 |
Reply
| |
I've just finished Bertram Fields' take on the Princes in the Tower, which is excellent btw if anyone is interested, & I keep coming back to Bishop Stillington's role in the drama. Now you would think after marrying Elizabeth Woodville that Edward IV would have found some way to neutralize Stillington's dangerous knowledge of the precontract with Eleanor Butler. Why didn't Stillington come forward as soon as the Woodville liason became public knowledge & before there were any disputed heirs to begin with? Why wait nearly 2 decades before having this attack of conscience? Surely Edward was aware of the inherent danger...was he thinking because he was so much younger that he would outlive the bishop? |
|
Reply
| |
Alan's idea is sound, but then why come forward after Edward's death with this information? Why not just leave well enough alone? The problem I have with assigning blame to Richard III in the deaths of the princes is that the other obvious male heir, Clarence's son, wasn't eliminated at the time the princes disappeared. Attainders can be reversed, Warwick was just as big a threat to Richard as Edward's boys. It was the Tudors who systematically got rid of possible Plantagenet heirs. |
|
Reply
| |
Absolutely correct, there's more blood dripping from the Tudors hand than any those of the House Of York, but it's always Richard who gets the odium. Could he have murdered the princes? Yes of course he could have, just the same as the England football manager might call me tomorrow and say "Alan, get your boots, you're playing." Not very likely though is it!!! Please excuse my levity, it's sort of whistling in the dark, it has been a very bad day for my country as I'm sure you are all aware. Best wishes to you all. Alan, York, North Yorkshire, UK. |
|
Reply
| |
True, there was no question of young Warwick's legitmacy & Clarence WAS the elder brother of Richard III. Discounting Edward's issue shoved Warwick center stage & yet Parliament offered the crown to Richard instead. Perhaps, unlike the Scots, the English did not enjoy a good regency LOL Eleanor Butler is recorded to have died in 1468. While this would bastardize Elizabeth of York & Cecily, wouldn't the fact that she had died prior to the births of Edward V & Richard of York make them legitimate anyway? |
|
Reply
| |
They wouldn't be considered legitimate because the precontrat would have made the marriage not legal, if the precontract really took place....Judy | | | |
|
Reply
| |
I agree with Alan, nice job man I dont think I could have put it in the
exact words that you used but your way still made sense to me.
>From: "silentsilverscreen" <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: "ALL MY TUDORS...history chat"
><[email protected]>
>To: "ALL MY TUDORS...history chat" <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: The Precontract
>Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:18:21 -0700
>
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar �?get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
|
|
Reply
| |
Precontracts were made and broken all the time. Many times they were only verbal with no witnesses but the two principle parties (such as that of Catherine Howard and Culpepper). Who knows who (all) Edward might have "contracted" with  . At that time, England was not in a postion to withstand a minority ruler with many years of a regency to endure. Richard did what was necessary and in such a way that it was not necessary to kill the boys. Henry on the other hand, NEEDED the boys dead to claim the throne! |
|
Reply
| |
And lets not forget that these people were human beings with feelings as real as yours or mine. Yes the times were harder and life was cheaper, but murdering your nephews??? Killing children? No, I just can't see it, precontract or no precontract. Also lets remember that the concept of Hell was very real and immediate to the English of the later Middle Ages, to lie about the precontract would mean lying to God and would without doubt condemn the culprit to "Eternal Damnation". Not a thing to be taken lightly then or now. |
|
Reply
| |
| Alan, don't forget that we are talking about people who still thought it was okay with God to murder ones that did not believe as they did, and they seemed to be able to justify their actions "in the name of God".( Hmmm, still sounds familar for some), but the reason I don't think Richard killed the Princes is that he had already declared them illegitimate as well as putting into place that their father was most likely illegitimate, and didn't need them out of the way permanently like Henry VII did. This was what I see to be the politics of the times. It was Henry VII who was the one that needed them out of the way more than Richard, and it was Henry's mother who I see as the one that would do anything to have her son on the throne. If the murders weren't done on the direct orders of Margaret Beaufort then it seems more likely someone else on the side of Lancaster did the horrible deeds. Judy | | | |
|
Reply
| |
<plays devil's advocate> Edward IV got rid of brother Clarence.... |
|
Reply
| |
But...Clarence NEEDED to "go". He was more than just a "problem". Edward really didn't want him executed and put it off several times before it simply became inevetable. |
|
Reply
| |
The short answer, Mark, is....politics and retardation. The long answer is... Warwick's father (Duke of Clarence) was executed for treason WITH an attainder. That means Warwick couldn't inheirit and was barred from the throne. (However, it was, of course, possible (but highly unlikely) for Parliment to overturn the attainder.) Although Warwick had been named heir by Richard III, after the death of his son, it was done more to please Richard's dying Queen (Anne...who was also Edward's Aunt) than for anything else. Upon the death of Queen Anne, Richard immediately changed his will to make John de la Pole (Earl of Lincoln) his heir. Most historians believe Warwick was what we would call, retarded. As such, he would have been unable to function as a King. (Not that there weren't those who would have liked to have a nice "puppet" on the throne that they were controling.) However, one of the first things Henry VII did was to lock Warwick up in the Tower. But after the Lambert Simnel fiasco in 1487 and then the Perkin Warbeck event in 1499 with an unsuccessful escape attempt, well that pretty much sealed his fate and Henry had him executed. Interesting to note that the de la Poles had a claim to the throne which Henry seems to have mostly ignored. John was involved with the Lambert Simnel plot and was killed in battle (the battle of Stoke) at that time. John's younger brother, Edmund de la Pole, tried to follow in his brother's footsteps but ended up in exile in France until the reign of Henry VIII when he was caught and executed. |
|
Reply
| |
Warwick was considered at best "slow" and at worst quite retarded. He was probably somewhere in between, which means he was hardly a threat in and of himself. The real threat was from those who would "use" him as a figurehead. |
|
Reply
| |
Wasn't the last De La Pole kiled fighting for the French at the battle of Pavia in 1525? |
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
First
Return to The Plantagenets
