Talk

Advanced search

The princes in the tower

(32 Posts)
MrsJackRackham Sat 04-Nov-17 21:32:55

I'm watching a docudrama on the two princes who disappeared in the Tower of London. Why wasn't a huge fuss made when it happened? Surely it wasn't just a case of Riii declaring them illegitimate and then everyone forgot about them. What about their mother? Uncles, cousins? The Woodvilles all had prominent titles and were powerful men. Why weren't more questions asked?

MyKingdomForBrie Sat 04-Nov-17 21:58:50

Because times were entirely different?! It’s not like the social we’re going to knock on Richard’s door.. grin

Disagree with King = death

HelenDenver Mon 15-Jan-18 19:18:42

They were in the Tower of London, seen increasingly less, then not seen anymore. But it's not like thousands of people were aware of this, few people knew what was going on at the Tower of London.

The power of the Woodvilles derived largely from Edward IV; after his death, Richard III had his own noble friends. Their mother and sisters were in sanctuary when they disappeared.

CassandraCross Mon 15-Jan-18 19:37:49

Different times, rule by fear and wanting to keep in with the 'right' side lest you lose your head, titles and estates.

The Woodvilles power was drastically reduced by Richard III, Elizabeth Woodville was in hiding and Richard had already executed two of her relations - Richard Grey and Anthony Woodville.

The Woodvilles were not terribly popular being seen as somewhat grasping and not many wanted the Regency of the Woodvilles which would have had to be in place on behalf of the young Edward V, however, they didn't condone or expect the Princes to be murdered.

CassandraCross Mon 15-Jan-18 19:37:52

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CassandraCross Mon 15-Jan-18 19:37:52

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CassandraCross Mon 15-Jan-18 19:37:55

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Snowdrop18 Mon 15-Jan-18 19:37:55

oh I recorded a documentary about this recently, wonder if it's the same one

tbh I've never wondered because a royal child would hardly have been seen anyway. No one outside their immediate circle would know anything was amiss and even then, my understanding was they were managed away quietly. Certainly no one would have had any concept of "vulnerable" as we have now.

plus anyone who did know might well be in on the whole plan.

anyone outside the royal circle won't know what they look like or have much awareness they exist.

Snowdrop18 Mon 15-Jan-18 19:37:56

oh I recorded a documentary about this recently, wonder if it's the same one

tbh I've never wondered because a royal child would hardly have been seen anyway. No one outside their immediate circle would know anything was amiss and even then, my understanding was they were managed away quietly. Certainly no one would have had any concept of "vulnerable" as we have now.

plus anyone who did know might well be in on the whole plan.

anyone outside the royal circle won't know what they look like or have much awareness they exist.

CassandraCross Mon 15-Jan-18 19:37:59

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CassandraCross Mon 15-Jan-18 19:38:01

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CassandraCross Mon 15-Jan-18 19:38:01

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CassandraCross Mon 15-Jan-18 19:43:31

Sorry about the multiple posts will ask MN to remove them.

ILoveDolly Mon 15-Jan-18 19:50:32

Nowadays we are so used to knowing things about others, especially leading figures, and knowing what people look like. But the case was simply that hardly anyone would have had close access to the workings of the throne and royal family. Servants saw all kinds of stuff but to talk would have meant death. Most people would have been unbothered or at least unmoved anyway. Children died all the time, and were not treated as precious in quite the same ways as our children.

ArabellaHorseyHorsey Mon 15-Jan-18 19:57:33

It's only in recent times that we know everything (OK, more) about the Royal Family. I never knew that the Queen had an epileptic uncle who was hidden away and died at the tender age of 11/13? until Stephen Poliakof made a faction -drama based on him.

Anasnake Mon 22-Jan-18 21:58:33

He was called Prince John Arabella

AgathaRaisonDetra Mon 22-Jan-18 22:18:53

Prince John Arabella

Are you sure?

Anasnake Tue 23-Jan-18 06:32:16

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_John_of_the_United_Kingdom

JeNeSuisPasVotreMiel Tue 23-Jan-18 06:40:58

For the want of a comma, the meaning was lost....

Anasnake Tue 23-Jan-18 06:47:17

Considering the previous poster was called Arabella, I wouldn't have thought it was difficult to work out.

AgathaRaisonDetra Tue 23-Jan-18 06:49:28

Eats, shoots and leaves.

Allington Tue 23-Jan-18 07:21:07

I was on a forum the other day that was talking about 19th century royalty travelling incognito when they wanted a private holiday - they could because even (with blurry newspapers and photocards) very few people would recognise them. Apparently even in the 1930s they would typically travel around with just one policeman/detective, and not get mobbed.

So the princes would hardly be known about, let alone seen regularly by anyone except a handful of guards/servants in the tower.

ImListening Tue 23-Jan-18 08:10:57

The jury is out though isn’t it on whether it was Richard, Buckingham or Margaret Beaufort? I’m not convinced it was Richard as he’d declared them illegitimate unless he saw them as a threat in the future.

Checklist Tue 23-Jan-18 08:14:33

I've always suspected it was Henry VIi!

ImListening Tue 23-Jan-18 08:19:28

I have wondered about him but was he in the country or probably just got someone to do his dirty work.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: