 |
Reply
| | From:  MarkGB5 (Original Message) | Sent: 5/25/2007 7:03 PM |
There's a new book out which puts forward the theory that the two Princes were not murdered at all; Edward died of natural causes whilst Richard was spirited away to be brought up at the Abbey of St John in Colchester. He became a bricklayer and died aged 77 in 1550. Personally I think it's complete nonsense. |
|
 First
Previous
2-16 of 16
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
I think it sounds absolutely hilarious, I particularly like the idea of Richard becoming a bricklayer, perhaps he worked on the building of Hampton Court? Louise |
|
Reply
| |
Who is the author of the book? At this distance of years, it's impossible to have anything but a theory, but plausible ones are always open for discussion! I have to believe that if, I repeat, IF, either of the Princes left the Tower alive, the only purpose would have been to mount a rebellion against the current monarch, be it Richard III or Henry VII. A bricklayer?????  |
|
Reply
| | | From: MarkGB5 | Sent: 5/29/2007 7:49 PM |
The book is The Lost Prince by David Baldwin. I've not read it, only seen a short review in the papers. Apparently he stayed at the Abbey until it was dissolved in 1539, when he moved to Eastwell in Kent. His evidence is based on the fact that a Richard Plantagenet, a bricklayer who could read Latin, died there in 1550. And that Henry VII visited Colchester Abbey several times, as if he was looking for something. |
|
Reply
| |
I've always thought this guy was supposed to be RIIIs bastard, not one of the PITT |
|
Reply
| |
An interesting theory, my money is still on them being murdered by Buckingham though. |
|
Reply
| |
I deffinitely think that TPITT were murdered. This theory (at least in my mind) has been validated by the finding of the bones of two young males who were buried within the Tower grounds. If anything, this Richard Plantagenet was merely a Royal bastars (although ususally denoted with a Fitz. The idea that the real Richard would be a bricklayer is absolutely ridiculous! I whole heartedly agree with Terrilee that if her were THE Richard he would have mounted a rebellion. Entertaining theory-I would love to read the Author's credentials! Melanie |
|
Reply
| |
I've got to admit, I'm not really up on the whole two princes story. I did read a book a while ago, "The Mystery of the Princes" by Audrey Williamson. She asserts that there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that Richard did not murder the princes, and argues the case convincingly. The trouble was, the book was quite technical and I got quite confused about who was who etc. I think I should read another author's take on the story, maybe Alison Weir's (or if anyone has any recommendations?) to familiarise myself with the basics and then go back to Williamson's book. |
|
Reply
| |
| This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager. |
|
Reply
| |
Reposted for cthonic sans the email dreck that was 5 miles long  Tho from Toronto, I lived in UK for a number of years. I do remember a program on the box with the two main characters from "Softly Softly", who investigated famous murders. The did one program, about the Princes, maintaining that two bodies found behind a wall, were the remains of the princes.BBC did the program, sometime in the early 80's
| |
|
Reply
| |
There were remains found under a Tower staircase in the reign of Charles II that were thought to be the PITT & buried nicely as such, if I recall correctly. Alison Weir is pretty anti-Ricardian, it's been a while since I read her take on it but that much I recall, as is Desmond Seward. Seward is sooooo anti-Ricardian that I haven't been able to finish his RIII book. I also have one by Elizabeth Jenkins. Paul Murray Kendall loves RIII. What actually got me interested & solidly Ricardian was Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time, a novel in which a laid-up police inspector bored out of his skull decides to investigate what happened. Nobody seems to have a middle ground on this issue....you either love RIII or you hate him |
|
Reply
| |
| This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager. |
|
Reply
| |
Seward is anti Ricardian and anti English in general. Despite being English and a Ricardian myself, I could live with that if he was balanced in his approach to history. He isn't. I have one of his books at home somewhere, about the Hundred Years War, it's completely one sided and it seems that Seward, an Irish author I believe, is still stuck in the mentality of 1916...everything English is bad. So don't expect any fair approach to Ricardian studies from him, he doesn't "do" balanced IMO. Weir is just a pulp historian who uses facts that "prove" her anti Richard theories and discards or rubbishes those that disprove them. She never accepts that Richard does anything good, when he does, to her it is self interest hidden behind a mask of altruism. The poor guy can't win! Personally I believe the bricklayer was Richard's illegitimate son and therefore no threat to Henry VII who would not have allowed him to live otherwise. As for Richard and the Princes In The Tower, I believe that Sharon Penman got it about right when she came to the conclusion that Buckingham did it. We must, of course be aware that her book, The Sunne In Splendour is a historical novel, not a history book, but nevertheless, the historical research behind the book is IMO first class and she is right in that Buckingham had motive, means and opportunity and the pieces of the puzzle all fit if one assumes he was guilty. Proving it beyond all doubt needs more historical evidence however. |
|
Reply
| |
It's Ref #16 now....reposted for chthonic without all the lengthy mess.....PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not post from your email, chthonic! Every year in Toronto, someone, submits in the 'Rememberace' section of the paper,
"In memory of "Richard" the last true King of England
| |
|
|
First
Previous
2-16 of 16
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
0 recommendations 
Return to The Plantagenets
