To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

Fair point!

Thanks, @Westfacing - Marta is also a theatrical type in the books so fair enough. All that nibbling on the perfect biscuit 😀

@Arraminta thanks, yes, I already corrected myself.

Just a hint regarding seating - we were in Row D in the stalls which was a little too near the front for me, next time I would go a little further back. The seating is very well tiered and from what I could see there are no 'bad' seats.

Also there is a nice bar with friendly staff!

As a pp has argued, he was not actually in a very strong position in his brother’s reign. He spent much of his time in the north, away from court. His nephew was brought up close to his maternal family. Richard faced a difficult situation when his brother died. He could not rely on retaining his northern offices under his nephew.

His arguments re. his nephew’s illegitimacy were unconvincing and would have had no weight if his nephew had survived and grown, married and had sons. Richard acted swiftly to remove leading opposition to his plans, brutally in the case of Lord Hastings, in a manner designed to intimidate anyone else considering opposing his moves.

Bu far the best work to read on the difficulties Richard faced following his seizure of the throne is that by Rosemary Horrox. Hers is expert work on the politics of the reign, in particular Richard’s loss of longstanding Yorkist support and the narrowness of his own base. Even his closest supporters baulked at his consideration of marriage to his niece, which he planned so that Tudor could not himself marry her which he had formally pledged to do. She has decades of academic work behind her on this subject.

While John Ashdown-Hill produced valuable work on the DNA & remains searches, he was not an expert academic on the politics of the reign. I work in a related discipline and have a colleague in my faculty who teaches this historical period. They list A-H’s work on their reading list in a section on the search for Richard’s remains, but do not recommend it for this particular topic. I’ve had some interesting text chats the last day or so with them on the subject of this thread - it’s been fascinating to revisit it, a subsidiary course I took years ago.

Thank you @Westfacing will see if I can persuade someone to come with me otherwise will go on my own.

He was Edward VIII wasn't he?

@DrPrunesqualer @SheilaFentiman @NewAgeNewMe

Reporting back after seeing the play 'The Daughter of Time' at the Charing Cross Theatre.

As said I haven't read the book but IMO this is well worth seeing. The actor playing Alan Grant is convincing as a 1950s detective and the other roles are well acted if a little 'theatrical', especially that of Marta, but I did warm to her character in the second act. It was part drama, part history lesson, and light-hearted and hilarious at times.

It was my first visit to this theatre which is in the arches of Charing Cross station - very atmospheric!

Was it a horse park? 😉

Acts declaring children illegitimate and out of the line of succession can be reversed. The Beaufort line (from which Henry Tudor got his Lancastrian blood claim) was declared legitimate but not given a right of succession. Both Mary I and Elizabeth I were declared illegitimate and that was never reversed, though Henry VIII put them into his Act of Succession anyway. It was rumoured that Henry VIII was considering declaring his illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy as his heir at one point; however, HF died as a young man so the question went away.

TL; DR: declaring children illegitimate didn’t stop them potentially achieving the throne.

But the boys were declared illegitimate so he had no need to kill them. The marriage between their parents (Edward vi and Elizabeth woodville) was declared null and void as he was supposedly already secretly married to another woman (sorry, can’t remember who) so all the kids were declared bastards and Richard could be legitimate king. It would surely be better simply to let them live discredited?

Henry Tudor only became King because he had an Act of Parliament backdated to the day before Richard's death (22nd August 1485, since you ask) declaring him to be king before the battle of Bosworth Field.

Errr, what? HVII did try and do this in order to declare those fighting for RIII as treasonous, post hoc. But it’s not why he became king - he became king by conquest. Just as Edward IV did when fighting Henry VI/Margaret of Anjou.

(He also solidified the conquest by marrying EofY, of course)

Her great great grandfather-in-law was also Edward III, and he was also her great-great-great grandfather-in-law.
For Edward IV his great-great grandfather (Cecily) was his great-great-great-great grandfather (by Richard of York, Cecily husband) and also his great-great grandfather (by Richard of Conisburgh, different branch).
It's a bit messy.

If the boys had died of natural causes Richard would have announced it, and paraded their bodies to show it. They didn't. I believe they were murdered by Buckingham, who was duped into doing so by the Welsh cattle-rustler Henry Tudor. We'll never really know. What we do know is that Richard fought bravely on the battlefield, that Lord Stanley turned against him, and that Henry Tudor only became King because he had an Act of Parliament backdated to the day before Richard's death (22nd August 1485, since you ask) declaring him to be king before the battle of Bosworth Field. Henry, who became Henry VII, stole the throne. That much is fact, and is documented. Rest in peace, Good King Richard.

I don't think the car park was the punishment ...

Well to be fair it wasn't a car park for most of that 500 years.

Thank god we're not French ...

I do! Oops, lost count of ‘em 😀

I think you mean Edward VIII 😀

Lucy Worsley did a BBC documentary on this a couple of years ago and I think she came to the conclusion he'd done it.

Her grandfather was John of Gaunt so great grandfather was Edward III

As we are on old history... can anyone please describe Cecily Neville's relationship with Edward III, or that of her child Edward IV? I'm struggling to work out how to describe it when there are multiple links; do you just take the closest and hope that does it? Patriarchal line?

Helpful family tree: https://www.reddit.com/r/UsefulCharts/comments/18tsmq2/king_edward_iii_descendants_chart/#lightbox.

Royal Family work hard to ensure +ve PR only at all times & association with a publicly perceived wrong-un like RIII was to be avoided as far as was poss - hence only Sophie & obv Richard of Gloucester at the funeral

although his birth rite was never in question. There in lies the deception / dilemma / spin 🤣.

Oh what a tangled web

I think the most likely explanation is that they died in the tower, whether directly murdered, or through neglect. Richard went to considerable lengths to acquire both the heir and the spare and lock them in the tower. That isn't the sort of action that tends to lead to sunshine and puppies for the captured party. Even illegitimate they were still a threat, as shown with their full sister being re legitimised later.

I do agree that if they had been alive by the time Henry took over, he would likely have bumped them off. Just seems unlikely that he got the opportunity.

Indeed. Edward 7th was never crowned either - he abdicated before any coronation.