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.