had declared for R3 it would have been H7 bones unearthed recently.. Also looking at it that way and that H7 died at Bosworth he would have been seen as a evil child murdering villian, etc…
The only thing R3 is guilty of is taking the throne from little Eddy, but IMO I can see his reasons to why, it had nothing to do with the boy’s legitmacy, it was to do purely with the fact that both boys were children, and TWOTR started because of H6 being a child and being governed by inappoipiate council. Children do not make good rulers, and at that time, given that England was still in a pickle over a few things a child on the throne, would be a disaster for England. It needed a strong York hand on the rudder of the Ship called England, not a boy who was still playing at being a soldier. R3 was simply the best man for that job.
I didn’t know about the jaw disease, interesting theory for sure, and yes I agree Eddy praying for deliverance because of fear does seem to suggest that he was afraid of what was going to happen to him now that he was no longer King, he would have no doubt been told that H6 was supposedly bopped on the head to get rid of him, when H6 was finally turfed off the throne. The very name of the Tower struck fear even to the most strong willed men and woman, which was exactly what William the conqueror intended to do when he built the place.. Subsequent Kings added to it, the most audaious King to add to it was H3 known as Henry the Builder. So with each new building Project the fear of the people for the place increased, so naturally I should imagine little Eddy was running short on underwear the longer he stayed there (In short he was weeing himself in fright)
I don’t know why I think this at all but I just guess it’s a gut reaction, but I strongly believe that the Duke of Buckingham was responsible for the boy’s deaths. again it’s the old Propaganda bit, stir up trouble for R3, Henry Tulip comes over from Brittany, the 2 armies meet at Bosworth and Buckingham sits back and lets them kill each other and then at the last moment jumps in stabs either R3 or Henry Tulip to death and takes the throne for himself. Just a mad idea of mine, not to be taken as sacrosanct.

The only way to prove the body at Eastwell (supposing that they find it and it has Richard’s Plantagenet DNA) is Richard of Shrewsbury is to find the female DNA he inherited from EW. If he has both, then he is Richard of Shrewsbury.

I have heard another theory – as Richard of Eastwell knew latin, some think he may have been a monk who had been thrown out of his monastery after the Reformation.