Later, that* is* what they claimed.
That’s not quite accurate: he had a weak claim, but he did have a claim. He was descended from John of Gaunt, third son of Edward III, through the Beaufort line which was tainted with illegitimacy and then semi-restored by Parliament. Henry IV, V and VI were all descendants of Gaunt, but through a clearly legitimate line.
I believe Henry’s “means” were far less than Richard’s. Of course it partly depends when the boys were killed(dismissing the more romantic claims of an escape). The eyewitness testimony we have points towards their death/disappearance during the reign of Richard.
Sorry, I wholeheartedly disagree. I can see a good reason as to why Richard would let it be known the Princes were dead, yet I can also see a good reason at to why he would keep it quiet. It all rather depends upon whether you believe an accusation of infanticide against Richard were more of a threat to him than the threat of a Pretender rearing his head. Personally, I believe the killing of two Princes he had sworn to protect would have been the undoing of him. None of the options were good for Richard. That’s why those who insist Richard would have publicly declared them dead are so wrong imo
Pretty much every Peer in England was related in some way to the throne, so his claim was thinner than thin.
Again, not quite true. Henry VII was probably the strongest claimant remaining on the Lancastrian side. This alone means his claim to the throne was strong enough. Note, the preceeding years were not so much a War of the Roses but the slaughter of the Lancastrian line by Yorkists. Add to this Henry’s “right” to the throne by conquest and he had a fairly decent overall claim to the throne. Obviously it was a stronger claim once he had conquered.
Iam quite alarmed by the historic revisionism going on in this thread. Sure, Richard III has not been served well by historians until quite recently. Sure, he was the victim of Tudor propaganda. However, some Ricardian attempts to rehabilitate Richard do no more than propagandise for him.
The counterpoint to this is that all he had to do was claim they died of the plague or some nameless fever. It happened. No fewer than six of Richard’s own brothers and sisters died in childhood, e.g., and Richard’s son Edward of Middleham died suddenly in 1484, aged ten. In an era where assorted plagues and pestilences were almost routine, “I swore to protect them, but they got sick in the damp of London, right by the river, and God took them away” would have been perfectly plausible. As long as he made enough of a show of grief, accusations of infanticide would have been confined to the fringes, largely to those who were already whispering about him. Elizabeth Woodville’s family was not popular and the country had too much experience of child kings to waste very much effort on these two illegitimate spawn–there was just too much else going on.
That’s not saying much, though. Henry’s claim was on the wrong side of the blanket, and the fact that he was the last man standing did not by itself make a weak claim stronger.
No, just announce they died to a childhood illness. Happened all the time.
The Clarence line was attainted, so that would eliminate them. That leaves the Beauforts.
True, but unless you consider the Yorkist line as an invalid dynasty, there were Yorkists who were closer to the throne. In particular, the oldest daughter of Edward and Richard’s father, Anne Duchess of Exeter, has living descendants, the likeliest claimants being the Dukes of Rutland.
I think that the fact Richard tried to have Henry arrested and killed while Henry was abroad shows just how serious Henry’s claim was. Sure, legal niceties may have placed others above Henry but legitimacy is in part made by the willingness of others to treat you as king. The fact that Henry was able to reign as king suggests others viewed his claim as fit for purpose. I would describe Henry’s right to be king as plausibly valid, no more than that.
This assumes no-one would wish to inspect the bodies, that the bodies were unmarked after their murder, and that plague victims didn’t show signs of the plague. I’d say the option you both propose was possible but not nearly as simple as you both suggest.
Except that would have meant they were alive when he came to power, and not a single commentator mentioned the fact.
How would they know? HVII arrives, they find the Princes in the Tower, he has them secretly killed and their bodies hidden- and then says nothing about it.
Realising they had a common interest, they joined forces … each of them killed one Prince! That way neither could ever accuse the other without implicating himself.
“All causes will give way. I am in blood stepped in so far, that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as . . .” Wait, wrong play . . .
That’s more Agatha Christie than Josephine Tey.
“Another unsolved mystery of the early reign of Henry VII is the disappearance of the notoriously inquisitive Sir Hercule of Flanders . . .”
Of course, Richard of York had also been attainted, which means that Edward IV, Edward V, and Richard III could never be king.
The boys disappeared in 1483 and Henry wasn’t in power till 1485. How could Henry have murdered the boys without Richard knowing? If the boys were still alive why wouldn’t Richard make sure people knew it since there were already rumors of their death? It couldn’t have been Buckingham working on Henry’s orders either since Richard surely would have accused him of the murder when Buckingham rebelled. So how exactly was Henry to have murdered the boys when he was in exile in France?
Also don’t forget that Richard did a pilgrim’s journey to the shrine of Thomas Becket… what was he feeling so guilty about?
Yes, but as I have mentioned before, Henry Tudor agreed to marry the Lady Elizabeth over a year before his invasion, and its unlikely that the Dowager Queen would have agreed to the match unless she was very confident her sons were already dead.