The Plantagenets and the Doomed Princes?


https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB463GB464&q=princes+in+the+tower+images&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZh4jXqo7iAhWDTRUIHRSMBlwQ7Al6BAgKEA8&biw=1244&bih=844#imgrc=U7GPuBKxR46INM:

We may regard the 1485 a water-shed in several respects as it marks the end of the Plantagenet line and the start of a 'new' period of British history. In that year Richard III, recently rediscovered under a Leicester car park, after a century of civil war between Lancashire and Yorkist interests, fell in battle of Bosworth Field. 

The Welsh Lancastrian, Henry VII who had a rather dubious claim to the throne, promptly married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, thus reuniting the two lines again, and starting the remarkable Tutor dynasty that lasted to the demise of the childless Elizabeth I, still much revered, in 1603. 

1485 thereby marks what is generally regarded as the end of the Middle Ages and the start of the Early Modern period, though of course in historiographic terms, these clear divisions are illusionary. 

A 'pure' Plantagenet line ceased amidst chicanery (the alleged murder of the two young princes in the tower placed at the door of their uncle Richard III) and his death in battle. However the Tudor kings remained wary and defensive of the Plantagenet claim to the throne, notably by Lambert Simnel in 1487 and  Perkin Warbeck who in 1491, claimed to be Richard, Duke of York, having supposedly escaped to Flanders. 

As late as 1541 Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury (14 August 1473 – 27 May 1541), daughter of George Duke of Clarence, the brother of kings Edward IV and Richard III,  one of the few surviving members of the Plantagenet dynasty, was executed by Henry VIII.

Callum Tostevin-Hall Tim Veater Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck were pretenders, any assertion that they were in fact the Princes in the Tower is frankly, ridiculous and totally ignores the historical record. It was clearly fairly common knowledge that by late summer 1483 the boys were dead, as shown by the remaining Loyalist Yorkists throwing their lot behind Henry Tudor.

1

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 11m

Tim Veater The 'historical record' is in fact far from clear. If true it was a heinous crime that had huge propaganda importance for the Tudors cemented a century later by Shakespeare, accurate about Richard's curved spine but not necessarily about his character. Bodies have been found that match the description and circumstances but have not been positively identified by DNA matching.

Charlie Fenton Well we know Lambert Simnel was a pretender, as the person he was pretending to be was still alive and in the Tower at the time, whereas Perkin Warbeck is more difficult because the person he was pretending to be had disappeared. I personally believe he was a pretender, it is easy to pretend to be someone who disappeared as a child many years before, and many would support him just to overthrow Henry VII, even if they didn’t really believe Warbeck. Unless we find substantial new evidence, I will always believe Richard III disposed of the boys, only because he had both the motive and means, whereas the other suspects only had one or the other. But I know that is a controversial topic and won’t argue with those who think differently.

1

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 20m

Lyn Bourn Charlie Fenton I believe it was Margaret Tudor who orchestrated the demise of the princes in the Tower. She planned always to wipe out the Plantagenet line and put her boy on the throne.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 12m

Charlie Fenton Lyn Bourn you mean Margaret Beaufort? That was a theory proposed by Philippa Gregory, I don’t know any historians who support it as really there was nothing to suggest she believed her son would be on the throne from the beginning. She just wanted his titles back and his return from exile. Remember there were still several people (Richard, the princes, Richard’s son, George’s children etc.) in front of Henry. So it was very unlikely she ever considered him as a potential successor until much later on. Also, even if she had the motive, she didn’t have the means to kill the princes.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 7m · Edited

Lyn Bourn Charlie Fenton I take your point but her last husband did finance a lot of her “wicked” plots and plans. I will always believe she was behind their demise.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3m

Charlie Fenton Lyn Bourn oh I agree, but then why didn’t Richard act and announce their deaths then? Plus getting into the Tower isn’t an easy task. But we’ll agree to disagree, I just think it would have been extremely difficult and, even if it was her, there were still at least three other male claimants to the throne left on the Yorkist side.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 1m

Write a reply...

George Klawitter Shakespeare was just parroting Sir Thomas More who wrote his scurrilous life of Richard in order to make his boss Henry VIII feel good about his father Henry VII.