To think Richard III clearly murdered the princes in the tower?

[Ppejfhfhrhhfhf]

It seems quite clear to me that Richard III betrayed his nephews, murdered them and usurped their crown.

Whenever I see discussions about it on social media or wherever, people always come on and try to claim he’s a misrepresented soul who’d never have done that. If you’re someone who believes him innocent, what do you think happened to the princes?

Would also be very interested if anyone knowledgeable knows what contemporary sources were saying at the time. What did the public think had happened to their King (Edward V)?

I don’t know enough about the history of history. Was Daughter of Time the first accessible, popular book that gave a different point of view about Richard to the general public, ie a credible theory that he was not a Shakespearean villain? Because if so I can see why it was so popular when it was published in the 1950s, and remained that way since then.

Yes, it was. And it’s a novel so reached people who wouldn’t necessarily have read non-fiction. It’s really well written and definitely a recommended read!

I agree, I first read my mums copy of it when I was a teenager. I think it must have ben one of the original paperback versions and it was falling apart. I quite like Brat Farrar too.

Just to go back to Alison Weir, she wrote the most appalling ‘biography’ of Katherine Swynford. Anyone who is a fan of Katherine by Anya Seton will know what a brilliant bit of historical fiction that is, and Anya Seton researched it when writing, but there is an awful lot of supposition and downright fiction in it. Alison Weir takes the very few sources of the time and basically tries to make them tally with Anya Seton’s story. It’s so far from being the approach of an actual historian it made me angry when I read it!

@Wonkypictureframe I'd agree that Alison Weir is along the lines of Phillipa Gregory, to be honest. She's not really an historian. She has a History degree as does Gregory - but they are not offering books with rigorous academic research.

If people really want accurate depictions of the Tudors, then they need to be reading David Starkey, David Loades, John Guy, Anna Whitelock, Eamonn Duffy, Susan Doran - these people are recognised and accredited historians of solid academic worth. But of course, a lot of it is fairly dry and complicated to read unless people have an already in depth knowledge of 15th/16th century government and politics.

I'm still holding a grudge (slightly) against John Guy who sacked off the A level Tudor History Conference a few years back when I had tickets to hear him speak - and he went to the Hollywood premier of 'Mary Queen of Scots' I think. (Which was inaccurately adapted from his book).

I agree. Although Alison Weir does actually employ a team of researchers (no idea whether they are historians) and then uses their stuff to write from. That’s how she produces so much stuff.

John Guy’s work is excellent (and I can understand your feelings!). Anyone who is spending years putting together a book is going to produce something of value, even if you disagree with its conclusions. The switch up from fiction (in my case because I am old it was mostly Jean Plaidy) to actual history is a shock to lots of people I think.

My very minor claim to fame is that Anna Whitelock took my room in a houseshare once. Her book on Mary is so good. It’s a shame Starkey has gone so mad as he was so good to hear lecture. In fact he was the first historian I ever heard lecture, at the same event you mention (assuming it has been going long enough, as I went to it not long after the Tudors finished their reign).

To anyone that enjoyed The Sunne In Splendour, then I also recommend We Speak No Treason by Rosemary Hawley-Jarman. A novel about RIII told by different women in his life.

@Wonkypictureframe We are (probably) of the same generation - I read loads of Jean Plaidy books throughout my teens that were my grandmother's and loved them.

To be fair to John Guy a) he was probably getting to hang out with Margot Robbie and b) they replaced him with Anna Whitelock - who was superb, and yep, her book is fab (although I think she's very kind to Mary). I'm impressed at your claim to fame! I'm with you on Starkey; I'm old and have heard him lecture many times over the years and he was always acerbic, but extremely entertaining. Sadly, yes, he's now desperate to shock/cross the line.

That was probably the first novel I read about Richard! Mum had a copy. The sections were the Maiden, the Fool, the Man of Keen Sight, and the Nun (who is the Maiden in later years).

Yes.

Why this question now OP? What triggered it?

@Catsmere 'That was probably the first novel I read about Richard! Mum had a copy. The sections were the Maiden, the Fool, the Man of Keen Sight, and the Nun (who is the Maiden in later years).'

When I was at University, many years ago, I shared a room in a supposedly haunted house with a girl who was studying Medieval History. One night everyone was out so to ward off any ghosts I let the owner's 2 dogs into my room and borrowed her copy of We Speak No Treason. I've been a life long Ricardian ever since.

What a great way to spend the night! ❤️

@Catsmere it was! Though I'm not sure use the dogs would have been. One was a Boxer called Emma who identified as male as s/he would try and mount anyone and the other was a blind & deaf Spaniel who was like a little bumper car bouncing off the furniture until she got where she wanted to be.

The book, on the other hand was brilliant!

He absolutely did not murder his nephews!

Margaret Beaufort ordered their murders to clear the way for her non-entity son who had no claim to the throne. She wanted them dead so the non-entity could marry Elizabeth of York, the eldest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville.

Their children had been declared illegitimate, so in order to marry they had to be declared otherwise, so if Elizabeth was legitimare then so were her two brothers, and if they were alive, then Edward was the rightful king.

Beaufort was also descended from John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford, and their children were only to be declared legitimate if they and their descendants never tried to claim the throne.

No one can say he "absolutely" did or did not murder the princes

Well, I will certainly say he did not murder them!!

Margaret Beaufort ordered their murders

And how do you believe she achieved this? Do you genuinely believe that a woman who was the mother of the sole Lancastrian claimant had the power to 'order' the murder of the King's nephews who were in the Tower of London for 'safe keeping'. Neither she nor any of her supporters had access to the boys, nor the ability to do this. Had anyone murdered them without Richard's authorisation do you genuinely believe he kept quiet about it and went about his days humming gently to himself? It is clear that they were dead before Bosworth or Richard would have produced them in order to secure the support of those who doubted him. The fact that he couldn't cost him his throne. The Stanley brothers would not have defected mid battle if Richard had been able to show that his nephews were still alive. There would have been no gain for them in doing so.

Some of these theories are just not logical or at all reasonable to anyone who understands 15th century political history. It's a bit like announcing Keir Starmer obviously ordered the murder of Elizabeth II because he thought he'd come to power under Charles III who is a bit of 'leftie'.

Zero? Really? He murdered the prince's uncle on that last journey to London
He has Hastings, a man loyal to the dead king and his sons, murdered
He published a load of sanctimonious claptrap to make him seem virtuous in comparison to his dead brother
The new evidence proving that least one of the prince's survived isn't new at all. It has been around for years and discounted

😆😆😆

@MrsScrubbingbrush

Lifelong Ricardian here too!

Loyaulte Me Lie.

I wanted to thank all the people who recommended The Daughter of Time. Just finished and absolutely loved it.

I’ve just finished listening to Queens of the Conquest by Alison Weir, which starts with Matilda, the wife of William the Conqueror (they nearly all seem to have been called Matilda) & goes through to the first Plantagenets.

Before that I listened to her book on Katherine Swynford, mother of the first Beauforts. Both really interesting, both for themselves and as a prequel of sorts to what came later.

I got that on the Kindle deal, and also bought an old copy of "We Speak No Treason", complete with bonus gift of fossilized moth inside. 😅 Both are awaiting reading after I've finished "The Plantagenets".

I'm also currently watching "The White Queen". Some seriously pantomimimey acting going on, especially from the older female parts. Very entertaining.

I still don’t understand how anyone can think Richard III didn’t murder them.

He couldn’t produce them when it would’ve helped him. If anyone else had somehow got in the Tower and murdered them, Richard would’ve mentioned it. How could he not have murdered them?