Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Who do you think did in the princes in the tower?

A place to debate issues or to rant about what's on your mind. In addition to discussions about historical fiction, books, the publishing industry, and history, discussions about current political, social, and religious issues and other topics are allowed, so those who are easily offended by certain topics may want to avoid such threads. Members are expected to keep the discussions friendly and polite and to avoid personal attacks on other members. The moderators reserve the right to shut down a thread without warning if they believe it necessary.
User avatar
EC2
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3661
Joined: August 2008
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Post by EC2 » Mon February 1st, 2010, 10:30 pm

[quote=""Miss Moppet""]There were regents who conscientiously performed a thankless task and handed over the reins of power at the end of their stint - Anne of Austria, Philippe d'Orleans - but not until the early modern period. Was medieval society too unstable to cope with a minority? I'm trying to think of a minority rule that turned out successfully but can't so far.[/quote]

Well there was William Marshal who did the job of regent for Henry III until he died untimely - and a pretty good job he made of it in the time given (getting the economy going, getting people at least to talk to each other, kicking out the French). Whatever happened in the later reign of Henry III was down to Henry III himself!
Les proz e les vassals
Souvent entre piez de chevals
Kar ja li coard n’I chasront

'The Brave and the valiant
Are always to be found between the hooves of horses
For never will cowards fall down there.'

Histoire de Guillaume le Mareschal

www.elizabethchadwick.com

User avatar
Miss Moppet
Bibliophile
Posts: 1726
Joined: April 2009
Location: North London
Contact:

Post by Miss Moppet » Mon February 1st, 2010, 10:36 pm

[quote=""Misfit""]We did a poll on this over at Goodreads. Buckingham wonder over Henry by a hair. PS - Edward II was a red herring :o :p

http://www.goodreads.com/poll/list/1260 ... type=group[/quote]

I've just been chortling at the comments.

You had three votes for 'other' - do you have any idea who was meant? I didn't see it in the comments.

User avatar
Miss Moppet
Bibliophile
Posts: 1726
Joined: April 2009
Location: North London
Contact:

Post by Miss Moppet » Mon February 1st, 2010, 11:06 pm

[quote=""EC2""]Well there was William Marshal who did the job of regent for Henry III until he died untimely - and a pretty good job he made of it in the time given (getting the economy going, getting people at least to talk to each other, kicking out the French). Whatever happened in the later reign of Henry III was down to Henry III himself![/quote]

EC, I'd completely forgotten about Henry III! Yes, that is a successful regency. Especially since William Marshal had a harder row to hoe than most, starting off in the middle of a civil war and minus most of the contents of the treasury.

So maybe RIII could have made a regency work, but he chose not to try. Having decided to take the crown for himself I don't think he had any choice but to get rid of his nephews. I don't think for a second that the bastardy thing would have stopped them making a bid for the crown once they got old enough. But it's just possible he stuck them in the Tower hoping the problem would go away by itself, and then Henry VII came along...

I don't feel that saying Richard did it is to exonerate Henry VII - what I mean is, if Richard didn't do it, I'm quite sure Henry VII would have.

User avatar
boswellbaxter
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3066
Joined: August 2008
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Post by boswellbaxter » Mon February 1st, 2010, 11:17 pm

[quote=""Miss Moppet""]Oh, he hasn't won yet. The poll has only been open a day and it'll be open all month. Richard and Henry are level at the moment actually.



Yes, that's pretty much what I think (although I haven't voted yet. Lady Moppet might disagree, she seems to be developing a personality of her own as far as polls go). The Tudors offed dozens of Plantagenets but don't get nearly as much criticism. There were regents who conscientiously performed a thankless task and handed over the reins of power at the end of their stint - Anne of Austria, Philippe d'Orleans - but not until the early modern period. Was medieval society too unstable to cope with a minority? I'm trying to think of a minority rule that turned out successfully but can't so far.[/quote]

Richard II's and Henry VI's minorities were characterized by a certain amount of infighting between their elders, but it wasn't until the kings were adults or nearly adults that things really deteriorated. I'd say it was their shortcomings as monarchs, not the fact that they'd taken the throne as youngsters, that doomed them.

As for Richard III's poor reputation, I think that rests mainly on the fact that the princes were children--assuming that he killed them, that went beyond the pale of what society was prepared to tolerate. Moreover, Edward V's situation was different from his predecessors who had been removed from their thrones--Edward II, Richard II, and Henry VI had all failed at kingship before they were deposed; Edward V was simply removed because of his supposed bastardy, an allegation of which many were skeptical at the time and many still are today.
Susan Higginbotham
Coming in October: The Woodvilles


http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/

stumpy
Reader
Posts: 57
Joined: September 2009

Post by stumpy » Tue February 2nd, 2010, 9:02 am

In modern parlance did Richard not have 'A Duty of Care" for the princes.He was responsible for their health and well being.I think regardless of whether they died or were murdered by anyone else he failed to look after them.

User avatar
Misfit
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 9581
Joined: August 2008
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by Misfit » Tue February 2nd, 2010, 12:40 pm

[quote=""Miss Moppet""]I've just been chortling at the comments.

You had three votes for 'other' - do you have any idea who was meant? I didn't see it in the comments.[/quote]

It's been a while since we did that but I don't believe anyone stated who the others were.
At home with a good book and the cat...
...is the only place I want to be

User avatar
boswellbaxter
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3066
Joined: August 2008
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Post by boswellbaxter » Tue February 2nd, 2010, 1:32 pm

[quote=""stumpy""]In modern parlance did Richard not have 'A Duty of Care" for the princes.He was responsible for their health and well being.I think regardless of whether they died or were murdered by anyone else he failed to look after them.[/quote]

Yes, I agree. At worst, he murdered them; at best, he either consciously obliterated all traces of them or created a situation where others could do so--hardly in keeping with his duty to his late brother Edward IV, who must have trusted him to look after the well-being of his sons.
Susan Higginbotham
Coming in October: The Woodvilles


http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/

User avatar
MLE (Emily Cotton)
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3562
Joined: August 2008
Interest in HF: started in childhood with the classics, which, IMHO are HF even if they were contemporary when written.
Favourite HF book: Prince of Foxes, by Samuel Shellabarger
Preferred HF: Currently prefer 1600 and earlier, but I'll read anything that keeps me turning the page.
Location: California Bay Area

Post by MLE (Emily Cotton) » Tue February 2nd, 2010, 2:32 pm

[quote=""boswellbaxter""]Yes, I agree. At worst, he murdered them; at best, he either consciously obliterated all traces of them or created a situation where others could do so--hardly in keeping with his duty to his late brother Edward IV, who must have trusted him to look after the well-being of his sons.[/quote]
Hey! We still don't know if the princes predeceased Richard. All of these comments assume that they did.

User avatar
LoveHistory
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3751
Joined: September 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Post by LoveHistory » Tue February 2nd, 2010, 2:39 pm

And let's not forget the hide-and-seek theory. I refer everyone to my interviews with Richard III and Edward V + his brother Richard for more info on this matter. ;) :D

User avatar
boswellbaxter
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3066
Joined: August 2008
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Post by boswellbaxter » Tue February 2nd, 2010, 2:46 pm

[quote=""MLE""]Hey! We still don't know if the princes predeceased Richard. All of these comments assume that they did.[/quote]

No, I'm not assuming that at all. After 1483, there are no traces of the princes' existence during Richard III's reign. At the very least, Richard had "disappeared" them--making it easy for his successor to dispose of them, if that is indeed what happened. Even if one takes the most generous view of Richard's actions and believes that he arranged to have his nephews smuggled abroad, the boys lost their identities and status in the process.
Susan Higginbotham
Coming in October: The Woodvilles


http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/

Post Reply

Return to “Debate/Rant Forum”