To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

Katherine by Anya Seton. My favourite ever book.

🤣

Yeah! There is no way he should be presenting Masterchef!

Well I think he should be cancelled and de-platformed

On THAT we can all agree 😀

If we’re all rereading The Daughter of Time we should probably revisit our memories of John of Gaunt in Katherine too?

It all goes back to John of gaunt!

If Buckingham did it (he was Constable, so probably could have done) then it would probably have been in his own interest rather than Henry Tudor’s - he was descended from 3 of the sons of John of Gaunt.

I don’t want to think R did it! I know they were different times but he seemed to be so well regarded in the North and loyal to his brother Edward.

Clearly his plans for the Princes weren't good. If he hadn't killed them what did he plan for their future? Life in prison, not many other options. Seems a bit odd to think he couldn't steal the throne from his Nephews and kill them whilst thinking he was entirely capable of imprisoning the Princes for life or perhaps mutilating them to the point they couldn't be credible kings. (Blinding and castrating would have done the trick.)

For me the clincher is all the "anti-Richard" people - including the Prince's mother - Elizabeth Woodville suddenly switched their support from the Princes to Henry Tudor. Clearly they thought the Princes were dead long before Henry took over.

Interesting, thank you. I watched that programme several times and it was definitely depicted that the documents discovered by members of the RIII Society in Europe were new discoveries. In fact, I’m sure the documentary was called ‘The New Evidence’ (I’ll need to check that!).

Janima Ramirez seemed quite open to the ‘new’ evidence.

I don’t want to think R did it! I know they were different times but he seemed to be so well regarded in the North and loyal to his brother Edward.

I really do admire Philippa Langley’s dedication and would love to know what actually happened to those boys.

I'm trying to remember now, but was her theory not that Margaret Beaufort persuaded the Duke of Buckingham to have it done, and he was Lord Protector of the Tower at the time? (hence access). Or one of his close allies?

😂😂

Tricky Dicky did it. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck!

Ok.

That’s what the accusation and reason for execution was though. At the time

Richard was Lord Protector. Who took that role was a decision only to be made by the late King. He did not pass that over to a Woodville he gave it to his own bother Richard.

Whether we agree or disagree isn’t the issue. It was treason to act against the wishes of your King.

( just as ignoring a will would be today for example)

Sorry, I meant to quote @NewAgeNewMe in the secret marriage post, but accidentally quoted @ItisIbeserk again!

Because of Treason. They were acting against the wishes of their late King

It isnt treason to act against the wishes of a dead king; who would the crime be against?

Did they have nefarious intent with respect to Richard? Probably. But the act of bringing the boy king to London wasn’t treasonous, even if Edward IV may have preferred Richard to do it.

IMO, evidence too scanty to say, not least cos pre contracts were made and dissolved all the time. John Ashdown-Hill also wrote a book about Eleanor butler if you fancy that 😀

However, legally, they were both justified, I think, because parliament passed titulus regius and then repealed it.

My understanding is that a Parliamentary act at the time overruled any given opinion. Which is why Henry VIII’s act of succession gave the throne to Mary then Elizabeth even though he never declared either of them legitimate and Edward VI tried to shoehorn Lady Jane Grey in - who was certainly legitimate but was not next in like according to parliament.

Because of Treason. They were acting against the wishes of their late King
The Woodvilles were not regarded highly, they were not of U.K. Noble birth. They were ruthless in attempts to gain power but had a bigger hill to climb than most.

I always find it fascinating that the Woodvilles are regarded as upstarts because of their father but their mother Jacquetta of Luxembourg was worthy enough to marry the Duke of Bedford, Henry VI uncle.

Oh yes.

Lucky I ended up with history and not biology.

I am not sure - because the boys were cicely’s descendants via a male, mDNA might not have worked, it might have to be the mDNA down a Woodville line.

Yes, very similar journeys re Tey 😀

I haven’t said Richard finds his nephews slain. That’s one of the big questions I think.

Slight derail but what is the consensus re Edward IV marriage to Elizabeth Woodville? Obviously in Henry’s interest to be valid and in Richard’s for it to be invalid.

Did it end up with the same Canadian I wonder, or were there Jacquetta relatives they looked at? I'd forgotten that now they could compare to Richard himself!

I'm sure you're right! I haven't re-read for a long time, although I have frequently seen that assertion made for the book, including obviously on this thread.

I read upthread that you have had the same journey as me, and quite a few other posters. I don't think any of us would claim that the DoT isn't a brilliant creation.