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

Misfit · Post by **Misfit** » Sun January 18th, 2009, 1:53 am

I just stumbled onto this online interview with Author Sandra Worth and her thoughts on Richard.

Ash · Post by **Ash** » Sun January 18th, 2009, 4:05 am

[quote=""LoveHistory""]And is it not also possible that the whole controversy is actually the result of a game of hide-and-seek gone terribly, terribly awry? In which case...man those kids are good at hiding![/quote]

HAHAHA! There we go - two boys simply being young boys....

I do tend to side with SKP, but I can see why Henry would have done it.
I do think that while Dick 3 may have had something to do with it, that Henry Tudor did all he could to make him a horrid monster. Shakespeare drank that koolaid quite easily. Interesting way of covering up something that you might have actually done.

The idea of them being spirited away is tempting, as is the Dauphin's and Anastasias, two other young royals who were murdered. No one wants to think of children being killed; its so much nicer to think of them living to a wealthy old age.

Libby · Post by **Libby** » Sun January 18th, 2009, 8:53 pm

Although it's nice to think they may have been spirited away - and that's the story told by those who were supporting the 'pretenders to the throne' I doubt it happened. I think that after Richard went on his royal progress following his coronation they were killed, but I don't think it was specifically on his orders and I doubt he knew anything about it until he returned by which time it was too late and there probably weren't any bodies to display so it was generally thought the best thing was to say nothing.

I think that perhaps we misunderstand the amount of power that kings had in those times. The truth is that the church held the power because people were afraid of the pope, the bishops and the clergy because they held the power of what would befall the soul in the afterlife - cross them and you would burn in eternal hell, seek their pardon and you would go to heaven. I think too many historians marginalise the role of the church in historic events.

The interview with Sandra Worth was interesting too, but I think she has misunderstood the relationship between Warwick and Richard. Boys were sent to be educated in other households as a matter of course. It was a bit like being sent away to boarding school so I think Warwick was more like Richard's headmaster than a father.

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Mon March 2nd, 2009, 2:18 pm

I'll admit I have a bias in this, but I think a king named Richard couldn't possibly have done it.

EDIT: Yes, this thread made me change my avatar!

Tanzanite · Post by **Tanzanite** » Mon March 2nd, 2009, 6:58 pm

[quote=""Richard""]I'll admit I have a bias in this, but I think a king named Richard couldn't possibly have done it.

EDIT: Yes, this thread made me change my avatar![/quote]

I love the addition of the glasses!

nona · Post by **nona** » Sun March 15th, 2009, 6:24 pm

[quote=""Misfit""]That would be a bit spoilerish, although it is not Richard who done them in. I don't think it was Richard and I seem to recall from Penman's notes at the end of Sunne In Splendour that she didn't buy into the Richard did it theory either. Didn't make sense, he'd already made them bastards and he had more to lose by them disappearing then anyone else.

You want me to PM you with Plaidy's theory?[/quote]

thanks Misfit now I have to read it to know wat the theory is lol.

annis · Post by **annis** » Sun March 22nd, 2009, 3:22 am

Posted by Ash

I do think that while Dick 3 may have had something to do with it, that Henry Tudor did all he could to make him a horrid monster. Shakespeare drank that koolaid quite easily. Interesting way of covering up something that you might have actually done.

Don't forget that Shakespeare's monarch, Queen Elizabeth I, was descended from Henry Tudor- Will S knew which side his bread was buttered on!

Libby · Post by **Libby** » Sun March 22nd, 2009, 5:32 pm

And there is a theory that the plays were actually written by William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby. And even if he wasn't the author he may have been one of Shakespeare's patrons, so obviously he wasn't going to offend him.

here's an interesting link if anyone wants to know more:

http://www.rahul.net/raithel/Derby/

love_uk · Post by **love_uk** » Sat August 8th, 2009, 5:15 am

[QUOTE=Libby;23358]And there is a theory that the plays were actually written by William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby. And even if he wasn't the author he may have been one of Shakespeare's patrons, so obviously he wasn't going to offend him. QUOTE]

Just putting in a plug for my authorship candidate - Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford, who as a relative of QEI would hardly point the finger at her grandfather

ruth · Post by **ruth** » Mon September 7th, 2009, 11:56 am

Funnily enough I was talking about this today with my dad. I have always held the popular view that it was King Richard, but talking about it and reading this thread has made me want to read more.

I have now added To Hold The Crown to my wishlist!