The White Queen

[ShadeofViolet]

Anyone else ridiculously excited?

I know Philippa Gregory's books tend to be a bit Barbara Cartland in places, and I hope the BBC havent increased it, but I still cannot wait to watch it.

I think Elizabeth's girls weren't too much of a threat to Richard whlle they were unmarried. Although legally there was nothing to stop them claiming the throne once their brothers were dead, in practice it would have been hard for them to have been accepted.

I should imagine that if Richard III had won at Bosworth and ruled for many years he would have been very careful about who they would have married, or even if he'd allowed them to marry at all.

I wonder, if Richard was behind the deaths of the princes, that is why he kept it quiet rather than claiming a natural death. With the boys dead there was nothing to stop an ambitious noble marrying one of the girls and claiming the throne as the heir to Edward IV. But if no one knew the boys were dead for certain, the girls were either not the heirs or illegitimate.

But the children were illegitimate at that time so not so appealing for nobles.

The problem with that theory though, is that they couldn't marry without his permission - and he could easily throw the ambitious noble in the Tower for marrying them without his permission. I'm not sure that would make them very attractive as a bride.

Yes, Richard III had reason to want the boys out of the way, but he easily could have arranged for it to appear as a natural illness-related death for one, and then a week or so later for the other. A huge state funeral, Richard appearing the grieving uncle, and while some may have been suspicious, it remained a fact back then that people died of illness all the time.

I suppose another option could be someone arranging to murder the boys, Richard's men finding the bodies and Richard opting to hide the bodies rather than allow suspicion to fall on him. But I don't think that could be contained as a secret tbh.

It's more likely that someone else (ie Margaret B or Buckingham) had hired a couple of their men to gain access and spirit the boys away - either gaining their cooperation telling them they were helping them escape and then murdering them elsewhere or murdering them in their room and carrying out the bodies. It's possible, I suppose, that the boys were drugged if someone had access to their food, so it could be accomplished easier as well. It makes the most sense, and as secret as it is, that generally means very very few people knew about it - no surprises, as that's generally talked about.

For them, the bodies being gone meant that a- nobody could do any investigations that might prove them to be involved and b- it made things very uncomfortable for Richard as he couldn't them defend himself by showing the boys or blame anyone else by showing the bodies. Yes, there is a possibility that Richard was behind it, but he'd have to be pretty stupid to do it in that way, as suspicion was very likely to fall on him, and change his morals very quickly as he'd always been loyal to his brother no matter what.

But legitimacy could be overcome - as in the case of the Beauforts.

And secret marriages could be made - as in the case of Catherine Valois and Owen Tudor .

Henry's. Claim to the throne was based on conquest and the Lancastrian line. The legitimacy of the princes didn't change that.

Richard's claim the was based on the princes illegitimacy. (Which might get overturned if enough nobles supported them) Their death made him more secure as all other potential York. Heirs were either girls or children.

And Richard's loyalty to his brother was abandoned once his brother died. Edward trusted his brother to be lord protector until his son was old enough to rule. To make his own claim was a betrayal of edward's trust.

Who decided that the Princes were illegitimate?

Could Richard not have disputed that?

I think it's generally agreed that Richard brought the matter to Parliament after a tip-off from the priest (Robert Stillington) who claims he married Edward iv to someone before Elizabeth Woodville, so Edward's relationship with EW was actually adulterous and their issue bastards .

So there are various accounts about it, one being that Richard made the whole thing up so he could get the crown for himself. Others say he used the rumour, or the Priest's claim to grab the crown because he didn't want the Woodville family effectively ruling the country through the young Prince Edward. Another version has it that everyone was shocked and surprised by the priest's claim, and Richard had no choice but to take it to parliament.

Nobody knows basically .

Eisode 6 rocks! I rewatched it last night and the portrayal of George of Clarence is just superb .

So would the priest's word be enough, or must there have been written evidence?

What had happened to the woman in question?

If Richard loved his brother, nephews & nieces, why would he want to have his marriage nullified(?) & the kids named as illegitimate?

poor old George of Clarence. actor is gorgeous.

do you think he was having a mental breakdown.

not a good move to hire a sorcerer.

from wiki

** He was a Bishop not a priest like I said

Robert Stillington, **Bishop of Bath and Wells. Stillington had been briefly imprisoned and fined for speaking out against Edward IV in 1478. Commines [Philippe de Commines French chronicler, I don't know if he was contemporary] later wrote,

The bishop discovered to the Duke of Gloucester that his brother king Edward had been formerly in love with a beautiful young lady and had promised her marriage upon condition that he might lie with her; the lady consented, and, as the bishop affirmed, he married them when nobody was present but they two and himself. His fortune depending on the court, he did not discover it, and persuaded the lady likewise to conceal it, which she did, and the matter remained a secret.[6]

Richard then persuaded Parliament to pass an act, Titulus Regius, which debarred Edward V from the throne and proclaimed himself as King Richard III. At a meeting held on 23 January 1484 the former king's marriage was declared illegal.

I think the priest's word might have been enough in those days. IIRC it wasn't an actual marriage but a pre-contract which was almost as good as marriage then. The woman, Eleanor Talbot, had actually died before Edward v was born to Edward and Elizabeth, so I think in theory if Edward IV had had any concerns about the potential validity of his initial marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, he could have "remarried" her or there were ways of getting dispensations from the pope in order to ensure the marriage was valid. I believe this was relatively common practice for all sorts of reasons which might otherwise have caused impediments to marriage (eg being too closely related). Clearly edward IV never did this, so must have assumed there was no problem. Whether this means the pre-contract was dreamt up by Richard, or whether it existed and edward chose to ignore it is anyone's guess.

Richard I think initially also suggested that his brother edward was also illegitimate and effectively accused his own mother Cecily Neville of adultery with a common soldier. This was pretty quickly dropped as you might imagine Cecily Neville was not best pleased.

Here is what I think happened.
Edward died and named Richard protector. The rumours started about Edwards marriage being invalid. Probably started/encouraged by the Lancastrian faction.
Richard realises that if little Edward is crowned, there will
a/ be a regency, with nobles all jockeying to undermine Richard Protectorship and take the throne, and that Elizabeth and her family would be at the forefront,
and b/ very probably be dissent in the country about the marriage and the claim of illegitimacy, leaving the crown wide open for rebellion and uprising by Lancaster.
Bearing in mind that the York's had fought long and hard to get the crown, Richard decided that the best way to secure the throne for York was to take the crown himself. A mature, proven warrior and statesman, with a secure lineage and a strong claim to the throne.
He put the boys in the Tower to keep them safe and prevent them from being used as figureheads of any further revolts.
They were seen playing happily in the Tower gardens, if he was planning their murder they would have gone in, been kept hidden and isolated and quietly done away with. Letting them have the freedom of the gardens just puts them in peoples minds.
And, as others have said, if he wanted them gone, public deaths through 'illness' makes much more sense and strengthens his claim.
IMO he put them in the Tower for safety And took the throne to ensure his family's line kept control. He could have named Edward as his heir and restored the order by putting him on the crown as his successor and a strong grown man.
But one of his enemies, MB probably, arranges their deaths and disappearance, she would have been able to get access knowing that with no Princes and no bodies, Richard would look highly suspect and take the blame, Elizabeth would become his enemy and probably join his enemies in planning his downfall. which is pretty much what happened.
Look at it this way, Georges son, Edward of Warwick was in the succession before Richard. When George died, Richard became his guardian. He didn't kill Edward when he took the throne. His claim was 'invalidated' by the act of attainder. Richard kept him safe. His death would also have strengthened Richards claim, but Edward Warwick lived. Edward boys were also invalidated. There was no need for Richard to kill them.

MB believed that God would put her son on the throne.

But would she kill two boys for that?

Was there need for Richard to kill them if he didn't want the illegitimacy questioning when Edward became of age?

I like Saggy's take on this.

Yes it seems extraordinary that any of these pious people could murder two little boys .

In fact if all these people, and later the Tudors too, weren't so desperate for the throne then I think their lives would have been so much happier!

I can see how Henry needed the Princes dead if he was to legitimise Edward's children.

However, it seems to me that them being dead would also be useful to Richard-especially if he was hoping his own son to take the title after him.

Not sure how rich/powerful the men were that the Rivers girls had married & if they would be likely to fight for EdwardV.

Also Richard killed Anthony Rivers & Elizabeth Woodville's oldest son who were escorting EdwardV at her request.

This makes no sense to me & why he couldn't have joined the escort.
Surely Rivers & Grey were no threat to Edward?

It seems to have been a way of getting the boy isolated.

Because to keep the throne for York and take control, keeping the country united, Richard needed to eliminate the opposition. Rivers and Grey would have just caused unrest. They would have supported Elizabeth's campaigning to keep young Edward on the throne.

"They would have supported Elizabeth's campaigning to keep young Edward on the throne."

You mean after he had been declared illegitimate?

Doesn't that strengthen the argument against Richard?

However, it seems to me that them being dead would also be useful to Richard-especially if he was hoping his own son to take the title after him.

I think Richard's son and heir had died by this time.

Yes, the deaths of Anthony Rivers and the Grey boy seem terrible and unnecessary.

I think EW was colluding with Margaret Beaufort at some point so was essentially becoming a Lancastrian supporter? That would be enough for Richard to cut them down. ...but I am busking a bit here admittedly...

I thought Richard's son died midway(?) through his reign.

Your second comment & face are completely lost on me.

With all this fighting over the throne I can never understand why Elizabeth 1 ( Henry VII and Elizabeth's grandaughter) did not have children. She saw in her recent past all the inter necine wars that had occurred. Surely it would have been of absolute importance to her who would succeed her.

I thought Elizabeth 1, couldn't have children.

I also thought, what if Margaret B, couldn't have children due to some gynae issue unrelated to being too young. Mary queen of Scots, Mary Tudor had problems reproducing.