sToNED_CAT Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Why Richard? Why not Margaret Beaufort, to pave the way for her son, Henry? I don't subscribe to the Shakespearean version of Richard, I think there are many possibilities as to who killed the princes in the tower.He's most likely suspect. And most likely means over 90-95%. Certainly it is a nice conspiracy theory to say Tudors somehow arranged their dead, but it's highly unlikely someone from outside would be able to harm both of them in well guarded Tower. I don't think something like that happened in whole English history, but there are many examples of deposed kings murdered afterwards - Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI etc. And none of them were killed publicly, it is even unknown when and how exactly they died - so I don't understand why some people demand "proof" that our hunchback killed them, after all kingslayers (even if the kings were deposed) were not too keen to disclose, that they did what was cosidered the worst crime in medieval society. Especially if the murdered is your nephew, child, and someone your borther entrusted to your custody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Since when were Plantagenets more English than Tudors?The Tudors were Welsh. The name still exists in Wales, as a first name as well as surname (sometimes spelled Tewdwr). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lummel Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Yes and the Plantagents were not very English either! A dynasty from France marrying wives from Savoy, Castile, France, the Low Countries - exclusively non-English until the Black Prince and some of his siblings broke with tradition and took up with some of the locals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampire Squid Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 He's most likely suspect. And most likely means over 90-95%. Certainly it is a nice conspiracy theory to say Tudors somehow arranged their dead, but it's highly unlikely someone from outside would be able to harm both of them in well guarded Tower. I don't think something like that happened in whole English history, but there are many examples of deposed kings murdered afterwards - Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI etc. And none of them were killed publicly, it is even unknown when and how exactly they died - so I don't understand why some people demand "proof" that our hunchback killed them, after all kingslayers (even if the kings were deposed) were not too keen to disclose, that they did what was cosidered the worst crime in medieval society. Especially if the murdered is your nephew, child, and someone your borther entrusted to your custody.But if he killed them to remove their threat to his claim, why not produce their corpses, say "oh, how tragic, my nephews have died of a sudden fever. Give them a full state funeral and mourn my definitely dead potential rivals." All those examples you name were known to be dead and acknowledged dead by their replacements. Keeping quiet about their fate makes it look more like he was afraid of embarrassment of being a crap protector of his nephews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VarysTheSpider Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Anyway, call from a MP for a state funeral for the remains:He's on the right lines though. The Olympics has done next to nothing for the economy, time to fall back on the Royals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sToNED_CAT Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 But if he killed them to remove their threat to his claim, why not produce their corpses, say "oh, how tragic, my nephews have died of a sudden fever. Give them a full state funeral and mourn my definitely dead potential rivals." All those examples you name were known to be dead and acknowledged dead by their replacements. Keeping quiet about their fate makes it look more like he was afraid of embarrassment of being a crap protector of his nephews.Because he was afraid (and he was right), what would public think about such "accident", so he decided to cover things up, at least until he strengthened his position in the country. Again this is medieval England not Japan full of ninjas, it is very unlikely someone else would be able to assasinate princes, who were under Richards control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deleted01 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Because he was afraid (and he was right), what would public think about such "accident", so he decided to cover things up, at least until he strengthened his position in the country. Again this is medieval England not Japan full of ninjas, it is very unlikely someone else would be able to assasinate princes, who were under Richards control.I think the main point is that the bodies were not found. I believe it's speculated that they were buried in the Tower somewhere. Weren't some remains found relatively recently? If the king did that, someone would have talked about it. Someone he thought was a loyalist, someone he pissed off, someone. Plus I don't see enough evidence to be as sure as you are that it was Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lummel Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Now you're talking like a historian Dracarya! The remains in the tower were found in 1674. And that is fairly recently in the history game :)They haven't been definitively proven to be the bodies of Edward and Richard though, although that has been the assumption. There were rumours of the Princes' deaths but unfortunately there isn't evidence - for example entries in the royal accounts for food and firewood for them that stop at a particular date.That's why it has been argued about for so long. Well that and various people potentially had motive, means and opportunity to kill them!ETA excellent! There's a handy cartoon that makes everything clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillio Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Hmmm Wiki blames the Tyrells Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Since when were Plantagenets more English than Tudors?Useless trivia: Richard III was the last British monarch to have all four grandparents born in England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Useless trivia: Richard III was the last British monarch to have all four grandparents born in England.And Henry IV was the first British monarch to make his coronation speech in English (pretty sure on that).So if Richard III's the last true English king, Henry IV has to be the first, which means that we're talking a very short time frame (~100 years) where the monarchs were truly English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampire Squid Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Because he was afraid (and he was right), what would public think about such "accident", so he decided to cover things up, at least until he strengthened his position in the country. Again this is medieval England not Japan full of ninjas, it is very unlikely someone else would be able to assasinate princes, who were under Richards control.What's more weakening - announcing the princes' deaths of "natural causes" the instant it happens and holding a state funeral to make it clear that they are no longer figureheads for rebellion, and then dealing with rumours of murder but being able to make a case that it was all natural and above board and that he treated them respectfully, or waiting for however long it takes to strengthen his position while dealign with rumours of murder, then saying "oh, by the way my nephews died a while back and I buried them in secret and told no one what had happened"?As to just how "under Richard's control" they were, at the most likely time of the princes' murder/final public appearance/being taken to the future in the TARDIS because they were actually princesses and joining Clarence working in an Elizabethan tavern, Richard wasn't even in London (as far as I can remember). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deleted01 Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Now you're talking like a historian Dracarya! The remains in the tower were found in 1674. And that is fairly recently in the history game :):smug: I try.Any more news on whether it's definitely him and what'll happen to his remains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lummel Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Not really a proper update, we're still too early for that, but I was amused by the fate of Alfred the Greats bones (probably ground up for fertiliser) and the Leicester woman who has a White Boar banner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaak Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Who would have had the interest in killing the Princes secretly?As stated, Richard III would have benefited from announcing a natural/accidental death in public.What would Richard III have done if the boys had been missing - presumed escaped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jurble Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 I don't understand why they're testing a descendant of his sister to confirm the Richard III identification. They're going to compare mtDNA, I guess? If the descendant of his sister is a direct matrilineal descendant. The odds of any distinct autosomal markers making it into modern descendants seem slim-to-none. But why not also check against David Somerset? The man's supposed to be a direct descendant of the House of Plantagenet in the male line, and so would share the same y-chromosome as Richard III. Of course, it could be that somewhere along the line the House of Beaufort/Somerset had cuckold husband, in which case a mismatch of y-chromosomes would either imply it's not Richard III or that Mr. Somerset isn't the legitimate heir to this House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Roses Posted February 3, 2013 Author Share Posted February 3, 2013 OK folks....big announcement of the DNA findings tomorrow morning (Monday 4th Feb) at 10.00am. Live press announcement from Leicester University/Richard III society being shown on a live feed from BBC News. Channel 4 documentary at 9pm tomorrow night called "Richard III:The King in the Car Park" about the search for his body and no doubt the findings as well. The Richard III society have also paid for a facial reconstruction from the skull so if it is him (which all the buzz is saying it is) we get to see a proper representation of an English medieval king. Wow! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rorshach Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 The Tudors were Welsh. The name still exists in Wales, as a first name as well as surname (sometimes spelled Tewdwr).You saying that Henry VII and his descendants are mythical creatures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antonius Pius Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Oh my, please keep us updated! This is facinating stuff!You saying that Henry VII and his descendants are mythical creatures?Isn't Wales itself mythical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rorshach Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Isn't Wales itself mythical?So I've been told. Which means people coming from Wales... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.