The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-08-2004, 02:04 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 47,376
Were Richard III and Henry Tudor (Henry VII) related?

I know that Richard III died at the Battle of Bosworth Field, and was suceeded on the English throne by Henry Tudor, who became Henry VII. Right?

What, if any, was the family relationship between the two men?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 10-08-2004, 02:21 PM
Satyagrahi Satyagrahi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 345
They were distantly related, both being descendents of Edward III. However, that was not the basis upon which Henry succeeded Richard. Richard was a member of the Yorkist line (from Edward III's son Edmund of York) while Henry was connected to the royal Plantagenet family only through the Beauforts, a legitimized bastard line (from Edward III's son John of Gaunt and his mistress).

Considering the the five or so generations between them and Edward III, I suppose that would make them 5th cousins or something like that.

Henry Tudor's claim to the throne was very flimsy indeed and was legitimized, if that's the word, only on the field of battle.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-08-2004, 02:50 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 28,567
According to this site -- http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/~humphrys/....descents.html -- Edward III is the ancestor not only of Henry VII and Richard III but also of approximately 80 percent of the current population of England and a large chunk of the population of the United States.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-08-2004, 02:54 PM
RealityChuck RealityChuck is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 36,864
Henry VII descended from Edward III's third son, John of Gaunt (Duke of Lancaster), through a rather convoluted way. Richard III descended through Edward III second son (The Duke of Clarence) and his fourth son (Duke of York).

The Yorkist claimed descent from the Duke of Clarence put them in a more legitimate position. The Lancastrians said that Salic Law didn't allow descent through the female line (The Duke of Clarence's daughter), though, of course, all Plantagenets were descended through a female line themselves.

Henry claimed the throne due to right of conquest, not right of blood. He was not the actual Lancastrian heir, which at the time was King John II of Portugal. John wasn't interested in the English throne, and wouldn't have been a popular candidate, anyway, so Henry Tudor announced he was the legitimate Lancastrian claimant.
__________________
"East is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does."
Purveyor of fine science fiction since 1982.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-08-2004, 03:58 PM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
Edward III reigned from 1327 to 1377. He had five sons who survived to adulthood. The eldest was Edward the Black Prince, who died the year before his father. His son became Richard II, and reigned from 1377 to 1399, but left no children.

Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, was the second son. He died in 1368, leaving one daughter, Philippa, who married Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March. His son Roger Mortimer was Richard II's legal heir, but was executed the year before Richard died. He left a son Edmund, who died childless, and a daughter Anne, more on whom below.

Edward III's third son, John of Gaunt, time-honored Duke of Lancaster, died in 1399, having married three times. His son by his first marriage had been exiled during Richard II's reign, and returned to England, allegedly at first to reclaim his Lancastrian inheritance. But he instigated a rebellion against Richard II, who was for a variety of reasons not well liked, and became Henry IV. His eldest son became Henry V, who conquered France and married Catherine, the daughter of the King of France, attempting to combine the realms in that way. When he died, he left an infant son, who became Henry VI, an ineffectual and part-time catatonic person in whose name various people governed.

John had a mistress, Catherine Swynford, whom he married after the birth of their illegitimate children, who received the surname Beaufort. The eldest of these was John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, whose son, also John, became 1st Duke of Somerset. His daughter and heiress was Margaret Beaufort.

Edward III's fourthson, Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, died in 1402, leaving two sons. The eldest died in 1415 without surviving progeny; the younger, Richard, Earl of Cambridge, died the same year, after having married Anne Mortimer, heiress to the Clarence line (noted above). Their son Richard became Duke of York and heir of line to the English throne, though it was actually held by Henry VI. It was a commonplace in the 1450s that the childless and weak Henry would be succeeded by the well-liked and forceful Richard.

However, Henry had been married when young to Marguerite d'Anjou, and in 1453 she surprised the world by giving birth to a son, Edward. There were allegations at the time that her close friend and supporter, who was one of the Beauforts, was actually the father of the child, whom Henry, having one of his out-of-touch-with-reality phases, wasn't even aware had been born.

Richard married Cicely Neville, whose mother was yet another Beaufort and whose father was a great northern noble. They had four sons: Edmund, Edward, George, and Richard.

The birth of Edward to Henry and Marguerite led to the idea that the Lancastrian line would continue, and the supporters of the House of York were angry about this. Battles broke out, and in one of them, in late 1460, Richard of York and his eldest son were killed. His second son Edward then claimed the throne as Edward IV, and deposed Henry, who was put in comfortable confinement.

Edward reigned from 1461 to 1471, when Marguerite rallied the Lancastrians to a successful revolt that put Henry back on the throne briefly -- at which point Edward returned from Flanders, where his sister was duchess consort, with an army, and reclaimed the throne. Implicated in this whole mess were Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, called the Kingmaker from his machinations, and George of Clarence, Edward's younger brother, who had made common cause with the Lancastrians, apparently with the idea that he could then overthrow them and take the throne. During or immediately after this episode, a variety of people were executed or slain, including Edward the heir to Lancaster, Henry VI, Neville, and George of Clarence.

Meanwhile Edward IV had married Elizabeth Woodville, a woman of relatively poor circumstances with a widespread and greedy family. They had a number of children, notably two sons, Edward and Richard, and the eldest daughter Elizabeth.

When Edward IV died in 1483, his eldest son, aged 13, became kind as Edward V, and his uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester, the youngest of the York boys, was named his guardian. This did not sit well with the Woodvilles, who thought that they ought to be his guardians -- and they got quashed.

But meanwhile, years before, Catherine of France, widow of Henry V, had remarried a Welsh courtier named Owen Tudor, and their son Edmund Tudor was named Earl of Richmond. Edmund married Margaret Beaufort, heir of line of the Beaufort lineage among the Lancastrians, and their son Henry succeeded his father as Earl of Richmond.

Richard of Gloucester, Lord Guardian of the Realm under the young Edward V, then circulated the information that his brother had earlier and secretly taken marriage vows with the now-deceased Eleanor Butler, making his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid, and illegitimating all their children, including the current king. He was then asked to take the throne as Richard III and did do so, putting the former Edward V and his brother in comfortable confinement in the Tower of London.

Two years later, Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond landed in Wales and rallied an army of Welshmen and Lancastrians behind him, killing Richard III at Bosworth Field, and assuming the throne as Henry VII. He in turn married Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV, "uniting the claims of York and Lancaster." Their second son became Henry VIII, whose reign is a whole different story.

Either Richard III or Henry VII had the two Princes in the Tower executed -- the story that they had been executed only spread about the land after the Battle of Bosworth through the influence of Bishop Morton of Ely, who was the tutor of Thomas More, writer of the major account about it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-08-2004, 04:57 PM
jayjay jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Hmph. And people think Coronation Street and EastEnders are British soap opera...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-08-2004, 05:03 PM
Random Random is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Well done, Polycarp
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-08-2004, 05:31 PM
silenus silenus is online now
I know sh*t.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 42,800
You know, I just covered this a few weeks ago in my AP European History class, and Polycarp's summation is so much more detailed and....succinct than mine was.


(sound of serial numbers being filed off and new paint applied.....)

Next year my lesson will be better!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-28-2011, 03:38 PM
Rashad44 Rashad44 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Henry VIII (Tudor) relationship to Richard III

Henry VIII's mother was Elizabeth of York, the daughter of Edward IV of England, brother to Richard III. She married Henry's father Henry VII (Bolingbroke) who defeated Richard at Bosworth Field, ....so that means Richard III was the Great-Uncle of Henry VIII.

Last edited by Rashad44; 12-28-2011 at 03:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-28-2011, 04:06 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 25,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Random View Post
Well done, Polycarp
Yes, bravo!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-28-2011, 04:06 PM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Yes, but were any of them zombies?

(You've replied to a seven year old thread.)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-28-2011, 05:26 PM
t-bonham@scc.net t-bonham@scc.net is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
According to this site -- http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/~humphrys/....descents.html -- Edward III is the ancestor not only of Henry VII and Richard III but also of approximately 80 percent of the current population of England and a large chunk of the population of the United States.
Wouldn't it be more correct to say an ancestor ... rather than the ancestor ... ? Since the same could be said about any identifiable ancestor of that generation.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-28-2011, 07:21 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 28,567
Are you nitpicking a seven-year-old "the"? :P
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-28-2011, 10:05 PM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 23,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polycarp View Post
Richard married Cicely Neville, whose mother was yet another Beaufort and whose father was a great northern noble. They had four sons: Edmund, Edward, George, and Richard.


. . . Battles broke out, and in one of them, in late 1460, Richard of York and his eldest son were killed. His second son Edward then claimed the throne as Edward IV, and deposed Henry, who was put in comfortable confinement.
Since we're nitpicking 7 years later, I'll point out that Edward was actually Richard of York's eldest son (born in 1442). Edmund was the second son (born in 1443).
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-28-2011, 10:40 PM
Giles Giles is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 12,110
For those who want help understanding relationships from both sides of the family, a couple of historical novels by Philippa Gregory might help: The Red Queen (told from the point of view of Margaret Tudor, the mother of Henry Tudor, later King Henry VII, and so who was one grandmother of Henry VIII), and The White Queen (told from the point of view of the other grandmother of Henry VIII, Elizabeth Woodville, who was also the sister-in-law of Richard III).
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-29-2011, 08:02 AM
Ian D. Bergkamp Ian D. Bergkamp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
There's also a non-fiction book by the excellent Alison Weir, The Wars of the Roses, which neatly lays out the familial connections as part of the conflict. A fascinating read, if you're interested at all in that period.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-29-2011, 08:06 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 25,700
And Thomas Costain does a superb job in his pageant of England series, ending with "The Last Plantagenets".
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-29-2011, 11:18 AM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
After all that churning of the lines of succession, one thing I recall reading was that Henrys (VII and VIII) were very sensitive about competing claims, and any hint of ambition combined with any tenuous claim could land you in the Tower for an extended stay.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-05-2012, 12:47 PM
TwentyTrees TwentyTrees is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Henry VII and Richard III were third cousins one removed.

Henry's mother, Margaret Beaufort, and Richard III were third cousins ie they shared a Great Great Grandparent Edward III.

Edward III -> John of Gaunt (Duke of Lancaster) -> John Beaufort (1st Earl of Somerset) -> John Beaufort (1st Duke of Somerset) -> Margaret Beaufort -> Henry VII.

Edward III -> Edmund of York -> Richard of Cambridge -> Richard of York -> Richard III.

All's well that ends well since Henry marries Edward IV's daughter, his fourth cousin, Elisabeth and brings the houses of Lancaster and York together in the body of Henry VIII although it is Henry's elder sister Margaret that continues the line to the present day.

Complex. The succession of Henry VII is the largest distance in terms of genealogy that occurred in the English monarchy.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-05-2012, 02:30 PM
fiddlesticks fiddlesticks is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Alamo City
Posts: 4,343
I bet there's a few good plays that someone could scribble together out of all that history...
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-05-2012, 03:04 PM
The Second Stone The Second Stone is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Antioch
Posts: 11,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddlesticks View Post
I bet there's a few good plays that someone could scribble together out of all that history...
Discretion is the better part of valor.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-06-2015, 11:39 AM
Essence6548 Essence6548 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Relationship between Richard III and Henry VII

Both Kings were descended from Edward III, who was the third great-grandfather of Henry and the second great-grand father of Richard.

This puts Richard one generation closer to King Edward who is the common ancestor. In modern terms this, as well as the legitimacy issue, would have given Richard a stronger claim to the throne. (As another respondent to this question indicated, Henry was descended from the John of Gaunt bastard line.)

For genealogical purposes as well it is correct to note the single generation difference in descent.

The link at which both Henry and Richard were related to Edward III occurs at the third great-grandfather level. If both Richard and Henry were of the same generation this would have made them fourth cousins. But since there is that one generation separation, they were fourth cousins once removed.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-06-2015, 01:03 PM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
A zombie that won't stay dead.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-06-2015, 01:47 PM
jayjay jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
A zombie that won't stay dead.
Royal zombies take more than one headshot to kill.

Although Polycarp's years-ago answer SHOULD have killed it. That was a thing of beauty!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-06-2015, 02:11 PM
ddsun ddsun is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 916
Which one was the "Lionhearted"? I kept waiting for that to pop up.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-06-2015, 03:31 PM
Rysto Rysto is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddsun View Post
Which one was the "Lionhearted"? I kept waiting for that to pop up.
That was Richard I of England, who ruled from 1189 to 1199, more than a century before Edward III (who took the throne in 1327).
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-06-2015, 04:39 PM
jayjay jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddsun View Post
Which one was the "Lionhearted"? I kept waiting for that to pop up.
Richard I, whose father was Henry II (see "The Lion in Winter").
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-06-2015, 08:21 PM
Jim's Son Jim's Son is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Edward IV's daughter had a pretty strong claim to the throne after the Battle of Bosworth (who exactly had the best claim is something I'm not sure of, I've heard Joao II of Portugal). There was an agreement between the Tudors and the Yorks that Henry would marry Elizabeth if Richard III lost. Henry was not interested in sharing power with Elizabeth. He was crowned first and married her only when Parliament asked. But for a political marriage they seem to have loved each other. No royal bastards during the marriage (possibly one before). Henry was broken-hearted when Elizabeth died shortly after giving birth to their seventh child.
Henry also had the date of kingship backdated to the day before Bosworth. This made anyone who fought for Richard a traitor. But he was generous in pardoning those who swore allegiance. He had the 10 year Edward (son of the disgraced George, Duke of Clarence, a brother of Edward Iv and Richard III) arrested and put in the Tower of London to prevent any male Plantagenet claimants. This didn't stop various people from trying to pass off a peasant boy, Lambert Simnel, as Edward. Henry defeated the rebels at the Battle of Stoke (probably a larger battle than Bosworth) and was generous to the rebels. Simnel ended up working in royal kitchen. Eventually Edward, Earl of Warwick was executed, allegedly for plotting with Perkin Warbeck, who claimed to be Richard, one of the Princes in the Tower (i.e. Henry's brother-in-law).

Henry VII is overshadowed by his son Henry VIII and granddaughter Elizabeth but he had a remarkable life and was an effective ruler, rebuilding the finances (perhaps too zealous).
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-06-2015, 08:55 PM
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
*Ahem*

Ricardian speaking.

Elizabeth of York was only a potential monarch because her brothers had died. In the Tower. They were the Two Princes in the Tower. They had already been declared illegitimate because their father Edward IV had been betrothed before he married their mother, Elizabeth Woodville.

Therefore. It was only in Henry VII's best interest that those boys be dead. It didn't help Richard III, he reigned because they had been declared illegitimate. But for Henry VII to marry Elizabeth, she had to be legitimate. Which would have made her brothers legitimate, and therefore they stood between Henry and the throne.

Just sayin'.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-07-2015, 01:46 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
*Ahem*

Ricardian speaking.

Elizabeth of York was only a potential monarch because her brothers had died. In the Tower. They were the Two Princes in the Tower. They had already been declared illegitimate because their father Edward IV had been betrothed before he married their mother, Elizabeth Woodville.

Therefore. It was only in Henry VII's best interest that those boys be dead. It didn't help Richard III, he reigned because they had been declared illegitimate. But for Henry VII to marry Elizabeth, she had to be legitimate. Which would have made her brothers legitimate, and therefore they stood between Henry and the throne.

Just sayin'.
The problem with that theory is that Elizabeth of Yorks's mother, Elizabeth Woodville contracted with Henry's mother about their children's marriage as early as late 1483 and, she would not have done that unless she had high confidence that her sons were dead.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-07-2015, 07:54 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
The problem with that theory is that Elizabeth of Yorks's mother, Elizabeth Woodville contracted with Henry's mother about their children's marriage as early as late 1483 and, she would not have done that unless she had high confidence that her sons were dead.
And indeed, she and Buckingham alleged at that time, when Buckingham led a rising against Richard, that Richard had had them killed. Had they been alive, all Richard would have needed to do was to let them be seen; had they died of disease (not improbable), all he needed to do was arrange a funeral. It's not impossible that they were done for under the auspices of Margaret Beaufort and/or Buckingham rather than Richard, but it was no inconvenience to him if so - and that silence is rather telling (if he had thought they had had the children killed, wouldn't he have made something of it when the rising was suppressed?)
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-07-2015, 08:38 AM
Fuzzy_wuzzy Fuzzy_wuzzy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
*Ahem*

Ricardian speaking.

Elizabeth of York was only a potential monarch because her brothers had died. In the Tower. They were the Two Princes in the Tower. They had already been declared illegitimate because their father Edward IV had been betrothed before he married their mother, Elizabeth Woodville.

Therefore. It was only in Henry VII's best interest that those boys be dead. It didn't help Richard III, he reigned because they had been declared illegitimate. But for Henry VII to marry Elizabeth, she had to be legitimate. Which would have made her brothers legitimate, and therefore they stood between Henry and the throne.

Just sayin'.
Finishing your post with the phrase "just sayin" should automatically render the rest of your post as complete bullshit.

If the Princes were enough threat to Richard to make them illegitimate they were enough potential threat to have them killed. There was an inglorious tradition of English Kings who had been overthrown of dying in "mysterious" circumstances. Circumstances which almost always pointed at the current monarch as having been behind. Whilst we have no smoking gun Richard could easily have been in this tradition. It's not a far fetched theory that a current sitting monarch would order the death of those viewed as still rightful claimants to the throne by many a powerful Duke, Earl or mob. You may be partly correct in that the princes were little immediate danger to Richard, but to suggest they were no danger is wildly off the mark.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-07-2015, 04:09 PM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,984
Gentlemen, gentlemen - can't we just agree that the princes were doomed either way ?

Personally as I've argued before I do think Richard III snuffed them, which was the only thing that kept Henry VII from doing the same. Those two characters were ruthless and calculating operators even by the brutal standards of their times ( and both were in that context pretty good monarch material ). Once Edward IV died the princes were probably as good as worm food no matter who ended up on top.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-07-2015, 04:47 PM
eclectic wench eclectic wench is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy_wuzzy View Post
If the Princes were enough threat to Richard to make them illegitimate they were enough potential threat to have them killed. There was an inglorious tradition of English Kings who had been overthrown of dying in "mysterious" circumstances. Circumstances which almost always pointed at the current monarch as having been behind. Whilst we have no smoking gun Richard could easily have been in this tradition. It's not a far fetched theory that a current sitting monarch would order the death of those viewed as still rightful claimants to the throne by many a powerful Duke, Earl or mob. You may be partly correct in that the princes were little immediate danger to Richard, but to suggest they were no danger is wildly off the mark.
You're assuming that the claim the Princes were illegitimate was a) not true and b) instigated by Richard. It's perfectly possible that Richard didn't 'make them illegitimate' - that the story was true and whatshisname, the Bishop, came forward of his own accord because the wrong person was about to be crowned King.

On your wider point, though - the Princes did present a danger to Richard - I agree. They could have been a powerful focus for disaffection.

That's why I can't convince myself that Richard killed them. Their deaths were no good to him unless everyone who might have been considering rebellion, in England and abroad, knew they were dead. If he'd killed them, he would have announced that oopsie! they'd died of fever! and there would have been a huge public funeral. End of threat. Why on earth would he kill the boys and leave the threat unharmed?

To Henry, on the other hand, it was the very existence of the boys that was a threat - not the potential for people to rally to their cause. By re-legitimising his wife-to-be, he'd made Edward King again. He needed Edward gone, and he had every reason to be vague about the circumstances.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-07-2015, 05:20 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And Thomas Costain does a superb job in his pageant of England series, ending with "The Last Plantagenets".
That line ended with King Pluto, now considered a dwarf Plantagenet.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-07-2015, 06:21 PM
Fuzzy_wuzzy Fuzzy_wuzzy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by eclectic wench View Post
You're assuming that the claim the Princes were illegitimate was a) not true and b) instigated by Richard. It's perfectly possible that Richard didn't 'make them illegitimate' - that the story was true and whatshisname, the Bishop, came forward of his own accord because the wrong person was about to be crowned King.

On your wider point, though - the Princes did present a danger to Richard - I agree. They could have been a powerful focus for disaffection.

That's why I can't convince myself that Richard killed them. Their deaths were no good to him unless everyone who might have been considering rebellion, in England and abroad, knew they were dead. If he'd killed them, he would have announced that oopsie! they'd died of fever! and there would have been a huge public funeral. End of threat. Why on earth would he kill the boys and leave the threat unharmed?

To Henry, on the other hand, it was the very existence of the boys that was a threat - not the potential for people to rally to their cause. By re-legitimising his wife-to-be, he'd made Edward King again. He needed Edward gone, and he had every reason to be vague about the circumstances.

The truthfulness of the Princes parentage is not really the issue imo. The issue is whether or not it was widely believed. I think enough evidence suggests the story of their illegitemacy was at least viewed with suspicion.

You are correct; we don't know for sure if Richard was behind the claims of illegitimacy. However, between the death of Edward IV and the Battle of Bosworth just about every death of a Noble and every claim of "illegitimacy" benefitted Richard III in some way. Very few such acts, if any, actually hindered his progression to the throne. I think we have seen this "play" a few times in history by power hungry dictators. It's not as if Richard's actions are new to us in any way.

Why did he not display the bodies? Perhaps he knew that the murder of two children would have shocked even the barbaric medieval mind. That he was hemorrhaging support as it was. Openly murdering two children may have been a step too far even for Richard. Perhaps it was just a political miscalculation by him; these things do happen. We just don't know.

The Princes were a threat to Henry? Yes and no. They were no threat to Henry the Prince, but would have been a threat to Henry the King. We do have examples where Henry did not have youthful Pretenders killed. In fact Pretenders, real and fake, were kept alive until outside political pressure from Spain made this impossible. This does not prove Henry's innocence, but it does show he did not have an impulsive urge to have such threats killed at the earliest available opportunity.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-07-2015, 07:43 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Another thing to remember is that initially, Richard tried to claim that his brother was illegitimate, saying their mother had had an affair. When that didn't go over, THEN the whole pre-contract story came out.

Richard had the means, motive, and opportunity. I'd say he was guilty as sin. That doesn't mean Henry wouldn't have done it, just that Richard was the most likely suspect. If Richard didn't kill them, then where were they, after they disappeared? Did anyone see them, anywhere? And what about the remains found later, that were said to be of the same ages of the two princes at the time of their disappearance?

Last edited by Guinastasia; 06-07-2015 at 07:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-07-2015, 09:00 PM
Grotonian Grotonian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
And what about the remains found later, that were said to be of the same ages of the two princes at the time of their disappearance?
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I have every confidence that someone will, but since the advent of modern dna testing, hasn't it been easy to determine the parentage of those two bodies? And hasn't it been the case that the current monarch has refused either to have the testing done or release the results if it was done? I thought that was the claim made by tour guides there (The Tower of London) last summer.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-07-2015, 09:34 PM
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
So far as I know, nobody has ever claimed that the two Princes were not the children of Edward and Elizabeth Woodville (have they?) The question is whether the marriage was legal.

It was Richard and Edward brother, George of Clarence, who initially brought up Edward's illegitimacy. There was actually a great deal of question concerning whether Edward was legitimate, because his father was off fighting nine months prior to Edward's birth, although he might have been premature. But he was christened in a minor chapel and not with great pomp and circumstance like the christening of his younger brother Edmund.

There was even a Channel 4 show called "Britain's Real Monarch" which questioned Edward's legitimacy - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/b...s-real-monarch
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-07-2015, 11:43 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grotonian View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I have every confidence that someone will, but since the advent of modern dna testing, hasn't it been easy to determine the parentage of those two bodies? And hasn't it been the case that the current monarch has refused either to have the testing done or release the results if it was done? I thought that was the claim made by tour guides there (The Tower of London) last summer.
The Queen has refused, I believe, on the basis that she doesn't believe it would be proper to disturb their remains, which were reburied in Westminster Abbey, I believe. Not only that, it would also require breaking open the tombs of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, in St. George's Chapel. I'm guessing she doesn't feel it's a priority at this time.


The Duke of Clarence was hardly Edward's friend. How many times did he betray his brother? This was the guy who was famously drowned in a barrel of wine. (That's how I'd like to go.)

Last edited by Guinastasia; 06-07-2015 at 11:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 06-08-2015, 12:51 AM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
The other point about knocking off potential claimants - the rival does not need to be imposing, threatening, claiming the throne, or even of age. Witness the case of Lady Jane Grey - all that is necessary is for an ambitious puppet master to get hold of the person with an arguably legitimate claim, to front for their cause. Hence, the more tenuous the current claim, the more important to eliminate roughly equally legitimate rivals.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-08-2015, 03:50 AM
dtilque dtilque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 3,771
Anyone think this would all be simpler if they went back to the tradition of moistened bints passing out cutlery?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-08-2015, 06:43 AM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtilque View Post
Anyone think this would all be simpler if they went back to the tradition of moistened bints passing out cutlery?
The Electoral College?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-08-2015, 09:17 AM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtilque View Post
Anyone think this would all be simpler if they went back to the tradition of moistened bints passing out cutlery?
Watery tarts lobbing scimitars is no basis for a system of government.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-08-2015, 02:49 PM
Encinitas Encinitas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: My Ready Room
Posts: 1,799
Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-08-2015, 08:46 PM
dtilque dtilque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 3,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
The Electoral College?
I said "simpler"...
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-09-2015, 06:31 PM
Jim's Son Jim's Son is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
Gentlemen, gentlemen - can't we just agree that the princes were doomed either way ?

Personally as I've argued before I do think Richard III snuffed them, which was the only thing that kept Henry VII from doing the same. Those two characters were ruthless and calculating operators even by the brutal standards of their times ( and both were in that context pretty good monarch material ). Once Edward IV died the princes were probably as good as worm food no matter who ended up on top.
Someone once pointed out that the real villain of the War of the Roses wasn't Richard III but Henry VI. Of course if wasn't Henry's fault his father died when he was a child or as an adult he had months of mental insanity. But England suffered because of his reign.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-09-2015, 06:47 PM
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim's Son View Post
Someone once pointed out that the real villain of the War of the Roses wasn't Richard III but Henry VI. Of course if wasn't Henry's fault his father died when he was a child or as an adult he had months of mental insanity. But England suffered because of his reign.
I blame Margaret of Anjou.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-09-2015, 09:39 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 25,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwentyTrees View Post
Henry VII and Richard III were third cousins one removed.

Henry's mother, Margaret Beaufort, and Richard III were third cousins ie they shared a Great Great Grandparent Edward III.

Edward III -> John of Gaunt (Duke of Lancaster) -> John Beaufort (1st Earl of Somerset) -> John Beaufort (1st Duke of Somerset) -> Margaret Beaufort -> Henry VII.

Edward III -> Edmund of York -> Richard of Cambridge -> Richard of York -> Richard III.

All's well that ends well since Henry marries Edward IV's daughter, his fourth cousin, Elisabeth and brings the houses of Lancaster and York together in the body of Henry VIII although it is Henry's elder sister Margaret that continues the line to the present day.

Complex. The succession of Henry VII is the largest distance in terms of genealogy that occurred in the English monarchy.
Are you sure? William the bastard was pretty far removed from Edward the Confessor.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-10-2015, 01:05 AM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Are you sure? William the bastard was pretty far removed from Edward the Confessor.
As per Wiki - not that far removed
Quote:
In the 1050s and early 1060s William became a contender for the throne of England, then held by the childless Edward the Confessor, his first cousin once removed.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.