How accepted is the theory on Richard III as presented in "The Daughter of Time"?

[DrDeth]

Motive- RIII had a poor one. He had already that the “Princes” legally declared bastards, and dudes accepted this. Howver, Henry VII had a very good motive- as one of his claims was that RIII had unlawfully made the “Prices” bastards. If HVII had any calim at all, then the Princes had a better claim. And HVII could not declare them illegitimate as he was already on record as saying they were legit. Here- the prepoderance falls to HVII as the killer. Not to mention that HVII killed every other claimant he could lay his hands on.

Means. Eh.

Opportunity. Here we have 2 issues. Issue A is that they found 2 bodies- which may or may not have been the “Princes”. But the story Realitychuck states as “fact” is more opinion. It is very hard to get the age or date of skeletons exactly right. After all, poor nutrition, including lack of sunlight & exercise can delay the onset of puberty. Nor, is that a “black/white” call from a 400 yo body. Thus, although this evidence is bad for RIII, it is hardly conclusive. Back in the 1930s, such science was hardly what we see today on “CSI” you know. It was “educated guesswork”. And, announing in the 1930’s that it wasn’t the “princes” wouldn’t have been very popular. In fact, the evidence was circular. “We know the Princes were this age when they were murdered in 1483, and the bodies look to be that old, thus it is the Princes, and they were murdered in 1483, by RIII”. :rolleyes: Velvet? Sure, that gives some dating, but saying “those were the only 2 missing children”? Many balck deed were done in the Tower, and 2 young commoner pages (and pages were dressed in good clothes) that disappeared would hardly have been remarked on.
Now, let us look at what happened when HVII took over the Tower of London, and according to his adherants, would then have found the Princes gone, with that being evidence his hated rival had done them in… nothing. Yes, that’s right, nothing. He waited for YEARS to add the charge of murdering the “Princes” onto the villany he was accussing RIII of. If you get home, and find the house broken into, and the jewelry gone- the police & the insurance company woudl very likely be a might suspicious if you waited for several years to report the crime.

Here, I’d say we have a tie. But if HVII found the Princes missing- (and likely murdered by his rival) why didn’t he raise a hue & cry? Why not bring in the Coomons and show them thru the Tower, and show there are no Princes? Only one good reason- they were there, and they weren’t dead. Well, he fixed THAT right away, but he could hardly show around fresh bodies of “princes” who had been murdered 2 years ago, right? This is damning, more so that a “inquest” which now-a-days forensic scientists would laugh at. The silence was deafening.

[ratty]

I read Daughter of Time years ago, and I can’t remember too much about it, really, other than its pro-Ricardian stance. As to whether or not it accurately portrays events as they happened, I’d have to say no. Historical records here are scanty, there are almost no surviving first-hand accounts, and certainly none without some form of bias.

This is well-nigh Great Debates material. A good case can be made for both Richard III and Henry VII being the killer, as has already been pointed out. Both of them acted suspiciously, and both of them had reasons for wanting the princes dead.

Richard, it has to be said, was most likely not the hunchbacked villain he is later portrayed as. The works of Shakespeare carry about as much weight with me as Daughter of Time- despite being based on actual events, both are works of fiction. It is now unknown whether or not Richard even had a crooked back. Sources written by people who often saw Richard while alive mention no deformity, while later descriptions seem to grow in the telling until the man had a huge hump and a withered arm. Existing portraits of Richard have been shown to have been altered over the years to include deformities, so I’m going to go ahead and say he was probably normal in life and legends of his deformity grew from the common belief in physical imperfection denoting moral imperfection.

Richard was certainly brutal and ambitious, but probably no more so than the majority of his contemporaries. Records indicate he was identified as a “northerner”, and at that time, there was decided factionalism between the north and south areas of England. London-based historian and record-keepers would be apt to take this into account. He was loyal to his brother Edward IV, supporting him throughout his reign and accompanying him into exile during the early years. But he wasn’t all sunshine and roses- he was certainly in on the plot to kill the aging Henry VI, and may have been the one to arrange his death. He supported the execution of his older brother the duke of Clarence (him of the butt of Malmsey) though he did express sorrow over it, and may have sworn revenge. There are continuing rumors he may have killed, or at least hastened the death of his wife Anne Neville. She was certainly dying of what was probably breast cancer at the time, and Richard’s young son and only legitimate male heir had died in childhood. He may have felt that his claims to the throne were threatened, and when his bid to marry his neice Elizabeth of York fell through, finally killing the princes may have seemed like a good idea. He certainly had the oppurtunity and the resources. He hated the Woodvilles, and saw Elizabeth Woodville as responsible for both Edward IV’s early death and Clarence’s treachery and execution. He may have imprisoned the princes at first in an attempt to stop the Woodvilles from gaining total control of England.

But Henry VI was just as ruthless. He ordered destoryed all copies of the Titulus Regius, the act illegitimizing Edward IV’s children. This was obviously done to put an end to questions concerning his new wife Elizabeth of York’s legitimacy- she was a major point in his favor for claiming the throne. He would never have been able to do this if he knew the princes were still alive. But in his smear campaign against Richard III, never once does he list murder among his crimes. Why? And then there is the business with the former jailer at the Tower. Why did he not use this man to provide proof of the prince’s deaths and Richard’s guilt? Why did he promote him and then years later have him executed?

A note about the bones: It has never been established who these bones belonged to or even if they were male, or even if they were from the proper time period. Last I heard, the UK gov’t has refused repeated requests to have them exhumed for genetic testing. The forensic analysis performed in the 1930’s has been seriously questioned by experts today, as has the “velvet rags” evidence. No trace of fabric remains with the bones, and we have only second-hand reports from the 1660’s to go on. There is also some evidence that velvet fabric was known in England earlier than Alison Weir suggests. Over the years, many human remains have been found in and around the Tower. Until intensive scientific testing is approved, any definite statements made about these remains must be considered suspect.

[Dangerosa]

RealityChuck alluded to it, but you might want to try “The Princes in the Tower” for Allison Weir’s interpretation (she thinks Richard had it done).

But, push comes to shove, we will never know for sure on whose orders the boys were murdered - or even, in fact, that they were murdered (although most people believe they were).

What I don’t get is why the culprit (whomever it was) didn’t poison the boys and then claim they died of sickness. It isn’t like the death of two young boys of natural causes in that era was uncommon.

[Guinastasia]

I just finished Weir’s book a mere ten minutes ago. And I have to say, her’s is pretty compelling.

As someone mentioned, the claim that the boys were illegitimate because of Edward IV having a prior marriage contract is flimsy at best-there was no real proof of this, and it seems as if Richard spun it out of thin air. There were no accusations of this PRIOR to Richard seizing the throne, and no one ever said boo to a goose when Edward married Elizabeth Wydville. And considering how unpopular the match was, you’d think SOMEONE would have brought this up. Also, there are people who say that the one who was the source for this-Bishop Stillington-told the Duke of Clarence about this. Clarence was the brother between Edward and Richard. Stillington was supposedly the one who contracted this betrothal between Edward IV and one Lady Eleanor Butler. Yet, Clarence, who hated Edward and committed numerous acts of treason against him, never ever said one word of it. Why not? It would have been perfect.

Weir suggests that Elizabeth of York DID actually want to marry her uncle. Several points-
Her mother had sent her daughters to court, because she really had no choice-Richard III would have taken them by force, anyways. However, she had him swear a public oath to care for them, and if anything foul had happened to them, it would REALLY have been bad for old Dick. Then, also, Elizabeth was only seventeen, very pretty, and naive because she had lived in isolation. It’s suggested that Richard charmed her, basically lied to her about his involvment in the murder of her brothers-and seduced her. Also, his wife was dying-Elizabeth of York was said to be almost as ambitious as her mother, so she would have had an excellent shot at being queen. However, when Queen Anne died, there was ample evidence to suggest that her husband had poisoned her-or at least rumors to that effect. Marrying Elizabeth-and according to Weir, a dispensation could have been obtained) would have probably have been very damning. Evidence suggests that Elizabeth of York was pretty pissed-Weir suggests that they were already sleeping together.

And if the princes were still living-then reversing his Titulus Regius would have been dangerous indeed-if that made Elizabeth legit, it would also make her brothers legit. And if they WERE alive, and bastards-why did they disappear, and no mention of them was made? He reportedly declared his future wife legitimate in 1485-if he had killed the princes, they would still have been alive at this time because he would not have access to them. Why would he do that-and destroy his own claim if they were still alive?

Henry not bringing up the murders-well, this was a very sensitive subject, and at the time, he had no proof-where were the bodies? If he had accused Richard, he’d have to pony up the corpses-which he couldn’t do. He (Richard) had also killed several supporters of Edward V on very flimsy evidence-including the child King’s own half brother (or was it his uncle?) From what I gather, Henry didn’t even know the true fate of his wife’s brothers until 1502, when John Tyrell, the one who did the deed, confessed. Thus, at the time, Henry had no conclusive proof.
While Richard was probably a fair king, he was most likely, it seems, a complete and utter asshat. He wouldn’t be the first one-plenty of good and decent rulers were actually jerks in their personal lives-and vice versa.

Also, I think War of the Roses was before this-when Edward IV claimed the throne rather than Henry VI. The war was where Edward’s father, the Duke of York and his older brother, Edmund, were killed

As for More, Weir states that several other works of contemporaries-who wrote independently of More-coroborate his story, most notably the Croyland Chronicles. Also the writings of an Italian monk, Dominic Mancini, whose was the earliest account. And Mancini’s work was not even discovered until 1934.

I say Richard did it. He had the most to gain from it and the least to gain from them remaining alive.