I enjoyed the programme and relived its eccentricity reading this great thread today. Philippa's tears and attacks of the vapours were rather OTT, but the best bit was the flag on the box without doubt. I had no problems with the presenter, his level headed style nicely balanced Philippa's emotional outpourings. The story of the discovery was exciting enough and it didn't need Tony Robinson to gee it up. Had it been a Time Team production I don't think I would have watched. Far too fond of themselves in episodes I've seen.
It was stated that there is NO evidence at all that he ordered the murder of his nephews.
It looks from this as if he did but I can't help remembering Josephine Tey's research which stated that the boys were illegitimate and therefore had no claim to the throne so they weren't a threat to Richard. They were, however, a threat to the legitimacy of Henry's position. Interesting.....
Also in those days the Tower was no always a prison but frequently housed royalty for protection.
It was Richard who had the Princes declared illegitimate. They disappeared while in his protective custody. There is no direct evidence against him (or anyone else) but Richard stood to gain most by getting rid of them. Even though they had already been declared illegitimate they would still have been a threat to his reign as a focal point for his enemies. Killing them would avoid that risk.
The Tudors clearly re-wrote history to portray Richard as a monster and so look good for removing him, but they didn't invent the missing princes. It's highly likely Richard had them disposed of. That said, by the standards of the time Richard was no more ruthless than any of his rivals and by all accounts was a good King. As with many things the truth is probably somewhere in between the two extremes. The Ricardian fantasy is no more likely to be true than the Tudor propaganda.
Yeah I had to chuckle at Phillipa's "R marks the spot" piece, as I worked in the Grey Friars Leicester Social Services Building about 8 years ago and if I remember rightly the R stands for reserved ( probably a Director's parking space).
What also amused me is that the car parking attendant seemed as if he hadn't moved from his little hut in the eight years I have been gone. Looked exactly the same! Come to think of it I do remember the car park attendant shouting a lot about "King Dick" when cars nearly got stuck in the narrow entrance coming into the car park. Shoulda listened to him back then and here's me just thinking he had a potty mouth. Perhaps he knew all along.....:D
If you look at pictures of the car park before the dig, the R was only roughly painted, certainly not in the professional way you'd expect in a Council car park. Anyway most car parks with reserved spaces have "RESERVED" painted there, not "R". The parking space wasn't even a full car length long either, so not much of a space to reserve for management. There is what looks like graffiti painted on the tarmac nearby, so I expect it was related to that.
It must have set poor Philippa's heart racing to find an R in the car park she thought he was buried in and that must have contributed to the feelings about the place she said she had felt.
I thought she made herself look a bit po faced. If she didn't want to do it, she could just have said "You do it" to Philippa, without making such a big deal of it. It was meaningless to anyone else but Philippa, really.
In fairness she declined because they didn't yet know with any certainty that it was Richard's remains. Philippa was convinced, but with nothing to back it up. For a scientist it's perfectly proper, and not at all po faced, not to celebrate a discovery before it is proved. Philippa couldn't wait that long to drape the standard over the box.
When he was buried, R3 was only about a foot below the church floor, but the ground level has risen since then. That is the only way anything above ground level or just below it gets preserved.
I think Phillipa was misled somewhat as the archaeologists said he had a curved spine when he was lying in situ. In fact, he had a twisted spine as they discovered later. So, she initially thought that the Tudor propaganda was true on that point - anyone reading about him must have known that he was rather effeminate and no superhuman.
Philippa was so convinced Richard was not a hunchback that she didn't want to believe the spine was curved at all. Then she was upset by the doctor describe him as such.
Richard may have been slightly effeminate but that didn't stop him being a brave leader in battle and a renowned soldier.
It was Richard who had the Princes declared illegitimate. They disappeared while in his protective custody. There is no direct evidence against him (or anyone else) but Richard stood to gain most by getting rid of them. Even though they had already been declared illegitimate they would still have been a threat to his reign as a focal point for his enemies. Killing them would avoid that risk.
Any theories,then, about why he didn't display their bodies to publicly discourage any would-be followers ? Wouldn't be much point in bumping them off to stop opponents if their deaths were never confirmed. He could have said they died of some pox or other.
I actually think he had them stowed away out of sight until he could think of what to do with them. The first minor rebellion against him probably decided it for him - they had to go.
The princes were declared illegitimate because Edward IV had, prior to his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, entered into a betrothal with Lady Eleanor Butler which was as sacrosanct as marriage. Richard knew nothing of this until Bishop Stillington confessed to knowledge of the relationship. Until this point Richard had been preparing for the young Edward's coronation.
Henry Tudor is the prime suspect for killing the princes but the Duke of Buckingham is also a strong candidate through his descent from Thomas of Woodstock.
Thanks, vindicated. That's surprisingly shallow and would have risked flies, maggots and other infestations as well as the smell.
Henry VII was a canny ruler who did his best to mend a fractured society, even going so far as to marrying someone from the House of York. Whatever his real feeings, erecting a monument would have been an easy conciliatory act.
What about the Star Chamber??? he was a bit of a sh*t iirc!!
Any theories,then, about why he didn't display their bodies to publicly discourage any would-be followers ? Wouldn't be much point in bumping them off to stop opponents if their deaths were never confirmed. He could have said they died of some pox or other.
I actually think he had them stowed away out of sight until he could think of what to do with them. The first minor rebellion against him probably decided it for him - they had to go.
More interesting than that is that he wasn't able to show them alive to prove he hadn't killed them. So they were almost certainly already dead. I think killing them as soon as he could after becoming king was probably the easiest and best solution for him. No risk of them escaping and trying to re-establish their claim.
If you look at pictures of the car park before the dig, the R was only roughly painted, certainly not in the professional way you'd expect in a Council car park. Anyway most car parks with reserved spaces have "RESERVED" painted there, not "R". The parking space wasn't even a full car length long either, so not much of a space to reserve for management. There is what looks like graffiti painted on the tarmac nearby, so I expect it was related to that.
It must have set poor Philippa's heart racing to find an R in the car park she thought he was buried in and that must have contributed to the feelings about the place she said she had felt.
.
Perhaps they should go back and dig up under the S and they might find Shergar
More interesting than that is that he wasn't able to show them alive to prove he hadn't killed them. So they were almost certainly already dead. I think killing them as soon as he could after becoming king was probably the easiest and best solution for him. No risk of them escaping and trying to re-establish their claim.
As the history of Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots shows, wherever there's someone else with a possible claim to the throne, those opposing the monarch tend to gather behind the other claimant. Mary Queen of Scots was always a threat to Eliazabeth I and whilst Elizabeth delayed her execution for a long time, eventually she did it.
Henry VII was a canny ruler who did his best to mend a fractured society, even going so far as to marrying someone from the House of York. Whatever his real feeings, erecting a monument would have been an easy conciliatory act.
He had to marry Elizabeth of York as he'd made a dramatic declaration that he would if he won, even if he did tone it down by not letting her be crowned for over a year, as if her brothers were dead she was the rightful heir and a much better right to it than him. That meant he had to legitimise her - which meant that the same Act legtimised her brothers, who, if alive, would immediately come between him and the throne. One of the first things he did on reaching London after Bosworth was have the Tower searched. He clearly didn't know for sure what had happened to the Princes, (or if he did he never said anything) as he never directly accused Richard of their murder, the obvious thing to do to turn the people against him, and was so terrified years later by Perkin Warbeck that he used him as an excuse to wipe out the remaining male claimants to the throne and had James Tyrrell taken under safe conduct and forced to 'confess' to murdering the boys,
Any theories,then, about why he didn't display their bodies to publicly discourage any would-be followers ? Wouldn't be much point in bumping them off to stop opponents if their deaths were never confirmed. He could have said they died of some pox or other.
I actually think he had them stowed away out of sight until he could think of what to do with them. The first minor rebellion against him probably decided it for him - they had to go.
Except that after the Princes are supposed to have disappeared, their mother let her daughters out of Sanctuary, where they'd holed up after her bid to keep power for her own family had failed, and where they could have stayed indefinitely, into Richard's custody with his promise to treat them as his close family and find them husbands according to their rank. Is it likely a mother would do that if she thought he'd killed her sons? Also she was allegedly involved in the Lambert Simnel uprising, which, if successful, would have removed her daughter from the throne. Not long after that Henry Tudor had her removed to a convent where she died 5 years later.
For a woman well known for acting in her own and her family's interest she did some odd things about that time.
The princes were declared illegitimate because Edward IV had, prior to his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, entered into a betrothal with Lady Eleanor Butler which was as sacrosanct as marriage. Richard knew nothing of this until Bishop Stillington confessed to knowledge of the relationship. Until this point Richard had been preparing for the young Edward's coronation.
Henry Tudor is the prime suspect for killing the princes but the Duke of Buckingham is also a strong candidate through his descent from Thomas of Woodstock.
And then again that confession might have given Richard the temptation to act as he did. He didn't have to act to have them made illegitimate. Until he heard the confession he would have had no choice but to prepare for Edward's coronation, whatever his personal ambition. It's conceivable he felt duty bound to act as he did, but he certainly gained greatly from doing so.
How you get Henry Tudor as the prime suspect I don't know. He is a suspect for sure, but Richard is the prime suspect. He had means, opportunity and motive. They disappeared shortly after he was crowned. Henry only had a reason to kill them after he himself became King having defeated Richard. But that was over two years after they disappeared.
Obviously we don't know what happened for sure, but you can only go on the balance of probability. It's simply more likely Richard had them killed.
More interesting than that is that he wasn't able to show them alive to prove he hadn't killed them. So they were almost certainly already dead. I think killing them as soon as he could after becoming king was probably the easiest and best solution for him. No risk of them escaping and trying to re-establish their claim.
The whole PR issue was tough for him. No, he couldn't show them to be still alive - the effect may have set off some kind of rebellious support on their behalf (which happened anyway). What would it have looked like, to supplant them, then parade them around?
Except that after the Princes are supposed to have disappeared, their mother let her daughters out of Sanctuary, where they'd holed up after her bid to keep power for her own family had failed, and where they could have stayed indefinitely, into Richard's custody with his promise to treat them as his close family and find them husbands according to their rank. Is it likely a mother would do that if she thought he'd killed her sons? Also she was allegedly involved in the Lambert Simnel uprising, which, if successful, would have removed her daughter from the throne. Not long after that Henry Tudor had her removed to a convent where she died 5 years later.
For a woman well known for acting in her own and her family's interest she did some odd things about that time.
BIB1 - Maybe she didn't know - maybe they weren't killed by him? Anyway, Richard arrived at the abbey with a force of soldiers and put her under extreme pressure. She must have been even more scared than she was when he seized power. It is so difficult to imagine the situation and how each of the protagonists felt. The family must have been desperate to get out of the confines of their sanctuary and he did promise to look after them. Elizabeth Woodville was an opportunist if nothing else.
BIB2 Well, by the time LS came along she probably did think her boys were dead. Who knows whether she had come to dislike Henry Tudor (have you his portrait ? Would you buy a used car from him?) If she replaced her daughter (therefore HT) with LS, she may have resumed some kind of influence upon the throne - but with Henry as king, no chance. In the end, her msitrust of him was confirmed - see nunnery.
Generally I think EW made it worse for herself. She made a mess of it all beginning with an attempted coup in 1483, stealing the king's treasure then running off into hiding - looks a bit guilty, don't you think?
Comments
:eek:
It was Richard who had the Princes declared illegitimate. They disappeared while in his protective custody. There is no direct evidence against him (or anyone else) but Richard stood to gain most by getting rid of them. Even though they had already been declared illegitimate they would still have been a threat to his reign as a focal point for his enemies. Killing them would avoid that risk.
The Tudors clearly re-wrote history to portray Richard as a monster and so look good for removing him, but they didn't invent the missing princes. It's highly likely Richard had them disposed of. That said, by the standards of the time Richard was no more ruthless than any of his rivals and by all accounts was a good King. As with many things the truth is probably somewhere in between the two extremes. The Ricardian fantasy is no more likely to be true than the Tudor propaganda.
If you look at pictures of the car park before the dig, the R was only roughly painted, certainly not in the professional way you'd expect in a Council car park. Anyway most car parks with reserved spaces have "RESERVED" painted there, not "R". The parking space wasn't even a full car length long either, so not much of a space to reserve for management. There is what looks like graffiti painted on the tarmac nearby, so I expect it was related to that.
It must have set poor Philippa's heart racing to find an R in the car park she thought he was buried in and that must have contributed to the feelings about the place she said she had felt.
In fairness she declined because they didn't yet know with any certainty that it was Richard's remains. Philippa was convinced, but with nothing to back it up. For a scientist it's perfectly proper, and not at all po faced, not to celebrate a discovery before it is proved. Philippa couldn't wait that long to drape the standard over the box.
Philippa was so convinced Richard was not a hunchback that she didn't want to believe the spine was curved at all. Then she was upset by the doctor describe him as such.
Richard may have been slightly effeminate but that didn't stop him being a brave leader in battle and a renowned soldier.
I can't stop giggling
Any theories,then, about why he didn't display their bodies to publicly discourage any would-be followers ? Wouldn't be much point in bumping them off to stop opponents if their deaths were never confirmed. He could have said they died of some pox or other.
I actually think he had them stowed away out of sight until he could think of what to do with them. The first minor rebellion against him probably decided it for him - they had to go.
Henry Tudor is the prime suspect for killing the princes but the Duke of Buckingham is also a strong candidate through his descent from Thomas of Woodstock.
What about the Star Chamber??? he was a bit of a sh*t iirc!!
Perhaps they should go back and dig up under the S and they might find Shergar
As the history of Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots shows, wherever there's someone else with a possible claim to the throne, those opposing the monarch tend to gather behind the other claimant. Mary Queen of Scots was always a threat to Eliazabeth I and whilst Elizabeth delayed her execution for a long time, eventually she did it.
He had to marry Elizabeth of York as he'd made a dramatic declaration that he would if he won, even if he did tone it down by not letting her be crowned for over a year, as if her brothers were dead she was the rightful heir and a much better right to it than him. That meant he had to legitimise her - which meant that the same Act legtimised her brothers, who, if alive, would immediately come between him and the throne. One of the first things he did on reaching London after Bosworth was have the Tower searched. He clearly didn't know for sure what had happened to the Princes, (or if he did he never said anything) as he never directly accused Richard of their murder, the obvious thing to do to turn the people against him, and was so terrified years later by Perkin Warbeck that he used him as an excuse to wipe out the remaining male claimants to the throne and had James Tyrrell taken under safe conduct and forced to 'confess' to murdering the boys,
Except that after the Princes are supposed to have disappeared, their mother let her daughters out of Sanctuary, where they'd holed up after her bid to keep power for her own family had failed, and where they could have stayed indefinitely, into Richard's custody with his promise to treat them as his close family and find them husbands according to their rank. Is it likely a mother would do that if she thought he'd killed her sons? Also she was allegedly involved in the Lambert Simnel uprising, which, if successful, would have removed her daughter from the throne. Not long after that Henry Tudor had her removed to a convent where she died 5 years later.
For a woman well known for acting in her own and her family's interest she did some odd things about that time.
How you get Henry Tudor as the prime suspect I don't know. He is a suspect for sure, but Richard is the prime suspect. He had means, opportunity and motive. They disappeared shortly after he was crowned. Henry only had a reason to kill them after he himself became King having defeated Richard. But that was over two years after they disappeared.
Obviously we don't know what happened for sure, but you can only go on the balance of probability. It's simply more likely Richard had them killed.
I agree and how lucky was it to have the letter R over the top so they knew where to start digging
Thanks for that Sally, will keep an eye out.
The whole PR issue was tough for him. No, he couldn't show them to be still alive - the effect may have set off some kind of rebellious support on their behalf (which happened anyway). What would it have looked like, to supplant them, then parade them around?
BIB1 - Maybe she didn't know - maybe they weren't killed by him? Anyway, Richard arrived at the abbey with a force of soldiers and put her under extreme pressure. She must have been even more scared than she was when he seized power. It is so difficult to imagine the situation and how each of the protagonists felt. The family must have been desperate to get out of the confines of their sanctuary and he did promise to look after them. Elizabeth Woodville was an opportunist if nothing else.
BIB2 Well, by the time LS came along she probably did think her boys were dead. Who knows whether she had come to dislike Henry Tudor (have you his portrait ? Would you buy a used car from him?) If she replaced her daughter (therefore HT) with LS, she may have resumed some kind of influence upon the throne - but with Henry as king, no chance. In the end, her msitrust of him was confirmed - see nunnery.
Generally I think EW made it worse for herself. She made a mess of it all beginning with an attempted coup in 1483, stealing the king's treasure then running off into hiding - looks a bit guilty, don't you think?
Blimey, that’s exactly what my wife said. meh:eek::o:(
That's like the reports that American tourists asked why Windsor Castle was built so close to Heathrow airport.