No "puffing up" or putting down of anyone here: just thanks - and I hope not goodbye - to the person who, with Andrew Spencer, first got me interested in all this. I'll always be grateful to Minettte - sorry, Catigern and others, but there it is.

But yes, let's move on from the beastly-horrid. Or rather let us return to the beastly-horrid - the disappearance, possible murder, of those boys.

So what were Thomas More's motives as he penned his History (which was never published in his lifetime), and what were Shakespeare's? Giving your cultured friends a good laugh (especially at the stuff toadying historians could churn out on demand)?  A warning against tyranny? Clever satire? Getting bums on seats? Trying to outdo Marlowe when it came to creating an ace villain?

And what does what has been made of these "sources" say about the history of history?

Hi Temperance.  I think I said on another thread (or maybe this one) that the chap you call Mr Wobbleweapon probably was less than kind in his play about Richard III because his (Mr Wobbleweapon's) sovereign was the grand-daughter of Henry VII.  When people were being killed savagely just for attending religious services which were slightly different to those adopted by the ruler people had to be very careful (though to be fair to Elizabeth people were "done in" under her half-sister also -  albeit of a slightly different religious persuasion).  Didn't  Mr Wobbleweapon write for the Queen's actors (that's not the correct name of the acting company) at one time?  (Off-topic there are some YouTube videos a lady in America posts about her dog and her foster kittens and one of the kittens is called "Wobblepants" so I have to stop myself typing Willie Wobblepants).

On a completely different forum (nothing to do with ResHistorica) somebody who I don't think was the brightest jewel in the intellectual crown had typed a diatribe against people of colour in connection with a murder.  I typed a reply saying perhaps we should wait until we knew who the culprits were before apportioning blame.  I was well and truly "trolled" - I received messages to the effect that I was a disgrace to Britain, it was because of people like me the country was going to the fiery place in a hand-cart, that type of thing, so I do  prefer that we "play nice" on here (and I'm not implying you don't "play nice", T).  Of course there is nothing wrong with healthy debate. 

When I emailed to find out about joining the website the Power that Be said it was not mandatory to be a qualified historian.  Back on topic, was it Richard "what done it"? I honestly don't know. Their disappearance was convenient for him at the time - just as after Richard's death he would become a convenient person to blame, to give a justification to Henry VII, who in my opinion was a clever usurper (though weren't all kings after the Norman Conquest usurpers?), so arguments could be made either way.

"Blame" is the key term here, and has remained so over the centuries. In 1483 it was fear of blame should something occur that guided the principal players' actions and words. In the aftermath of Bosworth it was managing blame that came to the fore (Henry never directly accused Richard though did little to quell any rumour). But if you go back to 1483 and line up the usual suspects then it is clear that one thing they all held in common was that it would be a good thing for all that the young potential claimants die, but only if the blame could be specifically and successfully apportioned in the wake of the deed. It is the lack of this that has always intrigued me.

Whether the princes died of neglect, murder or even escaped, the thing that strikes me as clear is that none of the usual suspects felt themselves in a position to successfully prosecute the end-game that a genuine plot would surely have encompassed. It appears to have been a classic case of political engineering surpassed and eclipsed by something else - possibly random, possibly ambiguous, but outside the schemes these people may or may not have been concocting. Ambiguous death or disappearance, on whoever's watch it occurred, scuppered everything. All bets were off while the major players attempted to sort out what exactly the hell had happened and then utilise this to political ends. This appears to have been the state of play at Bosworth and even later - it would be some years, long enough to have seen off two rather crude impersonation attempts, before the final verdict of murder by the then regent could be at last declared with any great definiteness, or at least with little fear any longer of embarrassing contradiction.

In this line of reasoning kidnapping becomes a rather obvious and prominent probability amongst all the others, however little it has been seriously contemplated in the past. And in this probability the field is suddenly thrown even wider open as the possible various motives for this course of action far exceed those for murder. Yet if this probability should indeed have been the truth of it, and all the more so if the motive had been among the baser of the possibilities, then how well this would explain all the subsequent silences and procrastination in apportioning blame on the part of all the others who had reason to plot around the fate of the two boys.

Now that makes a lot of sense, at least to me, and particularly the 'random and ambiguous' aspect. When attempting to unravel the past, we often do so by starting with the known outcome and then work backwards assuming some kind of rational and predictable progress towards it. From more modern events, and from our own lives, we should know better; life is rarely that simple. I would venture that, whatever happened to those boys, it wasn't what was intended otherwise someone would have made more political capitol out of it or at least been crying 'It wasn't me Gov, honest'.
That two princes should just disappear and no-one exploit the fact, indeed barely acknowledge it, is so utterly unlikely that it must suggest that everyone involved must have felt that to do otherwise would so drastically damage their position as to be avoided. 
I'll leave it to you historians and/or detectives to suggest who might have done what to whom and why.

Hi LiR,

No time to reply properly at the  moment, but had to quickly confess that Willie Wobbleweapon is one of El Supremo's witticisms, not mine. I pinched it. I also use his "to put one's head above the parakeet" quite often (not here).

Got to dash.

That's okay Temperance, duty calls sometimes.  I've actually been at a French conversation group  for oldies this afternoon (and therefore been away from the computer) myself. As for the witty remarks - don't they say the best ideas are always somebody else's.   "...head above the parakeet" is new to me. My last full-time job before I retired was in a Museum.  At the time I was typing about annelids including polychaetes.  Now I read that (despite scraping a pass at "O" level  Latin) as polly-chate. One of my colleagues was talking about a polychaete and I thought she was saying pollykeet - I suppose I was thinking of "Polly the Parrot" and "parakeet".  It wasn't until she said something that made me realise she wasn't talking about a bird that I made the connection.  I think I gave my co-workers a laugh if nothing else.

Quote :

Think about it. ALL Monarchs since 1485 have been Monarchs due to their relationship to Henry Tudor/ VII.

Codswallop  . Innumerable other factors have come into play, such as the will of the people and parliament and military victory   (that gave us William III, George I etc).

Quote :

However, Arwhe was extremely rude to me many times. I really don't mind being shouted at etc., I'm used to it, but pretending to being Welsh and so short on the historical facts was not on. If I was teaching a show off like that I don't believe my response would have been different.

No, AR politely disagreed with you, from a position of knowledge and understanding superior to your own  . Nor did he ever pretend to be ‘Welsh’ in the sense that you, with your limited historical knowledge, understand the term. The ‘Rheged’ tag pertains to an area well beyond the Cambrian Peninsula, as anyone with a basic knowledge of early medieval Brythonic history  is aware.
You would do well to remember that you are not here in your day-job role as a supposed ‘teacher’, but are merely one of the less well qualified and informed   members of a discussion circle within which you have no particular authority.

Quote :

If an Act of Parliament had disinherited the bastard/illegitimate princes in 1483...

Please cease your absurd attempts to disassociate Richard’s parliament from Richard’s shenanigans. Or, to put it another way...

...If you had usurped a youngster’s throne, and managed to wangle a legitimisation of that act (based on the dubious word of a turncoat bishop)  that could always be reversed, why on earth would you leave said youngster alive when there was every chance that they would turn into a focus of opposition as they grew...?   

Quote :

I don't have the brains for the law or courage for soldiering by Catigern,(are we still in the c19th? And as a female I don't count.) I'm off!

It wasn’t you I was talking about, Minnie, but your clerical ancestors – nasty parasites  who skanked a living by playing on the superstitions on the gullible. Your father wasn’t even a ‘Good Christian’, or he’d have told you very firmly that Christian funerary rites were entirely inappropriate for family pets.

Quote :

What makes me laugh, quietly, is that having been close up to academia for so long, I don't want to write an article or even a thesis for a doctorate (the pain, anguish and stupid competition

What makes me laugh is the variety of bizarre hoops of non-logic through which you jump in order to persuade yourself that you are qualified to comment on things like the academic  process. You tried academia, and you failed at it. Besides, not so long ago you were stridently proclaiming that academic success depended entirely on money, and that things like effort had nothing to do with it...

Quote :

Did you really believe I was that thick?

Yes!

For pity's sake, Catigern, will you not give it a rest?

You are like some dreadful  male Harpy - or Fury rather -  in relentless pursuit of its prey. It is wearisome, disheartening and not a little depressing.

Your response to nordmann's comments about the Urn bones, however, would be most welcome, especially for those of us who come here hoping to learn something about history, rather than having to witness what I believe is referred to in TOWIE circles - and elsewhere -  as a "bitch fest".    

A "bitch fest" refers to an unproductive meeting of people where complaints are aired. The complaints that are aired can be about anything. Often the attendees of a bitch fest meeting will dramatically complain about one another. The best bitch fests will have complaints aired that have nothing to do with the original purpose of the meeting, and end with a few of the attendees having wild temper tantrums.

And here I am taking part.

What's all this about Josephine Wilkinson, then?  

http://josepha-josephine-wilkinson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-princes-in-tower.html

Interesting that JW's new book (available 28th October ) looks at a possible culprit whom nobody ever mentions these days: John Howard, "whose inheritance of the dukedom of Norfolk has been interpreted as his reward for doing away with the Princes, while evidence contained in his Household Books that he carried out mysterious building work at ‘la Tour’ appears to strengthen the case against him."  

Like nordmann in his post above, Wilkinson also stresses the need to "ask the right questions".

From the foregoing, it becomes clear that whatever happened to the Princes happened during Richard's reign, and it is there that we will find the answers - providing we ask the right questions.



I am so looking forward to reading this book.

A guy has been given two eggs to mind by his dying brother. He half fancies an omelette himself but since he promised his bro he'd mind the eggs he puts them in a safe place from which they cannot roll off, and then rather strangely ensures that just about every one of his mates, acquaintances and even some enemies can get access to them. However since he can summarily execute anyone who openly cracks the eggs he reckons this is enough security for the moment (they're only little eggs).

Some mates reckon if they make the omelette for him then he can't be accused of having reneged on his dying bro's wishes.
Some enemies reckon an omelette would be just the job - they're peckish themselves.
Some mates reckon the shelf is a little too public, especially with all those omelette-loving enemies around, so maybe it might be best to move them.
Some mates reckon the whole mate/enemy access thing is bound to be bad for the eggs so for the sake of the guy's reputation maybe they should be secretly moved.
Some mates reckon the whole mate/enemy access thing is bound to be bad for the eggs so for the sake of the guy's reputation maybe they should be secretly moved, but in doing so accidentally break them.
Some enemies just want to smash the eggs and pin the blame on the guy himself.
Some mates think he'd be better off with the eggs accidentally smashed so he could get on with life.
Some nutters are neither enemies nor mates of the guy but just like smashing eggs to see what happens next.
Some nutters are neither friends nor enemies of the guy, but adore the eggs themselves and will move them to an even safer shelf.
Some nutters are neither friends nor enemies of the guy, but adore the eggs themselves and will move them to an even safer shelf, but accidentally drop them en route.
The eggs are not in great condition and might go rotten at any moment.

One day the eggs are gone.

The guy suspects his mates, his enemies, his acquaintances and all egg-lovers.
His enemies suspect him or his mates, but since they don't know cannot rule out either of them, or the nutters and egg lovers for that matter.
His mates suspect him or his enemies, but likewise cannot do much as the guy himself just says he's waiting to see if it was his mates or his enemies before he decides what to say. And anyway it could have been the egg lovers.
All suspect it could have been a nutter all along.

Eggs? What eggs?

Oh, and don't forget that any one of the mates, enemies, acquaintances or nutters know that no matter what happens someone else is bound to be suspected as much as them. Even the egg-lovers know this if they accidentally drop them.

Thanks for the picture of Margaret Beaufort's wet dream, temp!

I guess it is the essence of mystery that keeps folk interested in the fate of the princes in the Tower after all this time; though of course the murder of children is a foul thing.  As Nordmann has so comprehensively pointed out there are so many possibilities who might have done it ....   Off topic but for a purpose: I knew a lady who is convinced that Dan Brown is writing the truth .... it didn't matter how many times I told her that the French "posh boys" who originated the "Holy Blood" jape are on record as saying it was a wheeze and that the picture where they say the Apostle John looks very female was painted circa Renaissance times and not at the time of Christ  --- and then there was the very sincere young man who told me that Princess Diana had sent a message from the "other side" to say she had been murdered.  I just kept quiet, couldn't be a***d to argue.  I am citing these points although they don't directly relate Edward IV's missing sons to say, well lots of people love a mystery.  I'll get my mystery fix by getting a "whodunnit" from the library but others choose to fixate on conspiracy theories.  If we knew for certain who out of Richard III, Henry VII and A.N. Other was responsible for the disappearance of those princes would this thread exist?

There is one scenario (awful term) that  ought be included into nordmann's great clarification; the eggs hatched. What of the boys' nature - dad was a daredevil and mum let's say an adventurous opportunist. And they had had spent much time in the country. Ringlets and lace ruffs aside, they might well have tried - or even managed to effect an escape and either come a cropper or  made a good fist of it and  stayed mum; they had few family left by then and a pretty good idea what the odds were I'd have thought.

The reptile is meant to be Margaret Beaufort, nordmann, not - er - what you said.

But didn't St. Nicholas, "the patron and helper of al true maydens", usually figure in our Maggie's little night-time fantasies? He appeared to her in a vision one night and talked to her about marriage*: "the scenario had a dream-like quality, with a vague memory of a solemn ceremony and a man dressed in white, 'arrayed like a bishop' " (Jones and Underwood ). All very odd. Sounds very like something from Rosemary's Baby to me.

*That's what she told her confessor, Fisher, anyway - Mornynge Remembraunce had at the moneth mynde of the Noble Prynces Margarete Countesse of Rychemonde and Darbye, empryntd by Wynkyn de Worde. in The English Works of John Fisher, part 1

EDIT - several posts have appeared - never mind, will send and not modify.

From whence your picture of the Male Harpy, Temperance, or is it something so well known that I am really showing my ignorance by not being aware of its origin.....?

Edit: Just had a thought, is it one of those Matthew, Mark, Luke and John symbols?

Temperance wrote:

You are like some dreadful  male Harpy - or Fury rather -  in relentless pursuit of its prey

Hurrah for ME!

LadyinRetirement wrote:

From whence your picture of the Male Harpy, Temperance...

Edit: Just had a thought, is it one of those Matthew, Mark, Luke and John symbols?

I just googled "Harpy Images" and chose one that looked vaguely male. Harpies and Furies are traditionally female, of course, but men should not be excluded from Harpydom - sexual equality and all that.


The symbols for the four evangelists are very strange and beautiful, are they not? Apparently they - the winged bull, the winged lion, the  eagle and the angel-winged man - are the creatures described in Ezekiel: each creature had the four different faces - the Tetramorph?



http://iconreader.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/the-tetramorph-in-christian-art/



As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.
(Ezekiel 1:10)

This image is again seen by St. John the Apostle in the Book of Revelation, where the Tetramorph surround the Enthroned Christ:


And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.


But I've also read somewhere that the winged creatures are actually of pagan origin; they were originally Babylonian symbols. Could well be, I suppose, but I don't really know.

I hope my harpy isn't really a Saint Mattthew - I don't really see our dear Catty as an evangelist...

nordmann wrote:

In this line of reasoning kidnapping becomes a rather obvious and prominent probability amongst all the others, however little it has been seriously contemplated in the past. And in this probability the field is suddenly thrown even wider open as the possible various motives for this course of action far exceed those for murder. Yet if this probability should indeed have been the truth of it, and all the more so if the motive had been among the baser of the possibilities, then how well this would explain all the subsequent silences and procrastination in apportioning blame on the part of all the others who had reason to plot around the fate of the two boys.

Mmm. Well, I don't suppose anyone remembers now, but I suggested this years ago over on the BBC site: my infamous John le Carre post. I was laughed at. Even those gentle and polite posters, Andrew Spencer and TwinProbe, chuckled at my wild "spy-novel" imagination.

I think we should look to Burgundy and  - possibly - to France. The Duchy - its rulers and their difficult relationship with the French - is rarely mentioned in any discussion of the Princes. Yet Andrew Spencer finally admitted that I had it right about the French interest in England's affairs at this time, although he would not consider a possible French involvement in the disappearance of the PITT. And there had definitely been an unsuccessful Burgundian plot during the summer of 1483 to spirit the York children out of Westminster Abbey; I haven't got the source to hand (think it's Mancini), but will check later. Was a second Burgundian rescue attempt made later in the year? It's possible. If so, the Burgundian "motives" were benign: if the French were also involved (very likely), motives would most definitely have been "base".

I mentioned back on the BBC how London was crawling with spies during the long hot summer and early autumn of 1483 - spies of varying nationalities. This was the remark that triggered mirth from my old BBC friends. Steve Gunn (Catty knows him at Merton, I think?) recently confirmed (during the recent In Our Time programme on Bosworth) that spies were indeed "everywhere" in the capital at this time.

I agree (and never laughed at your suggestion at all, Temp). Most supposition concerning the princes automatically assumes them to have been perceived as a liability - to different people for different reasons. However there is absolutely no historical reason not to also pursue lines of inquiry in which the possibility that they were also perceived as a valuable asset to certain parties was also true. Both of course could have led to them meeting a sticky end, but for the sake of balance if nothing else why isn't the asset line of reasoning pursued more often?

Do you remember a film called "Ruthless People"? The premise was that a woman was kidnapped but her husband not only didn't want her back but had been planning to kill her himself to gain contol of her family fortune.


Might the putative kidnappers of the PITT have found that their assets were not only unwanted but far more valuable if they stayed 'disappeared'?

It seems to me that the question "who murdered the Princes" is unanswerable.  At this stage of the game, there is insufficient evidence to pot anyone on anything approaching the civil standard of proof (on the balance of probabilities), let alone the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt).

Not that this stops people trying.  A trend I have noticed - particularly (although not exclusively) amongst Ricardians - is to rely very heavily on what some lawyers term "self serving evidence".  I may have mentioned this before but it warrants repeating.  A classic piece of self serving would be:-

"If I really had killed my brother, why would I have left the murder weapon in the back of my own shed?  I would have cleaned the finger prints off it and dumped it in the quarry pits."

Of course, this sort of argument only works if we are prepared to assume that the accused wasn't simply so stupid/arrogant/unaware of basic police procedure/panicked at having killed someone that they made what, with hindsight, was a pretty big error.  if it is possible that the accused was possibly any of these things, the elaborately crafted edifice comes crashing down pronto.

Such evidence is therefore no evidence at all.  Yet Ricardians plead it all the time, usually in the classic form of the rhetorical question - "why would Richard/Henry/Margaret/Lady Cheapside have done X if they had killed PITT/knew who had killed PITT/etc".

These rhetorical statements sound good, but by their very nature are based on accepting at face value numerous assumptions which, when looked at more closely, may well be entirely unsafe.  They also get us no closer to identifying who might be the culprit.  Finally, based as they are on hypothetical scenarios, they do not contain a shred of genuine evidence either way.

For any crime, you need motive, means and opportunity.  Richard had all three and, as such, has to rank as one of the Top Suspects on any hit list.  Others may have had all three too (I don't really know enough about it to comment), but no reasonable person could doubt that Richard was also the immediate beneficiary of the disappearance of the Princes. 

None of this means that Richard did it.  But it does, I think, mean that any attempt to argue that he couldn't possibly have done it or that he has been cruelly vilified by a five hundred year conspiracy theory is an argument from emotion and desire rather than one from the actual evidence (or lack of it). 

As I mentioned before, this tendency is occasionally noticeable up here in the north of England, where some proud Yorkshiremen and women seem to think it a natural extension of their regional pride to argue that Richard was innocent.  In my experience, they often do this for one simple reason - Richard had connections to the county and is seen as a fellow Yorkshireman, ranking alongside Geoff Boycott and Jane Macdonald as one of the bright lights of the White Rose County.   

Regards,

AR

I agree with everything you say, AR, but would go even one step further regarding self-serving assumptions. Namely, isn't the use of the word "murder" in the original question not in itself indicative of sloppy inquiry? Yes, there existed motive for murder on several people's account, but there is also motive for other activities which also would have delivered the same mystery, and indeed could have. Since we traditionally neglect to start an inquiry using these alternative starting points we are not even in a good position to compare the relative worth of each of these alternative lines of investigation.

This was what I meant above by asking the wrong questions, "Who murdered the princes?" being prime amongst them.

Fair point!

I suppose that asking the question "what happened to the Princes in the Tower?" has a bit less pazzazz than asking who murdered them. 

That said, the murder question does, I think, recognise the realities of the modern day interest in Richard.  We are not, in fact, dealing with a historic cold case.  What we are dealing with is the construction, deconstruction and reconstruction of legend.  Richard et al are no longer just dead historical personages - they are now personifications of certain character traits and behaviours which we interpret for our own age and rework when our own preoccupations change.

Min is actually a good example of this.  Richard, her argument runs, is worthy of a burial at York Minster because he is a crowned monarch and a king and therefore what he wants he can have.  This attitude puts me in mind of the sort of unquestioning respect for, and deference to, monarchy which appears to be on the wane.  Interestingly, no other monarch appears to be worthy of the same deference in Min's mind, which suggests that there is something about Richard which is different.  My guess is that what is different to Ricardians such as Min is that they have developed a sense of ownership of Richard.  He is no longer just a deceased fifteenth century monarch.  He has become something very personal - an integral part of their self definition and a convenient method of expressing notions of justice, truth and fairness.  This is all absolutely fine and something many of us do, but there perhaps needs to be some honesty that this is what is going on.

If I am right, it perhaps also explains why some folk are so quick to take offence at the views of others.  Because in reality, they don't perceive that their argument is being attacked - they perceive that they are being attacked.

Set in this context, it is perhaps easier to see why the assumption that there was a murder is asserted so readily and questioned so little.

Regards,

AR

AR, such interesting observations. I'll open a thread because I have also been thinking along these lines .

Indeed, but long, long ago I queried as to why Richard had elicited such a degree of personal, emotional investment that he became entangled with his supporters own identities. I believe I compared this to football fans whose identification with their team became something way beyond interest in the game and support for their team. Could the parallel between these very different interests (obsessions?) have a common element in their group dynamics? Is the Richard III Society history's Man U supporters, my team right or wrong? For some, and particularly those whose sense of self is somewhat fragile, does the membership of a group with common beliefs and aspirations give them that sense of belonging and affirmation that they, not necessarily consciously, seek and so lead them to become even more vociferous and entrenched in their views?

Arwe Rheged wrote:

That said, the murder question does, I think, recognise the realities of the modern day interest in Richard.  We are not, in fact, dealing with a historic cold case.  What we are dealing with is the construction, deconstruction and reconstruction of legend.  Richard et al are no longer just dead historical personages - they are now personifications of certain character traits and behaviours which we interpret for our own age and rework when our own preoccupations change.

I agree with that: but it's not so much a "cult of personality" we've got going on here, but rather a cult of " personalities" or "celebrities" even ( I can now imagine a version of a Hello History! magazine devoted to gossip about these folk). Thanks, I suppose, to the dramatists, the novelists and, more recently, the TV scriptwriters, we now argue in terms of character: the maligned (or wicked, according to your point of view) Richard of Gloucester; the scheming, utterly brilliant Margaret Beaufort; the lean and hungry Henry Tudor; the daring, self-indulgent Edward IV; his beautiful witch-bitch of a wife, Elizabeth Woodville and the rest. It is true indeed that we love to identify and sympathise with our favourites, and that we are quick to judge and condemn the rest. We interpret the few facts we have according to our our needs, our own personalities and our own times. This is inevitable.

That said, Realpolitik - which is what this business is/was actually all about - has got somehow alarmingly lost in this debate, just as it has in most discussions of the Tudors. We need perhaps to stop asking questions about the personalities - our heroes and villains - and ask more about the politics. And not, as I will suggest below, just English politics.

Cui bono? Who stood to gain from the mysterious events of (we think) the late autumn of 1483? Of course Richard would have benefited from the deaths of the Princes, had those deaths been natural, witnessed and accepted; had Edward and Richard, for example, been taken off by a fever or some such thing, some recognizable illness that their physician, John Argentine - and other trusted witnesses - could have confirmed. Bodies displayed and a decent funeral - that possibly would have been the end of the matter. What actually happened - the children's disappearance and Richard's silence which bellowed up and down a horrified England and across Europe - was a disaster for him. The rumours began, followed by the rebellions and then, with Henry Tudor, invasion and the threat of civil war. (I should add that Richard was opposed not just because he was suspected of murdering his nephews; but goodness how his enemies - who were in the main acting out of the usual enlightened self-interest - benefited from the rumours and suspicions about how the king had dealt with his brother's children: so much excellent mud to be thrown, mud which, once thrown, stuck - for centuries.)

I would suggest it's worth looking at the internal politics of Brittany, Burgundy and France and how they enmeshed with the internal politics of England. How would possible chaos in England affect these countries is perhaps a question worth asking. Burgundy wanted and needed a strong England; France most definitely did not. Brittany wanted to do a deal with Richard: military support in exchange for Henry Tudor. Had that deal come off, English history might have been very different - see PS. Both Brittany and Burgundy feared French ambition with - as it turned out - good reason.

Chaos - renewed civil war - in England would actually have been a godsend to the French in 1483. A strong, united England ruled by an adult Plantagenet male - a Plantagenet experienced in war, and one who had not forgotten what he had perceived as the humiliation of the Treaty of Picquigny - was the last thing the shaky new government in Paris wanted or needed. The French too were experiencing a power stuggle following the death of their Spider King, Louis XI on 30th August, 1483. His heir was a sickly thirteen-year-old, Charles VIII, and young Charles's sister, Anne of Beaujeu, had, as Regent, enough on her plate coping with Louis of Orleans (the future Louis XII) who had ambitions of his own. The powers in Brittany, in Burgundy and in Austria were all keenly watching. And all mindful of course of how they might or might not benefit as events unfolded.

An English invasion was - according to Charles Ross - a very real French fear at this time. They wanted Richard deposed: that's why they helped Henry Tudor when he fled from Brittany and arrived in Paris. The French Parliament voted money - 3,000 livres in November 1484 and a further 40,000 livres in 1485 - and promised troops and shipping. But had they perhaps intervened earlier - in 1483/4? - in an attempt to destabilise the new - potentially very dangerous - regime in England? Were French agents involved in some attempt to spirit the Princes out of the Tower? Were the Burgundians? Or was a French attempt thwarted by Burgundians? Wild speculation, I know, but it is possible. It is also possible - with all the intrigue, plotting and double-dealing that was going on - that in the end no one quite knew what had happened - except that the boys had disappeared. One or both could have escaped; or one or both could indeed have been spirited away abroad - somewhere.

PS I should also like to know more about the opinions and activities of the Marshal of France, Philippe de Crevecoeur, Seigneur d'Esquerdes, known in England as Lord Cordes. He was an ardent advocate of  French expansion to the north and east, and, in particular, of wresting Calais from the English; he would "gladly live seven years in hell", he said, to see England humiliated and Calais back in French hands. He was causing trouble in the Channel as far back as early May 1483.

*PPS Re spies and agents and such like, Charles Ross says: "Yet such was the elaborate network of spying and intrigue which pervaded Western Europe at this time that Henry Tudor was forewarned of the Anglo-Breton plan (to arrest and extradite him) if only just in time. Bishop John Morton, who was then still in Flanders learnt of it; his informant was probably Henry's mother, who had connections in Paris..." Mmm.

Could I add to posts from yesterday i)that it was Croyland Chronicler who mentioned the summer of 1483 plot to get the York children away from sanctuary and ii) that Philippe de Crevecoeur (who had originally been in the service of Charles the Bold in Burgundy, but who went over to the French - Louis XI - in 1477 when Charles died and Margaret of York, Richard III's sister and Charles's widow, became Regent of the Duchy) later negotiated the Treaty of Etaples with Henry VII, by which the English promised to stay out of France and French affairs. The French didn't get Calais as part of the deal. They, having taken over Brittany - an event which had caused Henry to panic and declare war on France - by now controlled most of the north coast of France; so we were determined at least to hang on to Calais. But the deal struck at Etaples was nevertheless satisfactory all round: Henry got a nice, fat pension and the French promised not to offer support to any "pretenders" to the English throne - especially the one who was at that very time (November1492) being feted as a Prince at Charles's court. The French king called this young man 'cousin', and, in proclamations to his people, styled him the  Duke of York without equivocation, 'true heir to the realm of England' ". The presence of the youth known to history as Perkin Warbeck at Charles's court was not acknowledged in the main body of the treaty; it was "implied in a separate codicil of December 13th, in which each side promised not to help the rebels or traitors of the other." Vergil felt sure, however, that it was Henry's "sniffing" (lovely word) of Edward's "resurrected son" that caused him to sue for peace with France. The Duke of York, aka Perkin Warbeck, skedaddled pretty sharpish out of France; he left Paris secretly by night (Hall) and made a mad dash for Burgundy. Ann Wroe suggests Charles VIII allowed him to escape: he had no intention of handing him over to Henry. But what a useful pawn that boy had yet again proved to be! His presence had helped persuade Henry not to defend the autonomy of Brittany, but rather to take himself and his English army back home. With, as mentioned above, a French pension. Richard III was no doubt turning in his shallow grave in Leicester.


PS I came across something this morning in David Baldwin's book, The Lost Prince, the Survival of Richard of York. Baldwin reminds us that not everyone believed that the boys had been murdered - even Polydore Vergil admitted (when it was safe to do so) that there was a possibility that one of the Princes had lived:

Curiously... when Polydore Vergil revised the 1512-13 manuscript of his Anglica Historia before its publication in Basle in 1534, he mentioned a rumour that the boys had 'migrated secretly to some other country'. This was entirely contrary to the official line that they had been murdered and may be no more than an echo of the claims made by Warbeck; but why bother to notice the story after half a century unless there was at least a slight possibility that it could be accurate? ... was he again hinting that there was perhaps more to the mystery without actually contradicting what he had written earlier?

Then there's Bacon, who remarked in the next century that "at this time" (he was referring to the events of 1487) "it was whispered that at least one of the children (i.e. sons) of Edward IV was living". As Baldwin points out, Bacon did not say that such stories were complete nonsense, but said only that Henry VII was not by nature "inclined to disperse these mists."

Baldwin suggests that "the general consensus was that one of the Princes could have, we might possibly say had survived" whatever might have happened in the Tower of London, even if none of the theories discussed offers a convincing or satisfactory explanation.

And so it goes on...

ferval wrote:

For some, and particularly those whose sense of self is somewhat fragile, does the membership of a group with common beliefs and aspirations give them that sense of belonging and affirmation that they, not necessarily consciously, seek and so lead them to become even more vociferous and entrenched in their views?

I'm sure that's true, ferval.  

Gosh, I'm so glad I didn't put that Richard III Society sticker on my car - what would I have been proclaiming to the world (well, Devon) about myself?    Even more embarrassing than having one of those awful fish things (which I haven't got, I hasten to add - although I really like the one with the dear little Tyrannosaurus Rex legs).

I do have a National Trust sticker, but I think that's OK, and not an indication of a fragile sense of self...    

PS My "Follow Me! Join the National Trust!" sticker was once mistaken for an exhortation to "Follow Me! Join the National Front!". That led to some interesting conversations.

Oh dear - there was a brief but welcome flaring of renewed life here last Thursday: my spiel about French, Breton and Burgundian politics seems to have well and truly doused it.

Sorry folks.

Quote :

I agree with that: but it's not so much a "cult of personality" we've got going on here, but rather a cult of " personalities" or "celebrities" even ( I can now imagine a version of a Hello History! magazine devoted to gossip about these folk). Thanks, I suppose, to the dramatists, the novelists and, more recently, the TV scriptwriters, we now argue in terms of character: the maligned (or wicked, according to your point of view) Richard of Gloucester; the scheming, utterly brilliant Margaret Beaufort; the lean and hungry Henry Tudor; the daring, self-indulgent Edward IV; his beautiful witch-bitch of a wife, Elizabeth Woodville and the rest. It is true indeed that we love to identify and sympathise with our favourites, and that we are quick to judge and condemn the rest. We interpret the few facts we have according to our our needs, our own personalities and our own times. This is inevitable.

Speak for yourself, SST! Some of us are Proper Historians , and were introduced to the fifteenth century by way of serious study, not via pop-culture 'romps' of any variety. I'm proud to say that I've never read a single word by either Phlipper Gregory or Alison Weir, and have never seen even a minute of 'The Tudors'.

I'm confused Catigern. I'm sure Temperance has said she's no fan of the (in)famous Mrs Gregory. I do hope you don't think your fellow posters are improper historians!!!! I think I said on another thread I saw 5 minutes of "The White Queen" but then switched it off. I know some people with degrees (and not just sitting on pass marks) who think PG is wonderful - we have agreed to disagree.

The sentimental part of me would like to think the Princes in the Tower survived somehow but the sceptical part of me doubts it.

LadyinRetirement wrote:

I'm confused Catigern... I do hope you don't think your fellow posters are improper historians!!!!

I find that most other people are a bit confused   most of the time, Lady..., so I wouldn't worry too much. And most of our fellow posters are, I'm afraid to say, quite improper in one way or another (Ricardian, Scottish, etc...), and some are not historians at all.

Proper or improper, historian or not, the only essential ingredients for a good discussion relating to history are enthusiasm and basic manners. Having knowledge pertaining to a subject, in terms of using it to converse with others, is secondary to how one goes about that simple task. It is amazing how many cannot do it.

When undertaken civilly and with a modicum of intelligence then a discussion is an opportunity for all the participants to contribute based on what they already know, while retaining their enthusiasm, curiosity and openness to know more.

I hasten to add of course that I am not a Ricardian, Scottish or an historian, so must by Catty's definition have a very compromised view of propriety. However it is only fair to point out that the present Baron Culloden (aka Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester) is the Ricardian's very proper royal patron. Whether he rates himself an historian or not I am not quite sure, however I see that the Ricardians on their website welcome his patronage on the grounds that it provides them with "gravitas".

Good grief ...

nordmann wrote:

I hasten to add of course that I am not a Ricardian, Scottish or an historian, so must by Catty's definition have a very compromised view of propriety. However it is only fair to point out that the present Baron Culloden (aka Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester) is the Ricardian's very proper royal patron. Whether he rates himself an historian or not I am not quite sure, however I see that the Ricardians on their website welcome his patronage on the grounds that it provides them with "gravitas".

You must not worry about not being a proper historian, nordmann; we all think you do very well.

Here is a picture of the Duke of Gloucester. I think he looks very grave. I like the big white star/cross thing on his coat. What does it signify? It isn't the insignia of the Order of the Garter. Is it something Scottish? No, that would be a thistle.

His full title includes being an ambulance boss, a "grand prior" even - maybe being a cut above a normal prior gets one a grand cross?

(His Royal Highness Prince Richard Alexander Walter George, Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Ulster and Baron Culloden, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Grand Prior of the Order of St. John, Service Medal of the Order of St. John)

And Nelson Mandella is a Bailiff of this outfit - which among its many worthy outfits also runs a Maternity Hospital in Bethlehem. Please do not start a wordy fight with Tim  or me, nord,  circa this info.  The Duke shares the Prior's role with HM Queen for the right to wear the extra big boss, fancy cross on the cloak side.

As an improper historian I can fight who I like!

Speaking of amateur historians, does anyone have the latest on Jack Leslau and the Holbein Code? He was going great guns tracking the princes down for a while until, at least according to his footprint on the world wide webbything, he seems to have run out of steam (life???) a few years ago.

Independent article from 1995

Jack's website (last updated 2004)

*Proper* historians - interesting choice of idiom  Cati, I never imagined you were so street. Now I'm picturing you as the P Diddy of the senior common room.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=proper

Proper is a funny word. I don't think the reference to "proper prefaces" and the "proper of time" in the BCP has anything to do with the Urban Dictionary's useful definition. If I'm honest, I must admit that I really don't know what the "Proper of Time" means, let alone the "Proper of Saints":

The church year consists of two concurrent cycles: (1) the Proper of Time (Temporale), or seasons and Sundays that revolve around the movable date of Easter and the fixed date of Christmas, and (2)the Proper of Saints (Sanctorale)...

I feel proper ignorant.

Gran was very interested in the Jack Leslau theories. I wonder if she has any up-to-date info?

I'm never sure if feeling proper ignorant trumps actually being a proper Charlie. I just fumble on and hope I'm doing one of them properly, myself.

I do know however that in church terms the combination of a Proper of Time and a Proper of Saints mass in the Catholic service can be horrendous. These "perfect storms" of extra liturgy are quite frequent during Advent and in the run-up to Easter, often leading to interminable readings from various chunks of the bible to make sure to cover all the bases. One priest I knew even observed the two Proper of Saints calendars that emerged when the Tridentine cycle was surpassed by the Vatican II recommendations, meaning that even desanctified saints still got a look-in when he was doing his stuff. Proper idiot!

Thank you, nordmann. You are proper brainy.

Not according to at least one recusant here, who is proper riled at my sponginess. However I am proper chuffed you think so, ma'am. At least it behoves me to say that.

(Damn! Now I have this stuck in my bloody head;)

ferval wrote:

*Proper* historians - interesting choice of idiom  Cati, I never imagined you were so street. Now I'm picturing you as the P Diddy of the senior common room.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=proper

I'll have u kno, Ferval, that I am DED(!) Street an' WELL down with the Kids, like, inni'.   I'm so KEWL I would have fitted right into the Brookes Freshers' bar crawl I bumped into the other night, if only I'd been dressed in skool uniform and tied to a friend as though for a three-legged race, like all the actual participants...

L8rs

On the subject of the Hovis advert, it always amazed me that folk in Shaftesbury spoke with northern accents.  Some years ago, I trotted down there with a racing pigeon and a black pudding and was barred from entering the town on health and safety grounds.  Ah were proper miffed, ah can tell thee.

Well, I can cope with the Hovis ad; but what I can't get out of my head now is the idea of Catigern being "kewl" with his undergraduates.

Of course he is 'kewl' - anyone teaching kindergarten knows how kiddies love stickers in the margins instead of wordy remarks. I expect his even have shine- moving eyes/parts.    

Well, you can't blame him: anything - I suppose - to get this lot actually to do a bit of work.

Oh gosh- that's awful. I had no idea that we had such training techs for valets - or should that be varlets? Being force to wear though yellow satin dicky thingies and blue bow ties, that's cruel. Perhaps the pay is good. Which tech- cum uni offers this degree of learning - not like being a proper history teaching bod's one of course. Huddled around the servants back stairs too, it's such a sad reflction of what people must do to earn a crust when the economy wobbles.

I said on another thread that one of my grannies - the Welsh one - was in service before bad health made her give it up. Then she married.  She was lucky in that the people she was in service with treated her well. On the other hand I know a lady whose Mum had to leave a tythe (or tied?) cottage after the father of the family who was a farm worker (with 5 children) died. The local Council helped them find somewhere (this is 60 years or so ago).  It's surprising how recently the vestiges of feudalism were still with us - still are I guess though much diluted.

Going back - sort of - to the two princes, I recall that one of the claimants to be a missing royal boy (Lambert Simnel) was punished by being sent to work in the palace kitchens. Nowadays the top chefs are well thought of but I guess it can still be grim for the scullions (if that word is currently in use).

LadyinRetirement wrote:

Going back - sort of - to the two princes, I recall that one of the claimants to be a missing royal boy (Lambert Simnel) was punished by being sent to work in the palace kitchens. Nowadays the top chefs are well thought of but I guess it can still be grim for the scullions (if that word is currently in use).

I hope Lambert was happy(ish) in his later life: he survived until well into the reign of Henry VIII. He was eventually released from his humiliating duties in the royal kitchen and became a falconer.