To wonder which ‘history facts’ aren’t true.

[LeslieKnopefan]

I understand that history isn’t always true and the further we go back in time the harder it is know what the truth is and what is simply made up.

However I recently posted that I thought it was true that Marie Antoinette hair turned white overnight after her best friends head was paraded in front of her and that I only realised it wasn’t when I told a mate who pointed out it couldn’t be true.

So which history facts that people think are true are known to be lies?

Because it might set a precedent?

I think it was going to open a huge can of worms, rather than prove without any accuracy the date (just like Icant said) it would just be ballpark, plus as was likely it would come back as not Edward and Richard then what on earth do they do with the remains then, keep them there although not royal or nerf them out on the scrap heap (not quite literally)
If they tested those remains then who would be next, Richard II's remains are slightly questionable so the same problem would exist for him and a whole host of others so it would really open a Royal can of worms

The two coffins found in a vault adjoining the tomb of Edward IV and Elizabeth W are intriguing. They were thought to be two of their children who'd died young but the remains of said children were later found elsewhere. So whose coffins are they and why were they buried near the King and queen?

The two coffins found in a vault adjoining the tomb of Edward IV and Elizabeth W are intriguing.

Yes I agree. I think if they turned out to be the princes then that would more point to Richard having killed them because Thomas Moore said they were put somewhere more appropriate (again - not that TM is a good source, but...) Where is more appropriate than with their parents?

But also their being there could point to Henry killing them and burying them there, or them dying of a fever and quietly being buried there or, well, anything really.

Even if Richard didn't kill them, I'm not sure Henry did. They disappeared a fair time before he became king (which points towards them dying during Richards reign), and his behaviour towards Perkin Warbeck makes me think he genuinely didn't know what became of them.

I'm not convinced Henry did either, though I don't think it's as unlikely as it seems... I'm not convinced the princes vanished when we think they did. We know they went into the tower in June and the last record of them is in August when someone writes that they were seen on the battlements practising their archery.

But just because that is the last record of them doesn't actually make it the last time they were seen. It just means that it was the last time somebody wrote down that they saw them - and not even necessarily that - it's actually the last time someone wrote down that they saw them and that document survived. Lots of letters and diaries etc could have held similar information and simply been lost to posterity as most letters and diaries are.

Though there is no reason in a semi-literate society that there would be masses of written evidence for what two disinherited boys being kept quietly in the tower are up to. One of the problems with the written record is that it doesn't tend to record the mundane, obvious and everyday. And things that are a record of that (laundry lists etc) don't survive because who on earth thinks to keep their laundry list for the historical record?

I remember one of my lecturers at uni pointing out that her diary was full of important meetings she had to attend... but there was never anything written in for half 3 on a weekday - the time she went to pick up her children from school. She did it every day so she didn't have to write it down to remember it. But as far as the historical record is concerned there is just a blank nothingness everyday for her at 3:30 when she could be doing something important but wasn't.
The people in charge of caring for those boys weren't going to write down that they had seen them because... well, obviously they had!

They don't actually vanish from existence. They vanish from the historical record. But as their importance has been removed - well, why wouldn't they?

I've said before - there was no rumour the boys were missing at the time, so nobody was particularly looking for them or taking note of them. After Richard is crowned, Elizabeth Wodeville comes out of sanctuary, goes to live in the country and sends her eldest daughters to Richard's court. She wasn't a shy and retiring wall flower - if she thought her boys were missing she would have kicked up a stink, and if she thought Richard had killed them she wouldn't have sent her daughters to his court - or come out of sanctuary for that matter, she would have feared for her own life.

As to the treatment of Perkin Warbeck... I can see the argument that Henry isn't sure who he is in his treatment of him. But I can also see that he knows full well that this man isn't Richard, Duke of York - but he can't admit to that without admitting that he knows Richard is dead - and how he knows that for a fact. After all - the way he got rid of Lambert Simnel was by producing the real Edward of Warwick. His treatment of Warbeck only proves that he doesn't have Richard of York to hand to produce - but that could be because he genuinely doesn't know where he is ... or because he know's he murdered him, but he can't really just come out and say that!

After all - if he hadn't repealed the Titulus Regulus then Richard of York would have had no claim to the throne anyway. But he did repeal it - thus making Edward V king and Richard of York his heir. He really backed himself into a corner and needed to sort it out. Having the boys killed would seem like a sensible option. And he sent their mother away to live in a convent, stripping her of all her titles and wealth, right around the time his own first heir is born. Almost as if he is trying to get rid of the one person who will cause a fuss if she notices she isn't being given news of her boys.
The boys are dead - Elizabeth is locked away - everything seems sorted.
...and then Perkin Warbeck turns up. He can't produce Richard the way he produced Edward - and he can't produce Richard's body without causing a scandal - so he fudges along until he eventually has enough to execute the impostor without having to come out and say once and for all that this is definitely an impostor.

I agree there's no way Elizabeth would have just come out quietly and let her daughters go if she believed Richard had murdered the boys at that time. She had no issues with starting a fight so it just wouldn't make sense.
The Perkin Warbeck thing was a huge thorn in Henry's side. I often wonder if Margaret of Burgundy just sent him as a parting gift, only recognising him as young Richard Duke of York as a kind of parting gift from the House of York but I think that's just wishful thinking.

I often wonder what Elizabeth Woodville had said or done for Henry to lock her away.

She had no issues starting a fight when her husband was alive. But once he was gone things were different. Was she scared of Richard? After all, she'd seen him kill her brother and son. Maybe she thought she had no choice but to release her daughters.

I think Elizabeth Woodville was quieter under Richard's rule as she knew that he was not going to allow her family to influence things the way they had in Edward IV's reign. However, once Henry Tudor had married her daughter you would think she might have gone to him and asked where her sons were? Could he locate them? But she did not seem to do this, maybe because there was no need- she knew where they were and that they were safely in hiding.

Also, when Perkin Warbeck reached England Henry Tudor would not allow Elizabeth his wife to see or meet with him, presumably for fear that she might have recognised her own brother and this would mean his succession was called into question. If he knew conclusively that the princes had been killed by Richard then it would have been ok to allow her to see him as itwould prove that it wasn't him. I think Henry knew there was a possibility that the boys were alive and in hiding, that is why Perkin Warbeck caused him so much trouble.

She had no issues starting a fight when her husband was alive. But once he was gone things were different

She planned and organised a revolt with the Lancastrians whilst she was in sanctuary! She did not need her husband by her side for her to dare to stir up trouble.

If people at the time (including Henry) genuinely thought there was a chance that Perkin Warbeck was Richard of York then that only shows that the people of the time did not believe that Richard III had killed them - and that this belief that he definitely did it comes from much much later i.e it is totally unreliable and unsubstantiated.

Thank you everyone who answered my question about the dna and bones :)

Who knows anything about the story of James II's wife having a baby smuggled in to her delivery room in a warming pan? I was taught it as absolute fact when I was very small but it sounds ridiculous.

Pretty sure the warming pan story was a lie. I saw a program that mentioned it with Lucy Worsely discussion how a baby wouldn't fit in a bed pan.

This thread is bloody brilliant

I've just started reading The Lady of the Rivers which I thought I'd read before, I'm getting confused though, was the red queen Elizabeth Woodville and the white queen her daughter.

I'm wondering am I mixing up books with TV series

I know a lot don't like PG and I usually read all sorts but not about this part of history.

I also have a strange habit of reading two books at the same time, one upstairs and one downstairs so that's probably not helping.

I have another one on the go about Catherine of Aragon first marriage but I think I left it behind after an appointment.

The warming pan was nonsense.

Ellen
The Red Queen was Margaret Beaufort (mother of Henry VII). The White Queen was Elizabeth Woodville.

when Perkin Warbeck reached England Henry Tudor would not allow Elizabeth his wife to see or meet with him, presumably for fear that she might have recognised her own brother and this would mean his succession was called into question

Henry allowed Perkin Warbeck to be at court with them for 18 months (after his confession)! She would have seen him daily. Either he was quietly recognised as Richard and allowed to live there for Elizabeth’s sake (unlikely but possible as apparently Henry did love her) or he really was no threat whatsoever because he was just a pretender.

Really though, she probably wouldn’t have recognised him even if he had been her brother. He went to the Tower in 1483, and Warbeck turned up in 97. That’s 14 years. He was 9 when he went so presumably 23 when he turned up. He would look completely different to the boy she knew when she was only 17.

Have we mentioned ring o ring o roses yet. Often taught in primary schools as being about the plague - but apparently not!

Yes, that one drives me up the wall, Tea. Always said in such a smug way, like it’s such a brilliant revelation. It’s not true and it doesn’t even make sense.

Yes, that one drives me up the wall, Tea. Always said in such a smug way, like it’s such a brilliant revelation. It’s not true and it doesn’t even make sense.

I've never heard anyone be "smug" about it (what's to be smug about? God, MN is a weird place.) What's it about then?

Thankyou BMW6, I knew I was getting mixed up somewhere, I'll have to start again, I find it all so interesting but confusing.

Really though, she probably wouldn’t have recognised him even if he had been her brother. He went to the Tower in 1483, and Warbeck turned up in 97. That’s 14 years. He was 9 when he went so presumably 23 when he turned up. He would look completely different to the boy she knew when she was only 17.

There is a lot more to it than physical recognition though. If she did talk to him then presumably if he was Richard he would remember stuff, like where he had been all those years, what happened to his brother, things he might recall about his mother/sister/ aunt in Burgundy. I think it was safe for Henry to allow him to be at court once he had confessed that he wasn't Richard. Doesn't mean the confession was real though, it was probably the only way to survive. The fact that he was allowed at court suggest Henry thought he might be who he said he was. Once he tried to escape then he became a threat again and Henry had him executed.

I read something about Warbreck having a lazy eye which Richard also had ???? (Probably total nonsense!!)

Could someone please tell me - and this is a genuine question - how people who debunk historical "facts" or media "facts", including those facts taught on degree courses or appearing in decent newspapers, know that they are not true? Are all these people all academics or archaeologists or pioneering journalists - in other words people with access to primary data? If not, how do they know the "truth"?