To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

Hmmm… but up until it was a choice between god and HVIII, More always chose HVIII, so loyalty to the crown is a reasonable assumption

However, some historians think that what More wrote was not necessarily intended to be a purely factual history- for example, the age he used for Edward IV in the document was the age of 53 at death when EIV was actually 40 (Henry VII was 52 at death). The ages of the princes were also wrong, though by months, not years. So it might have been intended as a musing on the dangers of tyranny rather than a pure history book.

@CoffeeCantata
but historians agree

A dangerously sweeping statement 😀

It's recently been discovered that when More was on one of his foreign embassies one of his servants/secretaries was the son of Miles Forest. This gives him a direct connection to the perpetrators.

Miles Forest (senior) died in 1484, so within a year or so of when the crime happened. His sons were probably quite young at the time (the younger one wasn’t mentioned in the pension from RIII so may have been born after his dad died). It also doesn’t seem hugely likely that MF told his wife, who then told his sons, about the Very Secret Murder.

And this is from someone who thinks RIII ordered it done 😀

Hmmm… but up until it was a choice between god and HVIII, More always chose HVIII, so loyalty to the crown is a reasonable assumption

However, some historians think that what More wrote was not necessarily intended to be a purely factual history- for example, the age he used for Edward IV in the document was the age of 53 at death when EIV was actually 40 (Henry VII was 52 at death). The ages of the princes were also wrong, though by months, not years. So it might have been intended as a musing on the dangers of tyranny rather than a pure history book.

@CoffeeCantata
but historians agree

A dangerously sweeping statement 😀

It's recently been discovered that when More was on one of his foreign embassies one of his servants/secretaries was the son of Miles Forest. This gives him a direct connection to the perpetrators.

Miles Forest (senior) died in 1484, so within a year or so of when the crime happened. His sons were probably quite young at the time (the younger one wasn’t mentioned in the pension from RIII so may have been born after his dad died). It also doesn’t seem hugely likely that MF told his wife, who then told his sons, about the Very Secret Murder.

And this is from someone who thinks RIII ordered it done 😀

It amazes me that people are so quick to think Thomas More would write what the Royal family wanted to hear, given how he died.

It amazes me that people are so quick to think Thomas More would write what the Royal family wanted to hear, given how he died.

@Weepixie

It's complicated....but...

Philippa's main argument rested on the discovery of a document about Margaret of Burgundy (Edwards IV's sister) giving support to an armed attempt to put one of the princes (I think, Edward,the older prince) back on the English throne in 1487, when he would have been 17. The fact that she was his aunt was irrelevant though, because she left England in 1468, 2 years before he was born, so she would not have been in a position to recognise him or to confirm his identity. She may have been very keen to oust the new dynasty in favour of the Yorkists, though, so would have been motivated to help raise troops.

The programme focused on the authenticity of the document, which is one thing, and completely ignored the point above (Rob Rinder - call yourself a laywer???)

Since the programme was made another Channel 5 documentary focused on a number of fascinating and tantalising discoveries which throw light on the Princes in the Tower mystery. It was called 'Princes in the Tower: A Damning Discovery.

Thomas More, writing about 30 years after the event, says that Sir James Tyrell was tasked with 'disappearing' the princes and that accordingly, Miles Forest and John Dighton were dispatched to do the deed, which they did by suffocating the boys in their sleep. There have been attempts to discredit More as a Tudor propagandist, but historians agree that his account has the ring of truth about it, especially in the detail.

It's recently been discovered that when More was on one of his foreign embassies one of his servants/secretaries was the son of Miles Forest. This gives him a direct connection to the perpetrators.

And also - a will of Sir James Tyrell has been discovered in which he bequeaths the gold chain belonging to Edward V (I think he actually describes it as such) to his heirs. How else could he have obtained this if he hadn't been involved in the assassination? It might have been given to him as a reward by Richard III, or he might have just held on to it after Richard's death.

There's more but I'd better stop there! Hope this makes sense. I recommend the Channel 5 documentary!

This is why I love history - so many left-field factors. It’s not an exact science and personalities make a difference.

I’ve always felt a bit guilty for finding the 18th century in Britain boring. I’m ashamed to say that, once Parliament got the upper hand and the monarch receded into a submissive role, history became less interesting…at least for me! 🤣😲🤭

I know that’s the WRONG attitude, but I do enjoy my Ladybird Book approach to history. Of course it’s old fashioned but it’s what started my passion for the subject. I hope children now at primary school get their first taste of history teaching through simple stories. You can do the serious critical thinking, awareness of bias stuff later, but if you don’t grab their imagination early they’ll never be interested.

3rd son

Alphonso was the second son - their first was Henry who died aged 6

...and Richard III was odds on winner at Bosworth with twice the size of army and holding the high ground. If he hadn't rushed in with a small team to finish Henry early he'd almost certainly have won.

In fact, you could argue he deliberately took a massive risk early to end the battle at the start and save a very large number of lives. (We'll never know to what extent that was his motivation.)

I visited Conwy Castle this morning (10/10, would recommend, though I would guess everyone on this thread has been) and was startled to discover another royal elder son who died untimely - Prince Alfonso, eldest son of Edward I, who died age 10. The thought of Edward II not becoming king is intriguing. Also I feel sad we never had a King Alfonso.

I visited Conwy Castle this morning (10/10, would recommend, though I would guess everyone on this thread has been) and was startled to discover another royal elder son who died untimely - Prince Alfonso, eldest son of Edward I, who died age 10. The thought of Edward II not becoming king is intriguing. Also I feel sad we never had a King Alfonso.

Indeed - what a lot of Unpleasantness 😀

TRIH is currently covering the saga of Mary Stuart/Stewart, (sometimes known as "Queen of Scots") ...

Some of the manoeuvrings around her actions in enduring her heir was primed to takeover the English crown are intriguing.

IMO a lot of “nothing would stand in Margaret Beaufort’s way of Henry becoming King” is hindsight talking/dramatic license.

In March 1483, Henry had really no chance of the throne - Edward IV had been stable on the throne for 20 odd years, had two sons who had survived early childhood, had a brother and nephews also… and would have been expected to live at least another 5-10 years, until his sons were adults. Henry would certainly not have been in a position to raise an army against EIV, and of course would not have been given a DD of EIV to marry (given he was an exile at the time, and had been for 14 odd years)

I agree that Henry Tudor would never had succeeded the throne without the support of his mother and his stepfather/stepuncle (the Stanleys) but I do not think Margaret’s one and only goal from his birth was to see
him crowned, as she is often depicted. They played their cards pretty well, when they had them, but they didn’t have cards for a long time.

Because if you plan to murder your nephews you don't phone up (🤔) the Doctor and tell him not to bother with house calls because you're going to bump the patient off.

As you would know from your husband’s inheritance matters, Mrs Fentiman 😂😂

Yy. To quote Lord Peter Wimsey: when you know how, you know who.

Means and opportunity come before motive, and RIII had all of them.