WI: Richard III Is More Subtle?

[Elfwine]

Because they are still a serious threat to his regime? If he shows that they are alive, they are justification for a rebellion, and a much better justification than Henry Tudor ever was at that, and if he shows them to be dead, than whether or not he did it he'll still be blamed for either murder or incompetence. In many ways, keeping the princes' fate uncertain was a very good thing for Richard (even if not for his later reputation), he just had a run of bad luck in other areas.

Also note, if he grieves, that proves they are dead without proving his innocence in the matter, so it doesn't actually make much sense.

Showing that he's not a kinslayer is a not insignificant something.

Its pretty hard (if they're dead) to prove he didn't do it. Proving a negative and all that crap.

As far as I'm concerned, for both Richard and Henry, the right thing to do publicly if the princes were dead is exactly the same as the right thing to do if they were still alive, even ignoring whether or not either man murdered them. The only thing that lends itself to Richard is the year without seeing the princes where he controlled the tower, but even that doesn't prove that he killed them, it just suggests (still, not confirms) that they died during that year.

So the right thing is to make people wonder if you had them killed, rather than prove otherwise, or have people think pretenders are possibly the real thing (even if they're dead)?

 

[Pericles]

Some people actually consider Buckingham to be the prime suspect for their murder. In his role as Lord Constable of England he had enough access to & control over events in the Tower, his camp seems to have been one of the main sources for the rumour, and killing them but getting Richard blamed would have helped to clear his own path (arguably with a better claim than Henry Tudor possessed) to the throne.

Yes, but wouldn't Richard find out Buckingham did it? I suppose it's possible, the more I think about it the more credible it seems. But I still lean towards Henry Tudor, he had a better motive and better means(presuming they were still alive after Bosworth). it's also credible they fell ill and died and Richard can't reveal that without accusations flying at him.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Showing that he's not a kinslayer is a not insignificant something.

Its pretty hard (if they're dead) to prove he didn't do it. Proving a negative and all that crap.



So the right thing is to make people wonder if you had them killed, rather than prove otherwise, or have people think pretenders are possibly the real thing (even if they're dead)?

What I never understood is, if they were dead why not announce it and do some sort of viewing/state funeral? I mean I can get why no viewing if they died violently but no funeral was always odd. It was like everyone important just pretended they never existed. So why didn't, and I mean this about both Henry and Richard, didn't they have a funeral? Wouldn't it be better to say that they are dead rather than leaving the question unanswered?

Yes, but wouldn't Richard find out Buckingham did it? I suppose it's possible, the more I think about it the more credible it seems. But I still lean towards Henry Tudor, he had a better motive and better means(presuming they were still alive after Bosworth). it's also credible they fell ill and died and Richard can't reveal that without accusations flying at him.

Yes Richard could find out about Buckingham, if he did it, but why would that matter? Ultimately the murder help Richard. Just like the murder of Peter III helped Catherine the Great. You can say that Henry had a better motive but the truth was the Princes surviving would have been a bad thing for both sides, as it would weaken their claims heavily. Yes its possible that they died of illness, but why not announce it? That he can't reveal that without accusations flying is weak, as accusations would fly either way. In many ways the Princes of the Tower were similar to Louis XVII. It was in everyones best interests for him to be dead/assumed dead and no one wanted to know the truth either way.

 

[Avitus]

Showing that he's not a kinslayer is a not insignificant something.

But does proving that outweigh the chance of them being used against him?

Its pretty hard (if they're dead) to prove he didn't do it. Proving a negative and all that crap.

Well yes, but doesn't that support my point that his actions would be no different whether they died at his hands or not?

So the right thing is to make people wonder if you had them killed, rather than prove otherwise, or have people think pretenders are possibly the real thing (even if they're dead)?

I imagine his policy would have changed if a pretender arose with significant strength. It also would have probably changed if he were ever able to become more solidified, that is, he is legally accepted, not facing rebellions, and has a solid heir. As it stands, no sooner had he been legalized then Buckingham's rebellion happened, and as the rebellion ended his son died, and then there was another rebellion. I would bet that, had his regime ever not been in a state of crisis for a few months he would have come up with a story for the princes or produced them alive (obviously depending on whether they were alive).

Still, I think we can say with certainty that the answer to the original WI is pretty much that everyone still blames Richard, and still lacks proof that he did it, so it's pretty much the same as IOTL.

 

[Elfwine]

But does proving that outweigh the chance of them being used against him?

That would require someone being able to do that. The Tower is pretty secure.

Well yes, but doesn't that support my point that his actions would be no different whether they died at his hands or not?

I don't think so. At least putting on the show of grieving uncle makes it seem like he's not guilty - those who hate him or buy whatever the latest rumor is may not care, but it beats OTL.

I imagine his policy would have changed if a pretender arose with significant strength. It also would have probably changed if he were ever able to become more solidified, that is, he is legally accepted, not facing rebellions, and has a solid heir. As it stands, no sooner had he been legalized then Buckingham's rebellion happened, and as the rebellion ended his son died, and then there was another rebellion. I would bet that, had his regime ever not been in a state of crisis for a few months he would have come up with a story for the princes or produced them alive (obviously depending on whether they were alive).

Maybe. I'm not convinced that he was so overwhelmed he couldn't have done it (continuing with the assumption they're alive), though.

Still, I think we can say with certainty that the answer to the original WI is pretty much that everyone still blames Richard, and still lacks proof that he did it, so it's pretty much the same as IOTL.

I think people blamed Richard at least in part because it made sense from the (non)information available - the idea that he's responsible for disease is less believable than that he quietly offed them.

 

[JedidiahStott]

Well, Richard had a good reason for not wanting people to be sure that the princes were alive. When the king is a child, the big ambition for ambitious men is to seize the child - then lots of options open up. Once Richard brought the boys out and said "Well, here they are", a lot of ambitious men would start scheming. So long as no one knows where they are or if they are alive, it's harder. Some of the scuttlebutt about them being dead may have been to try to force Richards hand, by getting him to bring them out and confirm their whereabouts.

And of course Richard also had a reason not to confirm that they were dead. Even the middle ages looked sideways at killing two young innocent children. Ruthless men might well do it themselves, but when someone else did it, that could be a good rallying cry for rebellion. Richard could also have had another reason for not wanting to confirm or deny. After 1484 he had no obvious heir. That meant ambitious men would start to gather around whoever was regarded as heir presumptive. The more confusion the world could be kept in about just who that heir presumptive might be, the safer Richard was.

As soon as the world knew that the Princes were dead, men would start to look to the next heir (presumably the Earl of Warwick). And maybe thinking about hastening the succession process. Not such a good idea though if Richard could suddenly pop up one of the princes and re legitimise him. Not according to law to be sure, but then what of that time was.

Henry, on the other hand, if he knew the princes were dead , had every reason to announce it. He can blame Richard (whether or not that be true). And once they are known to be dead, that removes a focus of rebellion. So if Henry knew where the bodies were he would have surely paraded them. Either he didn't know where they were, or the princes were still alive at the beginning of his reign.

 

[JedidiahStott]

One of the odd things, if the princes were not alive when Henry seized the throne, is that he appears to have made very little effort to obtain details of what became of them. It was only a few years ago, and there would still have been quite a lot of people who would have had some information. Guards, cooks, cleaners, who could give evidence that the princes were alive at a certain date. Somebody had to cook their food, bring it to them , guard them. At the least they could have established a "last known alive" date. If I were Henry, I would want to find out as much as I could. If he could show that the princes were dead, that was good for him - vilifies Richard, and removes a focus for rebellion (as did happen , of course). So why make no effort (maybe he did, I've not heard of anything). One would think their sister would also have been interested.

Then again, on the other hand, if Richard killed them why leave their sister alive ? Her claim may not have been as good as her brothers' but it was probably better than Richards. And when he seized the throne Richard still had a living wife and heir, so he would have had little reason to keep Elizabeth as a "reserve wife". If you are going to kill the children , surely it makes more sense to kill them all.

EDIT: We should remember that the princes would almost certainly not have been in a dungeon, or what we perhaps think of as a prison. As well as a fortress the Tower was a quite palatial royal residence, which is almost certainly where the princes would have been housed.

 

[Avitus]

That would require someone being able to do that. The Tower is pretty secure.

But even trapped in the tower they are a stronger symbol for a rebellion if they are alive. Especially with Buckingham's rebellion planning to liberate the princes, showing that they are definitely alive and definitely in the tower seems counterproductive. IMO they were a much less serious threat when proposing Henry Tudor than they would have been in support of Edward V, tower or no.

I don't think so. At least putting on the show of grieving uncle makes it seem like he's not guilty - those who hate him or buy whatever the latest rumor is may not care, but it beats OTL.

True, but I think that is just the kind of publicity stunt that is most difficult to pull of with Buckingham's rebellion going on, since those who are going to accuse him of insincerity are already in open rebellion. If they are found to be dead right after Buckingham says he wants Edward back on the throne, well, that is timing that could easily cost Richard his life a tear earlier then IOTL.

Maybe. I'm not convinced that he was so overwhelmed he couldn't have done it (continuing with the assumption they're alive), though.

Fair enough.

I think people blamed Richard at least in part because it made sense from the (non)information available - the idea that he's responsible for disease is less believable than that he quietly offed them.

Every death of a teenager or young man by disease in the renaissance that I can recall hearing about was accompanied by some suspicions of poisoning, along with a possible suspect for most of them ( for instance, Ladislaus V of Hungary died of Leukemia at age 17, George of Podebrady was the primary suspect). Both princes dying, even if we now know that many infectious diseases could have easily killed both of them without foul play, will only look more suspicious, and at least bad as their unaccounted for status in OTL.

 

[Elfwine]

But even trapped in the tower they are a stronger symbol for a rebellion if they are alive. Especially with Buckingham's rebellion planning to liberate the princes, showing that they are definitely alive and definitely in the tower seems counterproductive. IMO they were a much less serious threat when proposing Henry Tudor than they would have been in support of Edward V, tower or no.

They're only as potent a symbol for rebellion as those who care about rebelling in their name - as opposed to doing what Henry did or Richard's father (and brother) did.

True, but I think that is just the kind of publicity stunt that is most difficult to pull of with Buckingham's rebellion going on, since those who are going to accuse him of insincerity are already in open rebellion. If they are found to be dead right after Buckingham says he wants Edward back on the throne, well, that is timing that could easily cost Richard his life a tear earlier then IOTL.

Richard took the throne at the end of June (of 1483), Buckingham rebelled in October, and Richard's reign lasted until August of 1485.

If they are alive - showing that in between disposing of Buckingham and facing Tudor seems possible.

Every death of a teenager or young man by disease in the renaissance that I can recall hearing about was accompanied by some suspicions of poisoning, along with a possible suspect for most of them ( for instance, Ladislaus V of Hungary died of Leukemia at age 17, George of Podebrady was the primary suspect). Both princes dying, even if we now know that many infectious diseases could have easily killed both of them without foul play, will only look more suspicious, and at least bad as their unaccounted for status in OTL.

I find it difficult to believe that people are going to be more suspicious than they were OTL. Will there be rumors? Of course. But there are rumors anyway, and them actually being dead making that worse - how?

 

[Avitus]

They're only as potent a symbol for rebellion as those who care about rebelling in their name - as opposed to doing what Henry did or Richard's father (and brother) did.

(Assuming that bit means rebelling for personal gain rather than an ideal), Couldn't the princes appeal to both their personal supporters and the vast majority of Henry VII's supporters, making them at least somewhat more potent?

Richard took the throne at the end of June (of 1483), Buckingham rebelled in October, and Richard's reign lasted until August of 1485.

If they are alive - showing that in between disposing of Buckingham and facing Tudor seems possible.

Well, his wife and son both died in that period, and then there is the problem of succession, the day to day political minutia, and the fact that he's hardly stable at the time. Still, he probably could have done it, but by then is it still at the forefront of people's minds? Even if it is, it probably isn't in the forefront of Richard's mind. Is it really acceptable for him to devote time to his nephews memory immediately after the death of his only (legitimate) child?

You're probably right here though, just bringing those up for discussion's sake.

If they are alive, then I still don't see why he'd want to reveal them. With his son dead he's just taken a big hit, and a teenage Edward V looks like a good potential heir or even replacement for a middle aged Richard, and one that he certainly doesn't want given his problems with Edward IOTL.

I find it difficult to believe that people are going to be more suspicious than they were OTL. Will there be rumors? Of course. But there are rumors anyway, and them actually being dead making that worse - how?

I was only arguing that they would be equally bad. Them being confirmed dead does put a more sinister edge on the story though, and like I said, the OTL situation allows you to believe Richard either is innocent or guilty, whereas here he will pretty certainly be called guilty of something related to their deaths (murder, neglect, or incompetence, possibly witchcraft as well given the attitudes of the day).

 

[Elfwine]

(Assuming that bit means rebelling for personal gain rather than an ideal), Couldn't the princes appeal to both their personal supporters and the vast majority of Henry VII's supporters, making them at least somewhat more potent?

Right. Rebelling to claim the throne in one's own right, specifically.

As for the princes and their appeal - I wonder how much personal support they actually had. I mean, its a convenient thing to seize on to for one's own cause - and they were too young to have made a mark on their own.

This is just an idle musing, but if you've any thoughts I'd love to read them. Just about no one can be expected to be purely disinterested in regards to who they backed.

Henry VII seems to have had an advantage as an adult - technically Edward V might have been at his majority if alive in 1485, but he'd still be essentially backed by someone in his name, most likely.

Well, his wife and son both died in that period, and then there is the problem of succession, the day to day political minutia, and the fact that he's hardly stable at the time. Still, he probably could have done it, but by then is it still at the forefront of people's minds? Even if it is, it probably isn't in the forefront of Richard's mind. Is it really acceptable for him to devote time to his nephews memory immediately after the death of his only (legitimate) child?

Maybe I'm looking at in the wrong light, but the thought comes to mind to combine both - having lost both his "beloved nephews" and "his only son".

That might take a bit more charisma than OTL Richard seems to have had, though. Not to say he was an utterly unattractive fellow, but he seems to have lacked a knack for looking good even in his brother's reign - he's the loyal brother, yes, but hardly the most dashing of Richard Duke of York's sons.

You're probably right here though, just bringing those up for discussion's sake.
[/quote

Always good. Speaking for myself, I think the more this gets discussed, the better - as was revealed on the first page, the issue is rather intense for some reason.

And properly weighing what would make sense for Richard to do means ignoring how one feels on Richard or Henry personally.

If they are alive, then I still don't see why he'd want to reveal them. With his son dead he's just taken a big hit, and a teenage Edward V looks like a good potential heir or even replacement for a middle aged Richard, and one that he certainly doesn't want given his problems with Edward IOTL.

Richard is only thirty-something, even in his day that's not middle aged. But it might well be taken in the wrong light, true.

I was only arguing that they would be equally bad. Them being confirmed dead does put a more sinister edge on the story though, and like I said, the OTL situation allows you to believe Richard either is innocent or guilty, whereas here he will pretty certainly be called guilty of something related to their deaths (murder, neglect, or incompetence, possibly witchcraft as well given the attitudes of the day).

Yeah. I think this gets into (from the standpoint of Richard) weighing whether or not the people saying that anyway are going to make up most of those who would be making such a claim.

Can't blame him for not wanting to take a risk even if rationally it might not have been any worse - his situation is tense even without active rebellion.

 

[Mikestone8]

How about Anne Neville as a possible killer?

As Richard's Queen, she might have been able to acquire his seal to put on a message, or even to give a verbal order supposedly representing the King's wishes. "He wants them dead, Sir Robert, but you know what he's like. He can't order it in case he someday has to deny it under oath - and he won't perjure himself".

And Anne might be more motivated than her husband. Richard had lived though violent times, but save for a year or so in 1469-70, had been consistently on the winning side since he was eight years old. Anne Neville had not. At 13/14, she had seen her father toppled from the pinnacle of power and forced into exile, then come back in seeming triumph only to be killed in battle, along with her uncle and soon afterwards her first husband. She'd then fallen into the hands of an unscrupulous brother-in-law, and been lucky not to get immured in a convent or worse. For the moment, she had some security with Richard, but it all hung on a single life. Should anything happen to him, she could find herself in a life or death struggle to protect her nine year old son, in shark infested political waters. Maybe she wasn't willing to take it on trust that the Princes wouldn't be a threat.

It would also explain Richard's silence on the Princes' fate. He couldn't reveal the truth unless he was prepared to execute his own wife - and even then there'd be many to claim that he was really the one behind it, and had just used Anne as a scapegoat. Presented with a fait accompli, he might feel that there was nothing for it but to keep silent and hope that the damage wouldn't be fatal.

 

[JedidiahStott]

An interesting theory.

If one wished to play amateur psychologist one might also advance a refinement.

Edward of Middleton, her only son , died in 1484. Contemporarys report that she "was driven mad" by grief. And a year later, she died. Might the shock of losing her only son have driven her to a jealous hatred of the princes. Why should those bastards live whilst my son dies. They should die also!

I imagine she would be able to manage the means well enough, she was the Queen after all. Of course it would hardly be likely she killed them with her own hands.

 

[Simreeve]

Henry Tudor because he was engaged to their sister, Elizabeth of York.

He wasn't engaged to her, he'd made an offer to marry her if he won which her side of the family had not (and could not have) publicly endorsed.

The problem is that they were believed dead before Richard went out to get himself conveniently (for the constable) killed.

In fact, the constable himself died fighting for Richard -- as commander of the London contingent -- at Bosworth.

Yes, but wouldn't Richard find out Buckingham did it? I suppose it's possible, the more I think about it the more credible it seems. But I still lean towards Henry Tudor, he had a better motive and better means(presuming they were still alive after Bosworth). it's also credible they fell ill and died and Richard can't reveal that without accusations flying at him.

It's possible -- indeed, considering the Constable of Tower's loyalty, actually very probable -- that Richard did find out about Buckingham's actions... but if he'd announced the fact just after Buckingham had been captured as a rebel, how widely would he have been believed? At that stage, waiting until he was in a more secure situation before announcing their deaths arguably made more sense. As for Tudor, although I'd like to blame him ( ), he didn't really have much opportunity until after Bosworth and there's some fairly credible evidence that he was worried about the pretenders' credibility...

 

[JedidiahStott]

In fact, the constable himself died fighting for Richard -- as commander of the London contingent -- at Bosworth.

The reference , I think, was to a hypothetical constable, whom I introduced for the sake of example. It was not intended to refer to any actual historical personage

 

[Simreeve]

How about Anne Neville as a possible killer?

As Richard's Queen, she might have been able to acquire his seal to put on a message, or even to give a verbal order supposedly representing the King's wishes. "He wants them dead, Sir Robert, but you know what he's like. He can't order it in case he someday has to deny it under oath - and he won't perjure himself".

And Anne might be more motivated than her husband. Richard had lived though violent times, but save for a year or so in 1469-70, had been consistently on the winning side since he was eight years old. Anne Neville had not. At 13/14, she had seen her father toppled from the pinnacle of power and forced into exile, then come back in seeming triumph only to be killed in battle, along with her uncle and soon afterwards her first husband. She'd then fallen into the hands of an unscrupulous brother-in-law, and been lucky not to get immured in a convent or worse. For the moment, she had some security with Richard, but it all hung on a single life. Should anything happen to him, she could find herself in a life or death struggle to protect her nine year old son, in shark infested political waters. Maybe she wasn't willing to take it on trust that the Princes wouldn't be a threat.

It would also explain Richard's silence on the Princes' fate. He couldn't reveal the truth unless he was prepared to execute his own wife - and even then there'd be many to claim that he was really the one behind it, and had just used Anne as a scapegoat. Presented with a fait accompli, he might feel that there was nothing for it but to keep silent and hope that the damage wouldn't be fatal.

An intriguing suggestion, and one that I can't remember seeing proposed before despite 10 years+ as a member of the Richard III Society.

 

[mcdnab]

The major issue about all of this was who had a) motive and b) access - the only person who really had both was Richard.
I can't see the constable or his deputy opening up the door to the boy's chamber to just anyone without clear proof it came from Richard himself.
On the balance of probabilities if the boys were killed then the likeliest person responsible for ordering their deaths is Richard.
I love the idea of Anne Neville doing the deed but again you have an access problem.
That of course is not proof of Richard's guilt.

Buckingham's motives for firstly supporting Richard may be twofold - 1) he had failed to get the other half of the de Bohun inheritance from Edward and was unlikely to get it from Edward V 2) His natural leadership role in Wales and the public and political profile his title should have earnt him had not been forthcoming from Edward IV and again was unlikely to come from Edward V.
His motives for rebelling are murkier - resentment that his claim to the de bohun inheritance required Parliamentary approval, the urging of his Beaufort relatives to support Henry Tudor's claim, a belief unseating Richard might make him King himself (his claim was almost as good as Henry VII's), need for more power or influence at court etc.
It is worth bearing in mind the early bits of the rebellions (that all eventually linked with Buckingham's) were by gentlemen connected with Edward IV's houshold and all were in the name of Edward V - later the rumours of his death emerged and Buckingham led the rush to support Henry Tudor with the marriage to the boy's sister in the offing.
In fact the outbreak of those might have prompted Richard and his supporters that he wasn't safe whilst Edward V remained alive.
I tend to discount the oft repeated rumour that Buckingham resented the Queen Dowager (whose household he had been partly brought up in) because of the low rank of her sister who was his child bride. The marriage appears to have been successful though she did not join her husband at Richard's coronation.

 

[Avitus]

Right. Rebelling to claim the throne in one's own right, specifically.

As for the princes and their appeal - I wonder how much personal support they actually had. I mean, its a convenient thing to seize on to for one's own cause - and they were too young to have made a mark on their own.

This is just an idle musing, but if you've any thoughts I'd love to read them. Just about no one can be expected to be purely disinterested in regards to who they backed.

Henry VII seems to have had an advantage as an adult - technically Edward V might have been at his majority if alive in 1485, but he'd still be essentially backed by someone in his name, most likely.

Oops, missed it by a hair.

I think that the princes had their appeal in that they were Edward IV's sons, and Edward V at least seems to have resembled him greatly in personality and appearance (although I've heard that Edward IV tried to ensure his sons were more sexually virtuous as adults, which is also probably a plus). I mean, Edward IV is really quite an awe inspiring figure. Six foot four, been leading armies since he was a teenager, and in that time he's never been defeated in battle, plus he has seven kids at the time of his death. He aparrently was rather gifted with administration as well, and worked to lessen the influence of the Hanseatic league in England, but I digress.

The point is his reign was a great one by any standards, but compared to the chaotic reign of his immediate predecessor. Siezing the throne for one's self is well and good, but playing kingmaker was an excellent position to many, and obviously that was what Buckingham intended to do, since his claim was too weak. In that respect, Edward V probably looked quite a bit better than Henry VII, who up to that point was a pretender being controlled by his mother and uncle.

Maybe I'm looking at in the wrong light, but the thought comes to mind to combine both - having lost both his "beloved nephews" and "his only son".

That might take a bit more charisma than OTL Richard seems to have had, though. Not to say he was an utterly unattractive fellow, but he seems to have lacked a knack for looking good even in his brother's reign - he's the loyal brother, yes, but hardly the most dashing of Richard Duke of York's sons.

I'm not sure that puting his 'bastard' nephews on the same level as his only son is exactly a good political move for Richard, to say nothing of his personal feelings. I know child death was far more common, but Middleham was his only legitimate child, and having lived a decade I find it hard to believe he hadn't grown at least somewhat attached, if nothing else than to his son as an idea and a part of his self image.

Still, I agree that carrying off a funeral for the princes in a sympathetic light is probably beyond Richard's personal charisma. He wasn't terrible with people, and he seems to have been at least moderately skilled in war and administration, but turning the princes death to work in his favor would have taken quite a show of grief, and one that, even if Richard really did grieve for them, he probably wasn't capable of emotionally expressing in public very well (I certainly couldn't).

Always good. Speaking for myself, I think the more this gets discussed, the better - as was revealed on the first page, the issue is rather intense for some reason.

And properly weighing what would make sense for Richard to do means ignoring how one feels on Richard or Henry personally.

Good good, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't coming off as obstinate. I just rather enjoy this subject. It's not only uniquely mysterious, but we also have quite a depth of information to go through that you don't often find in 15th century court politics.

Richard is only thirty-something, even in his day that's not middle aged. But it might well be taken in the wrong light, true.

Sorry, for some reason I was making him 35 at the time of death in my mind, and I often consider that early middle age (especially in the 1400s). Still, thirty and with an unhealthy (or recently deceased, depending on the exact time) wife is no position to be in when you are hoping to have an adult male heir to succeed you, and people were already fighting over who got the throne if Richard remained heirless.

Yeah. I think this gets into (from the standpoint of Richard) weighing whether or not the people saying that anyway are going to make up most of those who would be making such a claim.

Can't blame him for not wanting to take a risk even if rationally it might not have been any worse - his situation is tense even without active rebellion.

I can't speak for Richard, nor can I be sure my reasoning would make sense in his position, but I personally would have kept them alive in his position, since with them alive they can be alive, dead, or missing in public opinion, giving him allot more options, and still keeping the option to kill them for real if things get bad enough.

 

[Mikestone8]

An intriguing suggestion, and one that I can't remember seeing proposed before despite 10 years+ as a member of the Richard III Society.

I think the trouble is that we all tend to be too influenced by historical novels, in which Anne is generally portrayed as a totally passive figure. In fact virtually nothing is known about her personality - only about her inheritance. About the only thing we know for reasonably sure is that she went almost berserk with grief at her son's death, which is both entirely believable, and also raises at least the possibility of her being ready to kill anyone whom she saw (rightly or wrongly) as a possible danger to her child.

 

[Elfwine]

Oops, missed it by a hair.

Close enough to not matter - you got what I was trying to express, at least.

I think that the princes had their appeal in that they were Edward IV's sons, and Edward V at least seems to have resembled him greatly in personality and appearance [.]

What's that from? On Edward Jr. resembling Edward IV in personality.

He died/disappeared so young that I'm leery of conclusions like that, although its not impossible.

The point is his reign was a great one by any standards, but compared to the chaotic reign of his immediate predecessor. Siezing the throne for one's self is well and good, but playing kingmaker was an excellent position to many, and obviously that was what Buckingham intended to do, since his claim was too weak. In that respect, Edward V probably looked quite a bit better than Henry VII, who up to that point was a pretender being controlled by his mother and uncle.

And with a much, much weaker claim to begin with (Henry vs. Edward).

Unfortunately, which I think is something Henry used to his advantage - consciously or not - people were less concerned with the legitimacy of a claim and more whether someone could end "misrule".

Which is easier to promise as an adult than a sixteen year old.

I'm not sure that puting his 'bastard' nephews on the same level as his only son is exactly a good political move for Richard, to say nothing of his personal feelings. I know child death was far more common, but Middleham was his only legitimate child, and having lived a decade I find it hard to believe he hadn't grown at least somewhat attached, if nothing else than to his son as an idea and a part of his self image.

Still, I agree that carrying off a funeral for the princes in a sympathetic light is probably beyond Richard's personal charisma. He wasn't terrible with people, and he seems to have been at least moderately skilled in war and administration, but turning the princes death to work in his favor would have taken quite a show of grief, and one that, even if Richard really did grieve for them, he probably wasn't capable of emotionally expressing in public very well (I certainly couldn't).

Yeah. Done well it might be a powerful statement, but botching it could make him look worse - both in regards to people's feelings on the dead nephews and his dead son.

That'd take something going pretty badly wrong, bur Murphey is a demon.

Good good, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't coming off as obstinate. I just rather enjoy this subject. It's not only uniquely mysterious, but we also have quite a depth of information to go through that you don't often find in 15th century court politics.

You're not, at least not in a way that makes me want to get you to stop.

I agree on the subject - there's so much that could be, or could have been - perfect material for trying to make the facts we have and the deductions from there form a picture.

Problem is that it tends to be a very fuzzy picture, but the process is still fun.

Sorry, for some reason I was making him 35 at the time of death in my mind, and I often consider that early middle age (especially in the 1400s). Still, thirty and with an unhealthy (or recently deceased, depending on the exact time) wife is no position to be in when you are hoping to have an adult male heir to succeed you, and people were already fighting over who got the throne if Richard remained heirless.

Definitely. Even if its not middle aged itself, it means Richard would have to reach his mid fifties to have an adult heir - far from impossible but far from certain.

And a regency - well, England has terrible luck with that.

I can't speak for Richard, nor can I be sure my reasoning would make sense in his position, but I personally would have kept them alive in his position, since with them alive they can be alive, dead, or missing in public opinion, giving him allot more options, and still keeping the option to kill them for real if things get bad enough.

It makes sense to me. I'm not sure how it would fit in with his attitudes and fears and hopes, but that's probably beyond answering - even with all of what we have we can hardly judge the depths of personality across five centuries. Which I think is what it would take to have an idea of why Richard did what he did (killing them or not, deciding not to show that they were alive/dead depending) based on something other than guesswork.

Not to say we should stop guessing - but it probably means this discussion is going nowhere in terms of answering it.

Again, not that we should stop, just that this doesn't seem to have any tidy answers.

I think our one pretty sure thing is that they died at some point between 1483 and the late 1480s. Murdered or not, but the stories of X, who really was _____ Plantagenet - almost certainly myth.