Henry Tudor Parallel (it's not Jon Snow)

[James Arryn]

I tend to agree with this.

Richard keeping them alive at least keeps the line alive. Also, Edwards children had already been declared bastards due to his plighting his troth with another woman prior to Woodville.

Afterall, Elizabeth's own taint of bastardy had to be lifted in order to strengthen Henrys claim, though symbolically her blood was a power in itself.

Their existence was at best problematic to Richards line, but would have made the Tudors nigh on impossible, so in short, I am actually starting to suspect Margaret.

It might explain some of her later devotion (penance) to the rest of Edwards children like Cecily who got herself into a scandal And whom she protected, as well as Elizabeth herself for all Margarets domineering ways.

(Forgive in advance my phone's tyrannical auto correct)

IF I knew she had the means, she would absolutely top my list. I'm just not 100% that she had that means. But her determination re: her son on the throne was viewed as borderline fanatical in a time when extreme political ambition was the norm.

I just don't think a convincing case can be made against anyone.

My best guess is that the deaths occurred while their uncle was ruling but that he himself either did not know how they died or that they were dead. His inaction about them might best be explained by their disappearance (as far as he knows). He would be unable to profit from their deaths by making them public, nor be able to produce them alive to quiet rumours.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I guess I'm not clear on how Henry would have had the means if Margaret didn't. It doesn't follow to me that one would have them but not the other, given they were both working toward the same goal and had the same network of contacts.

And just because Richard's motives may be mysterious now doesn't mean he didn't them. I tend to agree with the assessment that Richard's vindication against Tudor propaganda swung too far in the opposite direction.

[James Arryn]

I guess I'm not clear on how Henry would have had the means if Margaret didn't. It doesn't follow to me that one would have them but not the other, given they were both working toward the same goal and had the same network of contacts.

And just because Richard's motives may be mysterious now doesn't mean he didn't them. I tend to agree with the assessment that Richard's vindication against Tudor propaganda swung too far in the opposite direction.

Not sure who here is arguing that Henry had means and Margaret didn't, but I guess if the assumption is that they survived Bosworth and were found he might be more likely to have possession of them than his mother.

As to Richard's motive, I think it's a pretty huge point, in that the vast bulk of the basis for blaming him is the assumption of his motive. That being disproved or rendered 'mysterious' kind of is the point.

As far as counter-spin, it depends on who you mean. During Edward's life Richard was most defined by his staunch loyalty, courage and military leadership. But that IMO doesn't preclude him from killing his nephews in the circumstances if he felt it was necessary; in the Cousin's War, killing kin and killing kids were both pretty common and done pretty openly. Additionally, child rule can be said to have been the primary cause of civil strife in that era. And Hastings showed that Richard was capable of acting in an extra-legal manner if he felt it necessary.

But I think he had effectively taken control, and the princes no longer represented much of a threat to him...no more so than other heirs, like Clarence's son, for example, who was de jure above Richard in succession in some eyes. And was not killed, because Richard was proclaimed and accepted as king by both lords and public at large. The deed was done.

But, more...it's not the mystery of his motive that I am pointing to. I can imagine a motive if I need to. It's the complete non-sensical process of not making their deaths public if he indeed had them killed that I can't imagine away. No public funeral/procession, no publication....nothing. Not even his critics claim Richard was unintelligent, and it would take an enormously stupid leader to go to the trouble of killing them while leaving their representative threat to him alive when that was the only threat they possessed.

[Alia of the knife]

Not sure who here is arguing that Henry had means and Margaret didn't, but I guess if the assumption is that they survived Bosworth and were found he might be more likely to have possession of them than his mother.

As to Richard's motive, I think it's a pretty huge point, in that the vast bulk of the basis for blaming him is the assumption of his motive. That being disproved or rendered 'mysterious' kind of is the point.

As far as counter-spin, it depends on who you mean. During Edward's life Richard was most defined by his staunch loyalty, courage and military leadership. But that IMO doesn't preclude him from killing his nephews in the circumstances if he felt it was necessary; in the Cousin's War, killing kin and killing kids were both pretty common and done pretty openly. Additionally, child rule can be said to have been the primary cause of civil strife in that era. And Hastings showed that Richard was capable of acting in an extra-legal manner if he felt it necessary.

But I think he had effectively taken control, and the princes no longer represented much of a threat to him...no more so than other heirs, like Clarence's son, for example, who was de jure above Richard in succession in some eyes. And was not killed, because Richard was proclaimed and accepted as king by both lords and public at large. The deed was done.

But, more...it's not the mystery of his motive that I am pointing to. I can imagine a motive if I need to. It's the complete non-sensical process of not making their deaths public if he indeed had them killed that I can't imagine away. No public funeral/procession, no publication....nothing. Not even his critics claim Richard was unintelligent, and it would take an enormously stupid leader to go to the trouble of killing them while leaving their representative threat to him alive when that was the only threat they possessed.

I also think that one can't underestimate the psychological impact that Edward had on his little brother when Edward made the time to come see him as a child often on the run, he revered Edward and was staunchly loyal.

And no, Richard wasn't an idiot and his assention to the throne was already controversial so add to that mix the murder of his nephews.

I never saw Richard as a saint, or a villain, but a product of his times as his contemporary, Vlad the Impaler, also controversial.

You make a good point on Clarence, and I wonder if Aerion Brightflame and his son wouldn't be a historical, hybrid character parallel?

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Question regarding Perkin. Is it possible that he was sneaked out of England and taken directly to Margaret? That would give her the ability to identify him.

Richard was not stupid enough to have ordered his nephews killed. I think it was done while he was on the throne, but not with Richard's knowledge. So in a way he is responsible but I don't think he was personally involved. There's a pretty good case for the Duke of Buckingham's involvement in their deaths. That's the way Sharon Kay Penman went in "The Sunne in Splendour."

And of course it's possible (unlikely, but possible) that the kids actually got sick and died, and nobody wanted to admit it because either side would have been accused of murdering them.

[Alester Florent]

Here's a controversial theory.

The Starks are the Beauforts.

It doesn't match up with the family relationships, but thematically it kind of works. Robert's father was a loyal servant of the crown, but a tyrannical king was jealous and afraid of Robert (who had a reputation as one of the greatest warriors in the kingdom at the time) and Robert eventually rose up in rebellion and overthrew him. (Richard II, John of Gaunt and Henry IV).

There's no Henry V in this interpretation, and we cut straight to Robert's death at a relatively young age and his ineffective son on the throne.

Ned Stark is like Robert's brother, and one of his most trusted advisors. He is politically outmanoeuvred and killed by another of the families who put Robert on the throne (York's rebellion; Battle of St. Albans). The king's legitimate uncle Renly is similarly put to flight and shut out of government, eventually dying with no significant effect on the crown (Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester). There follows a war between the Starks and Lannisters during which there are high-profile casualties on both sides. Eventually all the legitimate male Starks are believed to be dead. Who's left? A (probable) female-line descendant - Jon Snow (Henry Tudor).

It is a bit thin, but it kind of works, I think. But in any case I think there's so much inspiration for so much that happens in ASoIaF that you can read anything almost any way you like.

The Blackfyres do make a more obvious parallel for the Beauforts, but also a slightly less appropriate one, I think. The Blackfyres were deadly enemies of the Targaryen dynasty, fled abroad and continued to menace them for decades, whereas the Beauforts were almost pathologically loyal to the house of Lancaster and only ended up with one of their own on the throne after all legitimate Lancastrian descendants had finally been killed. If anything, I think the most obvious Beaufort candidate in ASoIaF history is none other than Bloodraven, although he had no descendants (that we know of).

[The Bittersteel]

Here's a controversial theory.

The Starks are the Beauforts.

It doesn't match up with the family relationships, but thematically it kind of works. Robert's father was a loyal servant of the crown, but a tyrannical king was jealous and afraid of Robert (who had a reputation as one of the greatest warriors in the kingdom at the time) and Robert eventually rose up in rebellion and overthrew him. (Richard II, John of Gaunt and Henry IV).

There's no Henry V in this interpretation, and we cut straight to Robert's death at a relatively young age and his ineffective son on the throne.

Ned Stark is like Robert's brother, and one of his most trusted advisors. He is politically outmanoeuvred and killed by another of the families who put Robert on the throne (York's rebellion; Battle of St. Albans). The king's legitimate uncle Renly is similarly put to flight and shut out of government, eventually dying with no significant effect on the crown (Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester). There follows a war between the Starks and Lannisters during which there are high-profile casualties on both sides. Eventually all the legitimate male Starks are believed to be dead. Who's left? A (probable) female-line descendant - Jon Snow (Henry Tudor).

It is a bit thin, but it kind of works, I think. But in any case I think there's so much inspiration for so much that happens in ASoIaF that you can read anything almost any way you like.

The Blackfyres do make a more obvious parallel for the Beauforts, but also a slightly less appropriate one, I think. The Blackfyres were deadly enemies of the Targaryen dynasty, fled abroad and continued to menace them for decades, whereas the Beauforts were almost pathologically loyal to the house of Lancaster and only ended up with one of their own on the throne after all legitimate Lancastrian descendants had finally been killed. If anything, I think the most obvious Beaufort candidate in ASoIaF history is none other than Bloodraven, although he had no descendants (that we know of).

Although this is thought provoking I think you really might be stretching it a bit thin with this one. Aside from the obvious lack of blood ties and the difference between having male descendents being confirmed dead and being perceived to be dead, Henry Tudor was a known quantity where as Jon Snow isn't. Also while Eddard and Robert had a strong relationship, John Beaufort (although loyal during his reign) did not follow Henry Bolingbroke into exile or anything like that and unlike the Starks actually retained the king Richard II's favour. Therefore, this analogy feels a bit forced I think. The issue with the Bloodraven parallel is that they were also of a more distant relation at this time to Henry VI compared to half brothers and in the Wars of the Roses it was several Beauforts in succession rather than being represented by one continuous individual. I don't think one person can represent an entire family as a close parallel.

The issue with all historical analogies is if you change enough variables a great deal of historical events/people could be used to present a similar situation to one found in the relatively realistic Asoiaf series.

[James Arryn]

If we entertain the idea of Warbeck being legit, ASOIAF is replete with parallels amid the main characters. There are currently no less than 4 Stark children missing, 3 of whom are presumed dead and all of whom are in fact following disorganized travel paths to...? If/ when they show up, assuming for a moment years have passed, how will they effectively prove their identities in the face of established power?

Unless dire wolves gets it done, I'd imagine they'd face similar fates as Warbeck.

[Alester Florent]

If we entertain the idea of Warbeck being legit, ASOIAF is replete with parallels amid the main characters. There are currently no less than 4 Stark children missing, 3 of whom are presumed dead and all of whom are in fact following disorganized travel paths to...? If/ when they show up, assuming for a moment years have passed, how will they effectively prove their identities in the face of established power?

Unless dire wolves gets it done, I'd imagine they'd face similar fates as Warbeck.

I think right now Wyman Manderly would recognise Hodor as Robb's rightful successor if he thought he could get away with it. Direwolves would definitely help, too. And if Bran did return, his injuries would make him if not impossible at least reasonably difficult to impersonate.

Part of Perkin's problem was that he had relatively little support within England itself, although he did have some powerful foreign friends. But anyone plausibly claiming to be a Stark would have legions of people (not just in the North either) desperate to support them. Roose is an issue, of course, but so long as they're not stupid enough to give themselves up to his custody they could doubtless muster an army bigger than his, and they'd be fine. LF might be a bigger problem, mind.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

I think right now Wyman Manderly would recognise Hodor as Robb's rightful successor if he thought he could get away with it. Direwolves would definitely help, too. And if Bran did return, his injuries would make him if not impossible at least reasonably difficult to impersonate.

Part of Perkin's problem was that he had relatively little support within England itself, although he did have some powerful foreign friends. But anyone plausibly claiming to be a Stark would have legions of people (not just in the North either) desperate to support them. Roose is an issue, of course, but so long as they're not stupid enough to give themselves up to his custody they could doubtless muster an army bigger than his, and they'd be fine. LF might be a bigger problem, mind.

Now I'm actually hoping for a battle between Roose defending his fake Arya and a fake Stark sibling. The farce value would be off the charts!

[lareine]

Not sure who here is arguing that Henry had means and Margaret didn't, but I guess if the assumption is that they survived Bosworth and were found he might be more likely to have possession of them than his mother.

As to Richard's motive, I think it's a pretty huge point, in that the vast bulk of the basis for blaming him is the assumption of his motive. That being disproved or rendered 'mysterious' kind of is the point.

As far as counter-spin, it depends on who you mean. During Edward's life Richard was most defined by his staunch loyalty, courage and military leadership. But that IMO doesn't preclude him from killing his nephews in the circumstances if he felt it was necessary; in the Cousin's War, killing kin and killing kids were both pretty common and done pretty openly. Additionally, child rule can be said to have been the primary cause of civil strife in that era. And Hastings showed that Richard was capable of acting in an extra-legal manner if he felt it necessary.

But I think he had effectively taken control, and the princes no longer represented much of a threat to him...no more so than other heirs, like Clarence's son, for example, who was de jure above Richard in succession in some eyes. And was not killed, because Richard was proclaimed and accepted as king by both lords and public at large. The deed was done.

But, more...it's not the mystery of his motive that I am pointing to. I can imagine a motive if I need to. It's the complete non-sensical process of not making their deaths public if he indeed had them killed that I can't imagine away. No public funeral/procession, no publication....nothing. Not even his critics claim Richard was unintelligent, and it would take an enormously stupid leader to go to the trouble of killing them while leaving their representative threat to him alive when that was the only threat they possessed.

I also think that one can't underestimate the psychological impact that Edward had on his little brother when Edward made the time to come see him as a child often on the run, he revered Edward and was staunchly loyal.

And no, Richard wasn't an idiot and his assention to the throne was already controversial so add to that mix the murder of his nephews.

I never saw Richard as a saint, or a villain, but a product of his times as his contemporary, Vlad the Impaler, also controversial.

You make a good point on Clarence, and I wonder if Aerion Brightflame and his son wouldn't be a historical, hybrid character parallel?

All very excellent points. I do tend to agree with Apple that at times, many of the Ricardian revisionists can swing too far to the opposite extreme, painting him as some kind of saint. Being a member of the Richard III Society, I saw many of them build up these alternative theories about who he was and what he was like. His deformity for example was something that many of them refused to believe was possible even when his body identified last year.

Like James Arryn and Alia, I've never thought of him as a saint or a villain but find him a fascinating and contradictory product of his times. I think what's always interested me the most about Richard is why, after a well documented life of dutiful and loyal service to his much beloved brother Edward he decided to defy his brother's will, usurp his nephew's throne and declare all of Edward's children bastards. It was behavior that ran contrary to everything that had been known about Richard's character up to that point. Was it merely a selfish power grab? Did he do it out of fear of a possible Woodville regency? Or did he do it for the good of the realm to spare the kingdom the burden of having a child on the throne? Its very similar to the way we debate the behavior and motives of the some of the characters in ASOIAF leading up to the rebellion; its all one big historical puzzle and mystery.

I agree that if Richard had killed his nephews, he would have come up with some type of cover story for their death and held some grand type of funeral with their bodies on display to put an end to them as the focus of any possible plot against him. It's what Edward IV did with the body of Henry VI after Edward reclaimed the throne and Henry was said to have 'peacefully' expired in his sleep while in the Tower of London. Not to give the two princes a similar public send off would rather defeat the purpose of killing them in the first place.

As for who had access to the princes, the Duke of Buckingham was the Constable of England and therefore was in charge of the Tower of London during the time when the princes were last seen in public. He's long been viewed as one of the prime suspects in their deaths, especially since he rose in rebellion against Richard not long after the princes were last seen in public. Buckingham's motives for rebelling against Richard however have always been murky. Some historians believe he murdered the princes himself and blamed Richard in order to have a reason to rebel against the king and put himself on the throne. However, he also had the backing of Henry Tudor and many Tudor stalwarts such as John Morton and Margaret Beaufort were also believed to be heavily involved. I think it's fair to say that "only the gods know what game Buckingham was playing." :)

After Buckingham's execution, Richard granted the title of Constable of England to none other than Thomas Stanley, Margaret Beaufort's husband and Henry Tudor's stepfather. So if Margaret and Henry didn't have access to the Tower before Buckinghams rebellion, they certainly would have after. Really, Buckingham, Stanley, Margaret Beaufort, John Morton, and Elizabeth Woodville made the occupants of the Red Keep look like amateurs. Trying to untangle who was conspiring with whom in which plot is really near to impossible to determine.

Alia- Your idea about Aerion Brightflame and his son being a parallel of Clarence and his son is interesting and reminded me of another parallel to characters in ASOIAF. Clarence's son was known to be, in the parlance of the times, "simple." Didn't Daeron the other brother of Aerion and Egg have a daughter who was also said to be "simple?"

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

All very excellent points. I do tend to agree with Apple that at times, many of the Ricardian revisionists can swing too far to the opposite extreme, painting him as some kind of saint. Being a member of the Richard III Society, I saw many of them build up these alternative theories about who he was and what he was like. His deformity for example was something that many of them refused to believe was possible even when his body identified last year.

I watched a documentary about them finding his bones in Leicester, and a Richard III Society member was there when they examined them, and cried when she was told that he really had a curved back. I knew he had his fans, but good lord.

I try to walk a middle line on him. In the end, yes, I think he's responsible for the princes. Sorry, I do. And I have to say that trying to think of political motivations or rationales or trying to explain political behavior from 500-odd years ago is dicey at best. I don't expect people 500 years from now to grasp some of our political decisions, either. But maybe one day they'll run DNA on the bones and we may get some answers.

On the flip side, I don't see him as the Shakespearean scheming villain either. I recognize propaganda when I see it.

[Alia of the knife]

All very excellent points. I do tend to agree with Apple that at times, many of the Ricardian revisionists can swing too far to the opposite extreme, painting him as some kind of saint. Being a member of the Richard III Society, I saw many of them build up these alternative theories about who he was and what he was like. His deformity for example was something that many of them refused to believe was possible even when his body identified last year.

Like James Arryn and Alia, I've never thought of him as a saint or a villain but find him a fascinating and contradictory product of his times. I think what's always interested me the most about Richard is why, after a well documented life of dutiful and loyal service to his much beloved brother Edward he decided to defy his brother's will, usurp his nephew's throne and declare all of Edward's children bastards. It was behavior that ran contrary to everything that had been known about Richard's character up to that point. Was it merely a selfish power grab? Did he do it out of fear of a possible Woodville regency? Or did he do it for the good of the realm to spare the kingdom the burden of having a child on the throne? Its very similar to the way we debate the behavior and motives of the some of the characters in ASOIAF leading up to the rebellion; its all one big historical puzzle and mystery.

I agree that if Richard had killed his nephews, he would have come up with some type of cover story for their death and held some grand type of funeral with their bodies on display to put an end to them as the focus of any possible plot against him. It's what Edward IV did with the body of Henry VI after Edward reclaimed the throne and Henry was said to have 'peacefully' expired in his sleep while in the Tower of London. Not to give the two princes a similar public send off would rather defeat the purpose of killing them in the first place.

As for who had access to the princes, the Duke of Buckingham was the Constable of England and therefore was in charge of the Tower of London during the time when the princes were last seen in public. He's long been viewed as one of the prime suspects in their deaths, especially since he rose in rebellion against Richard not long after the princes were last seen in public. Buckingham's motives for rebelling against Richard however have always been murky. Some historians believe he murdered the princes himself and blamed Richard in order to have a reason to rebel against the king and put himself on the throne. However, he also had the backing of Henry Tudor and many Tudor stalwarts such as John Morton and Margaret Beaufort were also believed to be heavily involved. I think it's fair to say that "only the gods know what game Buckingham was playing." :)

After Buckingham's execution, Richard granted the title of Constable of England to none other than Thomas Stanley, Margaret Beaufort's husband and Henry Tudor's stepfather. So if Margaret and Henry didn't have access to the Tower before Buckinghams rebellion, they certainly would have after. Really, Buckingham, Stanley, Margaret Beaufort, John Morton, and Elizabeth Woodville made the occupants of the Red Keep look like amateurs. Trying to untangle who was conspiring with whom in which plot is really near to impossible to determine.

Alia- Your idea about Aerion Brightflame and his son being a parallel of Clarence and his son is interesting and reminded me of another parallel to characters in ASOIAF. Clarence's son was known to be, in the parlance of the times, "simple." Didn't Daeron the other brother of Aerion and Egg have a daughter who was also said to be "simple?"

Yes, Daeron the drunks daughter was known to be simple.

I wonder if any of the Targaryens died by way of Malmsey wine? :)

[Alia of the knife]

I figured that Richard had something along the lines of severe scoliosis as my husbands great grandfather had, but not a hunchback, so his skeleton was not a surprise.

What was, was that he could overcome those challenges to win his first victory at the age of sixteen and to later decide he wanted to be king.

[Alester Florent]

Like James Arryn and Alia, I've never thought of him as a saint or a villain but find him a fascinating and contradictory product of his times. I think what's always interested me the most about Richard is why, after a well documented life of dutiful and loyal service to his much beloved brother Edward he decided to defy his brother's will, usurp his nephew's throne and declare all of Edward's children bastards. It was behavior that ran contrary to everything that had been known about Richard's character up to that point. Was it merely a selfish power grab? Did he do it out of fear of a possible Woodville regency? Or did he do it for the good of the realm to spare the kingdom the burden of having a child on the throne? Its very similar to the way we debate the behavior and motives of the some of the characters in ASOIAF leading up to the rebellion; its all one big historical puzzle and mystery.

It is a puzzle, that one. I think realistically there were a few things going on: firstly the Woodvilles were positioning themselves to take over the kingdom, and the chances were that they'd want or need to eliminate Richard fairly quickly to shore up their own position. Looking back over previous instances of child kings, you have John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock in Richard II's reign, and Humphrey and John in Henry VI's - the king's paternal uncle is going to expect a serious role in government and just through dint of his identity (not to mention Richard's personal qualities, experience, contacts etc.) is going to cast a shadow over the reign. So striking against the Woodvilles, which was his initial move, was probably a matter of pre-emptive self-defence as anything.

On deposing the princes themselves, obviously we'll never know. It doesn't help that Henry destroyed all the records after he came to the throne. But it does seem as though the case that they were technically illegitimate through the precontract (though nobody disputed they were Edward's children, afaik) might have actually been quite good. Whether the relative lack of opposition to it within the royal family was because they were genuinely convinced, or because they just thought it was for the best (child kings suck), who knows, but they did close ranks quite firmly on the issue. It wasn't just Richard doing a naked power grab; the initial query came from outside and he had a fair amount of support.

The three main suspects for killing the princes are obviously Richard, Buckingham and Henry. Henry probably had the best motive, but their disappearance had been noted by the time he arrived. Richard also had a pretty strong motive, but it also seems a bit of an about-turn on his previous relationship with his family; he was supposedly very fond of Elizabeth in particular; he didn't kill Warwick, who presented not much less of a threat than the princes by the time they vanished... and apart from anything else it's just, as noted, politically incompetent to do that and handle it so badly. Especially when there had been precedents set for murdering kings and getting away with it (Henry IV, Edward IV) - if you're worried about a rival king, it's better to prove him dead (even if you obviously killed him) than run the risk of people thinking him alive (Edward II, Mortimer and the Earl of Kent?). Which doesn't mean Richard didn't do it - he wasn't the greatest diplomat - but it still seems weird.

Of course there is a possibility he sent them away, and while Perkin is perhaps the more obviously suspicious of the two pretenders, the early stages of Simnel's revolt - and the way the old Yorkists some of whom had good claims themselves threw their weight behind it - does raise the question of whether there was any truth to that one. Not to Simnel himself, but whether he was a later substitute for a more convincing pretender killed in a skirmish early on... Henry seemed more concerned about Simnel's revolt (although possibly because he had an army) but the truth of that one probably died on the field with John de la Pole.

One of those great historical mysteries we can discuss forever and get no closer to the truth, I think. If the bodies of the "Princes" could be exhumed and DNA-tested, that might help, but the royal family will probably never allow that.

[The Grey Wolf]

Henry seemed more concerned about Simnel's revolt (although possibly because he had an army) but the truth of that one probably died on the field with John de la Pole.

Wasn't Perkin Warbeck the one who was supported by a Yorkist army at the Battle of Stoke Field?

[fuem]

What are u guys going to do when the books are finished .............

[James Arryn]

I think what's always interested me the most about Richard is why, after a well documented life of dutiful and loyal service to his much beloved brother Edward he decided to defy his brother's will, usurp his nephew's throne and declare all of Edward's children bastards. It was behavior that ran contrary to everything that had been known about Richard's character up to that point. Was it merely a selfish power grab? Did he do it out of fear of a possible Woodville regency? Or did he do it for the good of the realm to spare the kingdom the burden of having a child on the throne? Its very similar to the way we debate the behavior and motives of the some of the characters in ASOIAF leading up to the rebellion; its all one big historical puzzle and mystery.

I think there are reasons aplenty, many of them mirroring ASOIAF characters.

First, like Stannis/Renly, Richard was regarded by many as the primary target of Woodeville animosity, and like Renly he knew he personally stood in serious danger should the Woodeville faction gain control of the throne. Elizabeth had oft and publicly resented Edward's favour leaning towards Richard, and on a couple of occasions resented Richard being awarded grants/titles/commands she was seeking for her kin.

Like Ned, Richard was appointed Regent and charged with the responsibility of protecting and raising Edward's sons. Like Cersei, Elizabeth Woodeville moved to preempt Edward's will and cut Richard out of the process. Unlike Ned, Richard outmanoeuvred the Queen and took control of the situation.

That much is IMO clear. From here there are divergent possibilities. The first aspect is whether or not the plithe troth was a fabrication, the truth, or a fabrication Richard believed to be true.

Any are possible. What's certain is that no one who had known Edward IV found it unlikely. That's not to say they believed it DID happen, but even Hastings admitted it would have been typical of Edward. Aside from the 6 month hushed Woodeville marriage, there had been other instances where he had breached walls of chastity with promises of love and marriage. I doubt most of those went so far as to be sworn, but it would be wholly consistent with Edward's character if one or two did. He was in many ways like his descendant Henry VIII when it came to women.

So unless he invented it himself, I could see Richard finding this entirely believable. More, it would be a perfect solution to both the looming Woodeville threat to himself personally, and to the inevitable struggle for power a Regency always meant to England.

I could also conceive of him inventing it, though. I think this less likely...I do agree that absolute loyalty to Edward IV was his most defining characteristic for most of his life...in some ways he was Bobby to Edward's JFK...but he was also a very intelligent man and politician, and although devout, he seems a realist, so I can see him thinking it a lesser evil for a greater good. I think his entire life had been formed through war and intrigue, and I think he would have maintained the mindset that dangers abounded and enemies awaited weakness in order to strike again, and as such I can see him thinking that York could simply not afford a child King and Woodeville court. But there seems to have been substantial support for the truth of the claim, and much of that support seems to come from outside of Richard's immediate circle.

Knowing the antipathy between the Queen and Richard as he did, Edward's deathbed request that Richard be Regent and Protector and be sent for immediately might have struck Richard as Edward's last minute attempt to undo the damage their ascension at court had caused, or merely that he felt it important that the reins be in Richard's hands as soon as possible because he was who he trusted most to maintain the Yorkist reign.

That Elizabeth Woodeville delayed his receiving the news and meanwhile tried to cut him out of the process and rush the princes to London to be crowned forthwith also strikes ASOIAF notes, and I am sure Richard would have interpreted that in much the same way Ned did; a bid for power in the hands of the Queen Mother herself.

So loyal as he was to Edward, Richard the leader and general would also have been thinking of his own family's welfare, his own power threatened, and the Yorkist kingdom he had helped win endangered. I can see all the rest trumping his loyalty to Edward if he saw the 2 as opposing, and going so far as to cause the plight troth to come into being as a result. Like Bobby Kennedy, Richard had often had to be his brother's hard man...he might indeed have been given the job of killing the Mad King, and may even have had to oversee Edward's death sentence on Clarence...so he could be ruthless when the situation demanded it.

I can even see him going so far as to kill the princes...though this is a little harder to imagine...if he indeed thought it was necessary for his and his House's welfare. But I can't see him doing it lightly, and I certainly can't see him doing it for nothing, which is what we are supposed to believe is what transpired.

More, the only time he is supposed to have been able to have it done was when he was away, and that contradicts another aspect of his character: he always took personal responsibility for the hardest/most important tasks he needed to do, as per Henry, Clarence, Edinburgh, Hastings, Bosworth, etc. At no other time do we see him leaving the hard/important job to others and making himself scarce, so I find it hard to believe he would deviate so significantly from the pattern of a lifetime in this regard.

[lareine]

I watched a documentary about them finding his bones in Leicester, and a Richard III Society member was there when they examined them, and cried when she was told that he really had a curved back. I knew he had his fans, but good lord.

I try to walk a middle line on him. In the end, yes, I think he's responsible for the princes. Sorry, I do. And I have to say that trying to think of political motivations or rationales or trying to explain political behavior from 500-odd years ago is dicey at best. I don't expect people 500 years from now to grasp some of our political decisions, either. But maybe one day they'll run DNA on the bones and we may get some answers.

On the flip side, I don't see him as the Shakespearean scheming villain either. I recognize propaganda when I see it.

I joined the Richard III Society five years ago when I was seriously considering a graduate degree in medieval history. Being a society member gives you access to a lot of fascinating research (including lots of Tudor history) and to their online archives which contain a lot of primary and secondary source material. However watching that documentary and seeing Phillippa Langley crying over the curved back issue and the other hostile society members on Skype demanding to know how he could have worn armor if he had such a curved back made me seriously reconsider my membership :uhoh:

I remember reading one British critic who described Phillppa as behaving "as though she was Richard's widow." On the other hand, I've got to give her a certain amount of credit. She really was the driving force behind that dig and if she hadn't been such a full blown loop de loop Richard III fan girl it probably never would have happened. As for the crying well, given how invested a lot of people are in their theories on this forum, it wouldn't surprise me if we don't see similar reactions if some of them eventually prove to be untrue too.

I agree with you though that ultimately, Richard was responsible for his nephews deaths. Whether he personally ordered them to be killed or it was done behind his back, by usurping their claim and disregarding his brother Edward's will he put those boys in a very vulnerable position that made it possible for whatever did happen to them to occur. And you're right, trying to analyze and ascertain people's motivations in the context of their lives centuries after the fact is definitely dicey and not everyone's cup of tea. However, I really do enjoy it and its one of the reasons I so love history ;)

[lareine]

I think there are reasons aplenty, many of them mirroring ASOIAF characters.

First, like Stannis/Renly, Richard was regarded by many as the primary target of Woodeville animosity, and like Renly he knew he personally stood in serious danger should the Woodeville faction gain control of the throne. Elizabeth had oft and publicly resented Edward's favour leaning towards Richard, and on a couple of occasions resented Richard being awarded grants/titles/commands she was seeking for her kin.

Like Ned, Richard was appointed Regent and charged with the responsibility of protecting and raising Edward's sons. Like Cersei, Elizabeth Woodeville moved to preempt Edward's will and cut Richard out of the process. Unlike Ned, Richard outmanoeuvred the Queen and took control of the situation.

That much is IMO clear. From here there are divergent possibilities. The first aspect is whether or not the plithe troth was a fabrication, the truth, or a fabrication Richard believed to be true.

Any are possible. What's certain is that no one who had known Edward IV found it unlikely. That's not to say they believed it DID happen, but even Hastings admitted it would have been typical of Edward. Aside from the 6 month hushed Woodeville marriage, there had been other instances where he had breached walls of chastity with promises of love and marriage. I doubt most of those went so far as to be sworn, but it would be wholly consistent with Edward's character if one or two did. He was in many ways like his descendant Henry VIII when it came to women.

So unless he invented it himself, I could see Richard finding this entirely believable. More, it would be a perfect solution to both the looming Woodeville threat to himself personally, and to the inevitable struggle for power a Regency always meant to England.

I could also conceive of him inventing it, though. I think this less likely...I do agree that absolute loyalty to Edward IV was his most defining characteristic for most of his life...in some ways he was Bobby to Edward's JFK...but he was also a very intelligent man and politician, and although devout, he seems a realist, so I can see him thinking it a lesser evil for a greater good. I think his entire life had been formed through war and intrigue, and I think he would have maintained the mindset that dangers abounded and enemies awaited weakness in order to strike again, and as such I can see him thinking that York could simply not afford a child King and Woodeville court. But there seems to have been substantial support for the truth of the claim, and much of that support seems to come from outside of Richard's immediate circle.

Knowing the antipathy between the Queen and Richard as he did, Edward's deathbed request that Richard be Regent and Protector and be sent for immediately might have struck Richard as Edward's last minute attempt to undo the damage their ascension at court had caused, or merely that he felt it important that the reins be in Richard's hands as soon as possible because he was who he trusted most to maintain the Yorkist reign.

That Elizabeth Woodeville delayed his receiving the news and meanwhile tried to cut him out of the process and rush the princes to London to be crowned forthwith also strikes ASOIAF notes, and I am sure Richard would have interpreted that in much the same way Ned did; a bid for power in the hands of the Queen Mother herself.

So loyal as he was to Edward, Richard the leader and general would also have been thinking of his own family's welfare, his own power threatened, and the Yorkist kingdom he had helped win endangered. I can see all the rest trumping his loyalty to Edward if he saw the 2 as opposing, and going so far as to cause the plight troth to come into being as a result. Like Bobby Kennedy, Richard had often had to be his brother's hard man...he might indeed have been given the job of killing the Mad King, and may even have had to oversee Edward's death sentence on Clarence...so he could be ruthless when the situation demanded it.

I can even see him going so far as to kill the princes...though this is a little harder to imagine...if he indeed thought it was necessary for his and his House's welfare. But I can't see him doing it lightly, and I certainly can't see him doing it for nothing, which is what we are supposed to believe is what transpired.

More, the only time he is supposed to have been able to have it done was when he was away, and that contradicts another aspect of his character: he always took personal responsibility for the hardest/most important tasks he needed to do, as per Henry, Clarence, Edinburgh, Hastings, Bosworth, etc. At no other time do we see him leaving the hard/important job to others and making himself scarce, so I find it hard to believe he would deviate so significantly from the pattern of a lifetime in this regard.

Very well reasoned.

I do have some questions for you about some of the specifics. Would you mind terribly if I messaged you personally about them so I don't pull the thread off on a tangent with my historical wonkiness? :)

I think that you've touched very well on a key elements surrounding those events that translates well to ASOIAF; the sense of mistrust, mis-apprehnsion and mis-communication that surrounded those months in 1483 and how they were the inevitable results of decades (generations really) of internecine warfare and intrigue piled upon intrigue.

I have no trouble whatsoever believing that the plight troth story could have been true. I've actually read a book on Eleanor Butler and its interesting how similar Edward's possible MO with her was to his "secret elopement" with Elizabeth Woodville was. It would have been completely in character for Edward IV to pull something like that. Eleanor Butler died before Edward though and never made any such claim during her lifetime. The whole pre-contract story was dependent upon Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Welles who claimed to have officiated over it. Stillington was briefly imprisoned during Edward's reign, one of the reasons for it was rumored to be some kind of association he had with Clarence and years later, he became involved in the Lambert Simnel plot. So again everyone's loyalties are very convoluted.

As for the legitimacy of the pre-contract if it actually had taken place, I remember reading one article on it that detailed steps in canon law that Edward could have taken to rectify the situation and solidify his marriage to Elizabeth if he'd wanted to. Regardless, I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't have any trouble believing that the pre-contract story was true, I just recall always being left with the impression that it wasn't a cut and dry case, that there were plenty of holes that could have been punched in the story and ultimately it was up to Richard to decide how big a deal needed to be made over it. Perhaps Richard did feel that a boy king was not in the interest of the realm and this story provided him with an easy way to usurp his nephews.

Another ASOIAF similarity is that Edward IV named Richard regent while on his deathbed. Didn't Robert do the same with naming Ned Joffrey's regent? Also, I like the JFK/RFK comparison, thats really a good one!