Discretion is the better part of valor.
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.
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!
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).
Richard I, whose father was Henry II (see “The Lion in Winter”).
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).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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
That line ended with King Pluto, now considered a dwarf Plantagenet.
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.
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?
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.
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/britains-real-monarch
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.) 