Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

History club

Whether you're interested in Roman, military, British or art history, join our History forum to discuss your passion with other MNers.

The princes in the tower

36 replies

MrsJackRackham · 04/11/2017 21:32

I'm watching a docudrama on the two princes who disappeared in the Tower of London. Why wasn't a huge fuss made when it happened? Surely it wasn't just a case of Riii declaring them illegitimate and then everyone forgot about them. What about their mother? Uncles, cousins? The Woodvilles all had prominent titles and were powerful men. Why weren't more questions asked?

OP posts:
MyKingdomForBrie · 04/11/2017 21:58

Because times were entirely different?! It’s not like the social we’re going to knock on Richard’s door.. Grin

Disagree with King = death

HelenDenver · 15/01/2018 19:18

They were in the Tower of London, seen increasingly less, then not seen anymore. But it's not like thousands of people were aware of this, few people knew what was going on at the Tower of London.

The power of the Woodvilles derived largely from Edward IV; after his death, Richard III had his own noble friends. Their mother and sisters were in sanctuary when they disappeared.

CassandraCross · 15/01/2018 19:37

Different times, rule by fear and wanting to keep in with the 'right' side lest you lose your head, titles and estates.

The Woodvilles power was drastically reduced by Richard III, Elizabeth Woodville was in hiding and Richard had already executed two of her relations - Richard Grey and Anthony Woodville.

The Woodvilles were not terribly popular being seen as somewhat grasping and not many wanted the Regency of the Woodvilles which would have had to be in place on behalf of the young Edward V, however, they didn't condone or expect the Princes to be murdered.

CassandraCross · 15/01/2018 19:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CassandraCross · 15/01/2018 19:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Snowdrop18 · 15/01/2018 19:37

oh I recorded a documentary about this recently, wonder if it's the same one

tbh I've never wondered because a royal child would hardly have been seen anyway. No one outside their immediate circle would know anything was amiss and even then, my understanding was they were managed away quietly. Certainly no one would have had any concept of "vulnerable" as we have now.

plus anyone who did know might well be in on the whole plan.

anyone outside the royal circle won't know what they look like or have much awareness they exist.

CassandraCross · 15/01/2018 19:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Snowdrop18 · 15/01/2018 19:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CassandraCross · 15/01/2018 19:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CassandraCross · 15/01/2018 19:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CassandraCross · 15/01/2018 19:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CassandraCross · 15/01/2018 19:43

Sorry about the multiple posts will ask MN to remove them.

ILoveDolly · 15/01/2018 19:50

Nowadays we are so used to knowing things about others, especially leading figures, and knowing what people look like. But the case was simply that hardly anyone would have had close access to the workings of the throne and royal family. Servants saw all kinds of stuff but to talk would have meant death. Most people would have been unbothered or at least unmoved anyway. Children died all the time, and were not treated as precious in quite the same ways as our children.

ArabellaHorseyHorsey · 15/01/2018 19:57

It's only in recent times that we know everything (OK, more) about the Royal Family. I never knew that the Queen had an epileptic uncle who was hidden away and died at the tender age of 11/13? until Stephen Poliakof made a faction -drama based on him.

Anasnake · 22/01/2018 21:58

He was called Prince John Arabella

AgathaRaisonDetra · 22/01/2018 22:18

Prince John Arabella

Are you sure?

JeNeSuisPasVotreMiel · 23/01/2018 06:40

For the want of a comma, the meaning was lost....

Anasnake · 23/01/2018 06:47

Considering the previous poster was called Arabella, I wouldn't have thought it was difficult to work out.

AgathaRaisonDetra · 23/01/2018 06:49

Eats, shoots and leaves.

Allington · 23/01/2018 07:21

I was on a forum the other day that was talking about 19th century royalty travelling incognito when they wanted a private holiday - they could because even (with blurry newspapers and photocards) very few people would recognise them. Apparently even in the 1930s they would typically travel around with just one policeman/detective, and not get mobbed.

So the princes would hardly be known about, let alone seen regularly by anyone except a handful of guards/servants in the tower.

ImListening · 23/01/2018 08:10

The jury is out though isn’t it on whether it was Richard, Buckingham or Margaret Beaufort? I’m not convinced it was Richard as he’d declared them illegitimate unless he saw them as a threat in the future.

Checklist · 23/01/2018 08:14

I've always suspected it was Henry VIi!

ImListening · 23/01/2018 08:19

I have wondered about him but was he in the country or probably just got someone to do his dirty work.

MsJolly · 23/01/2018 09:21

I always thought it was Margaret Beaufort to pave the way for her son to become King. She had the greatest motive and always thought she had some divine right to the monarchy.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.