Monday, February 27, 2012

Richard III v Henry VII Naughty or Nice?

























Pictures: White rose of York, Red Rose of Lancaster.

Right hand picture: Richard III

Left hand Picture: Henry VII


  1. A perennially interesting subject, but Richard's coronation surely sealed the boys' fate whatever exactly happened.

  2. I found your article of great interest. Thank you for sharing!

  3. Good article crossing a minefield. It's a brave author who tackles the Wars of the Roses or the Princes in the Tower! Stand by for brickbats but they won't be from me.

  4. As a romantic teenager, I was always on Richard's side! However, the apparent disappearance of the boys during his reign is troubling. I lean towards the theory that Buckingham was the culprit.

    The same happens to me each time I try.
    I did an experiment last year introducing Shakespeare's Richard III to my students. It was inspired to Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time. I showed them the portrait of the two kings, Richard III and Henry VII, without saying anything apart from: Look carefully at these two portraits. Who of the two was capable of murder in your opinion? 12 out of 14 chose Henry's portrait. I told them the history of the two kings and about the mystery of the young princes in the tower only afterwards.
    When I asked them why they suspected Henry only looking at his facial expression, they said: he looks cunning, scheming, smart, ambitious. Look at his eyes!
    Were they right?
    Thanks for this beautiful post. (I'm wearing a small white rose badge on my sweater right now)

  6. Buckingham has ever and always had far greater motive for removing the princes than Richard. The politics of the time are indeed complicated, but I do think that Richard was painted by the Tudors as the villain when he simply was not. Thank you for your article!

  7. A well written and researched account of a truly fascinating piece of history.... Although this is almost certainly wrong and Richard iii obviously killed the boys like any sane man would have...

  8. Way to go Judy! I love this particular mystery. I can tell you're big on honor and the underdog since I just read your book about the poor Saxons.

    I'm totally for Richard too. Thanks for the great argument for him in your posting.

    1. I love this article. It is clear, logical, and most interesting. Although bias (in either direction) is hard to avouid, the facts really do tend to speak for themselves. The assumption that Richard would have been mad to leave the princes alive has been long asserted, but politically speaking as king he actually had some very good reasons for keeping them alive - which Henry VII certainly did not have. However, I beieve Henry VII's behaviour towards the so called "Perkin Warbeck" some years alter, prove that Henry had no idea what had happened to the princes at all.
      I believe they survived - sending them to their aunt Flanders was the clear and obvious - perhaps only - sensible action available to Richard at the time.

  9. Barbara Gaskell Denvil (author of SATIN CINNABAR)February 28, 2012 at 5:00 PM

    Just an extra thought in case anyone is interested - but as far as the possible/probable survival of the two princes, this is the article I wrote on the subject for the Richard III Society NSW Branch recently.
    Now I;m off to look up your own webpage - and thasnks again for such an interesting article and a beautifully clear summary of the important facts.

  10. Thank you for the lovely comments - I rather suspect the negative remark of Benitus Tappatius as being my son, who is far enough away from me to escape retaliation :)) it is an enthralling subject although we will sadly never know the real truth. I've been studying Richard on and off for years and still cannot resist each new book that comes out, either for or against. But I wear the white rose proudly :)

  11. That bought tears to my eyes...... I believe Richard sent them away for safety, possibly with Tyrell as their escort. Their murder was not mentioned until well after Bosworth and then I think Tudor started that because Perkin Warbeck was on the scene and he needed to make folk think it could not possibly be one of the boys. Don't forget, he never let PW meet his wife - their sister - as she would know straight away if it was Richard the younger boy. I believe it was. I get quite mad when people make statements like Benitus Tappatius.... obviously believe in fairy stories more than actual facts. I don't actually think HT had the brains to scheme about the boys prior to Bosworth - but his mother Margaret Beaufort certainly did, it is beyond doubt that her scheming and single minded determination got HT on the throne.

  12. Richard and Buckingham had means, motive and opportunity to kill the princes. Henry was in France when they disappeared. Richard was on tour when they went missing giving him denyability. However, I am sure Richard or Buckingham could have ordered the murder of the Princes.
    The Woodvilles would not have allowed Henry to kill them had they been alive. So lets blame Margaret Beaufort, the poor woman who was under house arrest when the boys went missing and did not have the sort of access to the Tower Richard and Buckingham did.
    I suppose the holocaust in Germany didn’t happen either.
    There is no evidence that Henry had anything to do with the deaths of the Princes. However we do know that Richard was present in the Tower when Henry VI was murdered. He was also at Tewkesbury when the Lancastrian Lords were dragged form the sanctuary of the abbey and butchered. Henry's grandfather was murdered in Hereford after the battle of Mortimer's Cross.
    I don’t blame Richard for his actions because medieval kings took action to remove threats to their reigns. Richard just like his brother Edward IV was a ruthless ruler.
    If Richard was so loved by his followers, why didn’t they fight for him at Bosworth?
    The Stanleys and Northumberland certainly didn’t fight for him. Henry’s army was about half the size of Richard’s so he should have won the battle. Henry didn’t kill Norfolk at the battle, Oxford executed him when he captured him. De Vere was taking revenge for Norfolk taking over his lands in East Anglia.
    When Henry won the battle he declared himself Duke of Lancaster. He declared himself king by conquest when he reached London. See Francis Bacon’s biography of Henry VII.
    If the Princes had been alive I am sure Henry would have done something about them but had they been alive I don’t think Elizabeth Woodville would have allowed Elizabeth of York to marry him. She also sent her supporters to join Henry in France.
    Why did Elizabeth go into sanctuary at Westminster Abbey if she trusted Richard? The only reason she gave up Richard of York was because she knew he had a history of ignoring the sanctuary of the church as in Tewkesbury.
    I agree Henry’s claim to the Throne was non-existent as was the claim of William of Normandy, who was definitely a bastard. However they both took the throne by conquest.
    Had Richard left the boys alive they would have come of age in three years and then the likes of Hastings would have supported Edward IV’s son who they saw as the true heir to the Yorkist throne.
    Oh! Yes but Richard had Hastings murdered as well as Lord Rivers, Grey and Vaughn. Edward V’s supporters. Who was the traitor? Richard betrayed his brother and his nephew.
    He was the Protector of Edward’s children, did a good job didn’t he! Why didn’t he produce the Princes? If they were as you suggest at Sherriff Hutton, where are the extra funds allocated for their upkeep shown in the accounts? No funds are required for dead boys. Edward II allocated the income from a manor to support one of his children, so surely two teenage boys would need considerably more resources than one infant?
    You called Henry devious but that is the nature of politics. Henry had no opportunities as a soldier as he was a prisoner in Brittany for most of his time on the continent. Edward and Richard sent men to kill him but he managed to escape from Brittany to France.
    It’s nice to see such a balanced article! Shame there are so many unanswered questions and no evidence. The circumstantial evidence for the Princes disappearance points and Richard and Buckingham.
    Richard III even executed Buckingham who had been his heir.

    I’m glad Richard is not the protector of my sons. But then I am a Tudor.

  13. The Tudor monarchs were all blood-thirsty - terribly so. History shows this. Plus, Henry definitely had a motive for killing those boys- he wanted a legitimacy for his crown & marrying their sister while undoing the illegitimacy stigma did that. However, obviously, the boys had to die for that to be useful.
    Those two facts have NEVER been explained away by anyone. Richard had little to no reason to kill his nephews as they'd already been declared illegitimate. He has a record of being basically fair, honest & just. Henry Tudor had every reason to get rid of them & has quite the opposite reputation (born out by research).
    Logic prevails. I'm with Josephine Tey LOL

