i often wondered about that – who would be so spectacularly stupid as to offer up their own child as a stand-in for another child who, it was judged, was at some risk..?

oddly, i’ve never seen that potential hole in the theory adressed. i wonder why that could be…

i’m given to understand that Alison Weir is one who supports Mortimers theory regarding Edward II, perhaps someone was discussing one of her books?

Investigation has recently revealed that the Tower and its grounds are directly over a Roman graveyard, so it’s possible that the bones found in 1674 buried 10 ft down under a stone staircase came from that site.

We have absolutely no evidence that the boys were killed, let alone that they died in the Tower. All that is known is that they were not seen in public after a certain date. Henry VII’s action show that he did not know what happened to them.

i often wondered about that – who would be so spectacularly stupid as to offer up their own child as a stand-in for another child who, it was judged, was at some risk..?

With this theory, I’ve always just assumed they found some homeless street orphans that no one would miss. Except other homeless street orphans.

Having watched the series and then doing further reading to get my head around the whole Roses conflict, one question that keeps popping up for me is this one:

How do the Ricardians justify Richard taking the throne? Cause he seems like a loyal man to Edward IV and surely being Lord Protector to his nephew was a good role, why did he feel he had the right to overthrow his nephew and claim to be King? Ignoring the bill that Parliament passed claiming the whole Woodville marriage was illegal, which was done on Richard’s request. The only answer I see is that Richard was actually power hungry (which goes against the Ricardians view that Richard was da bomb), just like George. He was just not so obvious with his desires.

I would echo Bob’s points. In addition, if you look at the timeline, everything proceeds on track for the coronation of E5, with a couple of postponements because the Woodvilles had set a very early date on the basis that once the boy was crowned, he would not need a Lord Protector, until something a bit like a bombshell occurred.

I would see this bombshell as the news of the pre-contract. I am strongly of the view that Richard believed the pre-contract issue was a true one and on that basis, he would see himself as having no choice but to assume the crown. My belief in the truthfulness of the pre-contract is confirmed by the way that H7 behaved over it. H7 did not bring Bishop Stillington (who was his prisoner after Bosworth) to Parliament to make him confess that the pre-contract was a false tale created simply in order for Richard to take the crown. No, he did not. He kept Stillington away from Parliament and ordered the Titulus Regius repealed and destroyed unread – brushing an inconvenient truth under the carpet springs to mind here – and it was never mentioned again.

There is absolutely no evidence for the traditional view of Richard that he schemed and plotted to take the crown from the time that H6 was removed, and yet that is still the view held by a lot of people.

Bill1978 said
…I’m still trying to work out exactly how the War Of The Roses started and why the Lancaster branch thought they were more entitled than the York branch and vice versa. And why some branches just didn’t get factored into it. I’m easily confused and led. LOL…

i think the simple answer to that is that is ‘they were the best/most powerful candidates available’ – Henry Bolingbroke was a full grown man, experienced, rich, and capable. Edmund Mortimer had a better geneological/legal claim to be Richard II’s heirs but the nobility sensibly decided that an 8yo child was not going to be able to provide the stability the country needed. the Lancastrians were, at this point, pretty close to the line of succession anyway – they aren’t the Tudors of 100 years later…

Thank you Jasmine, about the info to do with the tower, and yes it would give an possible explanation, about the bones found in 1674. To me it’s ridiculous that the Princes? bones would be found that deep, for a start off it would take months and months of digging and bracing the walls with wood to prevent cave in’s as well as having a some way of getting the men up and down such a large hole to even dig it. Plus if the Princes had died within the tower of either illness or murder, the person/s responsible would have wanted to have got rid of the bodies a bit quick, and digging a 10 foot hole would have drawn a fair bit of attention, the tower was a community all on it’s own within a big city if that makes sence.
Personally I think the Princes bodies were chucked in the moat, would seem to me a perfectly ideal solution, many questions of course, but the old Habeas Corpus rule would defend the person/s responsible. No body no charges.
The Bloody tower, named as such due to the acts of brutility/murder/mayhem carried out there is said to have got it’s name from the blood that ran down the walls when it rained, or something like that. I read some years ago that the explaination for it’s name was simplier than that.
It comes from the fact that when the tower was built, the mortar was mixed with the crushed up Roman tiles, that had been found. Would make sence to me, resources such as sand etc weren’t as plentiful as they are now and they would have had to make do with anything they could find, so the so called “Blood” running down the walls when it rained was nothing more than the colour of the Roman tiles leeching through.

As for R3 method’s to gain the throne. I believe he was just doing what he thought was best for the country at the time. Bishop Stillington evidence of a precontract/marriage of E4 and Eleanor Butler, just seems too convienant to be believed in my opinion. R3 knew the pit falls of a child king, and at that time England wa still pretty much in a pickle, what with one thing and another. R3 as it was practically spent his reign putting down one rebeliion after another and I believe he had been just regent for E5 the same situation would have existed, every big wig in the country trying to gain control of the E5. England needed a firm hand at the rudder R3 was that firm hand. I don’t agree with how and what methods he used to take the throne, but I do understand why he did. A child king was simply not an option.
As for EW I agree, she realised the frutility of the situation, living in Sanctuary for a lost cause was just plain stupid. Better to givve up gracefully and take what ever she was offered and be grateful.

I agree Jasmine. The real puzzler for me is why Stillington waited until E4 had died before dropping the bombshell, and what exactly did he hope to gain from it? I think H7 imprisoned him for a while, released and then he got involved with the Lambert Simnel lot, and as a result was died in Prison in 1491. I have to ask why did he get involved with the Lambert Simnel lot?
If E4 had gone through a form of marriage with EB that marriage in whatever form it took would have become null and void when she entered the convent. Plus I believe she was dead when E4 married E.W so technically he was a widower anyway. That’s providing of course it it was a legal marriage, with E.B in the first place.
I’m still inclined to think it may have been what is termed as a left handed marriage,more commonly know as a morganic marriage or even something called a fixed term or trial marriage. I.e that the man should live the woman for a period of so many months/years, and any children they have would be recognised as legitimate, and after the trial period is over, they can then decide if they wish to go through with the real deal. If not they can go their separate ways and do as they please and remarry who ever they choose without any hassle.
In Eleanor’s case she decided to enter a convent, perhaps fed up with E4 continued philandering. Or E.B could have agreed to become E4 matisse on tiste? (spelling) and again she perhaps got fed up with his philandering and chucked the towel in.
Does anyone know what happened to the child that E.B was supposed to have had by E4, and more to the point did E4 except and acknowledge it in anyway?
Like you Jasmine I don’t believe R3 set out to take the throne from E5, but faced with Stillington’s evidence (if it can be called that) he had no choice but to take the throne. R3 did what was best for the realm.

Plus as you say E5 was heavily influenced by the Woodville clan, and that would have become a issue I think later on in his reign. A little like the reigns of E5 predessors, R2 and E2, their whole lives revolved around favourites, and granting wealth and power to them, much to the annoyance of those who were trying to help them govern the realm. Child Kings were always an added hassle too.
I don’t believe for one moment that R3 killed his nephews or had any intention to hurt them in anyway. I think that he intended to treat them as acknowlegded Royal bastards and see that they were given the best education etc, but first he had to cure them of their Woodville influence (makes it sound like they were drug addicts LOL).
I knew the Woodvilles were not popular at court and I can understand why too. For years the Woodvilles had been staunch Lancastians supporters and E.W first husband died fighting against E4. Then voila they change sides and become staunch Yorkists, so there is bound to be a lot of mistrust from both sides, coupled with the fact that once E.W had married E4 E.W and her mother made sure that every Woodville was married to someone Yorkist. That alone must have ruffled a few feathers.
As for the supposed courtship of Elizabeth of York, I don’t think he intended to marry her, as he’d already declared her and her siblings bastards, to marry her he would have to change the very law to make her legitimate. As she was the first born, to change the law just for her and still declare that her siblings were bastards, would have been apsolute madness. I think he was very fond of her, and that he liked having her by his side, but that was all.
Some people view R3 as a tyrant, but look at what he had to face when he took the throne. His reign consided of uprising upon uprising. I’ve no doubt that if Buckingham had of succeeded in his bid to take the throne, he would have slaughtered every Woodville he could find. He hated them, especially as he had been married to one as a child.
R3 I think would have actually won Bosworth, if 1 Stanley hadn’t turned against him, and 2 he was knackered, he’d been fighting more or less all his life to keep the throne in Yorkist hands. I don’t think any of the uprisings were in favour of placing E5 on the throne. Once R3 had declared them bastards, what would be the point? A lot of bulls fighting to get the big stick with the tin hat, and to sit in the big chair with the comfy cushion.
I still say the Duke of Buckingham killed the Princes, he had lot to gain, he was the boy’s uncle too, and with R3 dead he could claim the throne, as the only surviving Woodville (by right of his wife) King.
Sounds a mad idea granted (Typical Boleyn off the latch Idea) but look at H7 claim to the throne, that was even more watered down than Buckingham’s, besides which H7 father although acknowledged by H6 had no claim whatsoever to throne. I believe H7 claimed the throne by right of his mother, but she came down from a bastard sprig of blood line too, and I believe she or rather her family line was barred from inheriting for that reason anyway. Plus her father was charged with treason to the crown, and killed himself rather than face trail.
The WOTR is a very tangled mess up until Bosworth, and even after R3 was defeated it was still a real tangled mess. It was really only when H8 came to the throne that there was any sort of normality restored, but even so a lot of heads had to roll for H8 to be really comfortable in the big chair ( and I mean a BIG chair, one that needed tyre levers to get his fat arse out of) with the comfy cushion.

On a slighty different note
George Duke of Clarence was jealous for sure, but I don’t think his jealously was aimed solely at E.W a lot of it was to do with his jealously of E4.
Who was it that insinuated about E4 being a bastard?
G.DoC certainly didn’t think about his mother when the accusation was made, and it seems to me at least that he was more or less calling her a wh*re, instead of defending her, against the slur of her good name.

Thank You Jasmine.
LOL yeah I agree E4 certainly did like to put it about a bit, that’s for sure.
I also agree that it does seem strange that E.B didn’t say anything about her supposed marriage with E4.
But surely even if she entered the convent as a lay person, surely she would have to take a vow of chastity (even if they were married), which I believe Margeret Beaufort did when she married Lord Stanley or shortly afterwards. In short they were renounsing the pleasures of the flesh and the comfort and security of marriage and instead devoting themselves to charitable works, and helping the poor, without going through the whole kit and kaboodle of taking the veil.
This is taken from Wiki, not exactly a credible sourse, but handy at times.
According to the French chronicler Philippe de Commines he acted with the support of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells. Stillington had been briefly imprisoned and fined for speaking out against Edward IV in 1478. Commines later wrote,

The bishop discovered to the Duke of Gloucester that his brother king Edward had been formerly in love with a beautiful young lady and had promised her marriage upon condition that he might lie with her; the lady consented, and, as the bishop affirmed, he married them when nobody was present but they two and himself. His fortune depending on the court, he did not discover it, and persuaded the lady likewise to conceal it, which she did, and the matter remained a secret.
If this is true then she was perhaps paid off?
The whole thing about Canon Law is that it can be overturned by a papal dispensation I believe. If the Pope declared E4’s marriage with EW true and lawful, then the E.B marriage never happened. Did E4 actually get a papal dispensation from the Pope, even after he had married E.W?
If not then it could be argued that neither marriage was legal, as they didn’t seek papal approval.
I’m given to believe that Margaret of Anjou, waited until she got papal approval before allowing the marriage of Anne Neville to her son to take place. I also believe that R3 marriage to Anne Neville took place without papal approval.
These York men certainly a complex and confusing bunch of white roses…LOL

It does seem funny to me that R3 excepted the word of Stillington, as being true, and yet he produced no evidence to back up his claim. If he had produced something other than just hearsay, there may have been a case to argue. E4 had dismissed him from being Lord Chancellor in 1473, Why?
It was rumoured that he whispered these rumours to George, but although George listened I don’t think he took a lot of notice, too busy trying to prove that E4 was a bastard and entitled to the throne, and if these rumours had been true of E4 being the bastard son of a archer, I doubt he would have got the backing to become king, anyway he had already tried that trick and it didn’t work, even with the so called Kingmaker Warwick on his side.
Whatever E4 did or didn’t do with his private life, he did bring stability to the country, and I think the people knew that George wasn’t exactly trustworthy, he was a little bit of a loose cannon.
George would have made a very bad king I think, he was all about himself and his own pleasure, not that which would have benefitted the country and the people. I wonder though who he would have married?

Yes but George also wanted to marry the Margaret, daughter of the King of Scotland. I believe she was also put forward as a possible bride for Anthony Woodville too. Maybe as a rival against George’s machinations. E4 knew I think that to allow George to have any sort of power, regal or otherwise, it would go straight to his head and all hell would break loose. George’s behaviour after Isabel’s death became extremely irrational, some of that could be put down to greif, but I don’t think it solely responsible for it. To me he was just like a 2 year old throwing a hissy fit cause he could have his own way.
I agree as a churchman Stillington would be trusted at his word, but as he was dismissed, not left of his own volution, but dismissed from his post in 1473, he must have done something serious enough for E4 to toss him out on his backside from court, and then imprisoning him in 1478, for sedition. Again E4 wouldn’t just toss a man into jail for no good reason. If Stillington wasn’t the person who allegdedly married E.B and E4, then he should have been able to name the person who did. Possibly the person was dead, which wouldn’t be a surprize. If all documents to this marriage had been destroyed as far as I can see and IMO there was no case to answer. E.B was dead, the person who did the old waving the hands about wearing the pointy hat and a dress was alo possibly dead, which I suppose was quite convienant in a way for Stillington to make such a claim in the first place.
It always seems to me that when outragous things like this come to light, that the person who said them or had sworn they saw something has happened to meet with a sticky end.
This happened I believe in James 1st reign when the gunpowder plot was uncovered, the person who leased the cellar out to Guy (Guido to give him proper name) Fawkes, was convientely bumped off. I also believe this was something that was used at Anne B debarkle of a show trial. So woman claimed she had seen Anne in an intimate embrace Blah Blah, and had convientely died after she had made the statement, therefore giving Anne no hope of questioning the woman’s story or the woman herself, so to speak.
I believe his mother was instrumental in spurring him R3 on to take the theone she hated the Woodvilles as much as anyone, and I think she blamed E.W for the death of her favourite Son George. She simply refused to except that E4 hhad no choice but to execute him. I don’t thing E.W had anything to do with E4 decision on this one.

Sorry Jasmine must have misread the bit about the marriage vow. But who ever it was said in front of be it the neighbour or the local villiage idiot, Stillington should have been able to name them, or at the very least given a estimated guess to where and when this marriage took place otherwise the whole thing is just a matter of hearsay. I could say the neighbour down the road keeps a pet dragon in the back garden but it doesn’t mean it’s true, I have no proof that she has a pet dragon, written or otherwise. So I actually doubt Stillington’s story anyway, because why wait to bring it up until everyone who would have known the truth of the matter was dead. If his conscious was troubling him that much surely he would have spoken out, when E4 admitted marrying E.W
I’m not saying it didn’t happen as I think E4 did go through a form of marriage with E.B, but I believe the union was declared void not long afterwards, perhaps by mutual agreement.
E4 was not one to stay faithful for long, and I actually believe that he simply saw E.W as just another notch on his bedpost and a trophy in his cabinet. He knew then probably because it was the same tactic he’d used before that the only way he could get anywhere with E.W was to marry her. His mistake but to EW advantage was to have her mother there as witness, and I think a trusted servant was there too?