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

Post by LoveHistory » Sun January 31st, 2010, 2:43 am

[quote=""stumpy""]Have you read Bosworth 1485 by Michael Jones.He points out that in august after the princes had disappeared from public Richard endowed York Minster with plans for an enormous chantry chapel to have 100 priests praying continuously for him. That speaks of a burden of guilt.[/quote]

Or perhaps just a fear for his own life. Given the circumstances in which he grew up, and then current political climate, he had plenty of reasons to be concerned.

User avatar
EC2
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3661
Joined: August 2008
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Post by EC2 » Sun January 31st, 2010, 10:31 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by stumpy
Have you read Bosworth 1485 by Michael Jones.He points out that in august after the princes had disappeared from public Richard endowed York Minster with plans for an enormous chantry chapel to have 100 priests praying continuously for him. That speaks of a burden of guilt.

Love History
Or perhaps just a fear for his own life. Given the circumstances in which he grew up, and then current political climate, he had plenty of reasons to be concerned.

Me
Thing is that the medieval mindset was very into the guilt and redemption thing in the afterlife. If you endowed 100 priests to pray for you, it certainly wouldn't be for your body,(that would be seen as very wrong by the medieval mind, because it would be a concern for things mortal and perishable) but for your immortal soul. So that says you were very worried about your sins - or perhaps, because you could afford it, were taking out insurance that you'd go to heaven when you died.
Last edited by EC2 on Sun January 31st, 2010, 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Sun January 31st, 2010, 1:12 pm

[quote=""EC2""] or perhaps, because you could afford it, were taking out insurance that you'd go to heaven when you died.[/quote]

That was what I was thinking - maybe he did it just because he could and it would mean 5 years less in Purgatory, or whatever. It would be interesting to compare it to equivalent provisions made by other late C15 and early C16 kings. No doubt they all made endowments, but were they on the same scale?

User avatar
EC2
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3661
Joined: August 2008
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Post by EC2 » Sun January 31st, 2010, 1:20 pm

[quote=""Miss Moppet""]That was what I was thinking - maybe he did it just because he could and it would mean 5 years less in Purgatory, or whatever. It would be interesting to compare it to equivalent provisions made by other late C15 and early C16 kings. No doubt they all made endowments, but were they on the same scale?[/quote]

Absolutely. I thought that, but didn't write it. :) We need a comparison sample.

Edited to add, that plans for 100 priests and an enormous chantry just after the Princes disappeared is a bit of an unfortunate coincidence. I'd missed that bit.
Also, depending on what other big-wigs did re the chantry habit, what does it say about Richard's personality as a whole? That he was driven? That he was desperate to be a winner and go to heaven? That he was deeply religeous and very concerned for the state of his soul? That he was a forward thinker and planner? That it was a symbol of status and power while fulfilling a spiritual purpose, so therefore he knew how to utilise such strategies? That he was worried? Just throwing these out as remarks from a position on the fence and only minorly versed in the character of Richard III
Last edited by EC2 on Sun January 31st, 2010, 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
Anna Elliott
Compulsive Reader
Posts: 579
Joined: March 2009

Post by Anna Elliott » Sun January 31st, 2010, 2:02 pm

Like EC, I'm only minorly versed in Richard III--but Richard was a soldier, yes? He could quite easily have sins weighing on his conscience that had nothing to do with the two princes. And that he made those endowments in August--he'd only been crowned King in July, so the timing isn't really that remarkable; I mean, the endowment could have been just a product of his having the money/authority now that he'd been made King.

But I agree--a comparison sample would be helpful!

Author of the Twilight of Avalon trilogy
new book: Dark Moon of Avalon, coming Sept 14 from Simon &Schuster (Touchstone)

Image

http://www.annaelliottbooks.com

stumpy
Reader
Posts: 57
Joined: September 2009

Post by stumpy » Sun January 31st, 2010, 8:56 pm

I suppose its possible he felt guilty he hadn't protected the princes from someone else.It does maybe indicate he knew that the princes were dead.

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) » Sun January 31st, 2010, 9:59 pm

But they might not have been. Nobody knows when they died.

User avatar
zsigandr
Avid Reader
Posts: 444
Joined: April 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada

Post by zsigandr » Sun January 31st, 2010, 11:34 pm

True MLE - no one is certain exactly when they died. I have always liked the whole Margaret Beaufort theory. With the princes out of the way, everyone believing Richard guilty, in comes Henry and voila, a king is made.
Andrea

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

Post by Miss Moppet » Mon February 1st, 2010, 4:03 pm

I decided to make my February poll about this, and someone's just cast the first stone.

Sharz
Reader
Posts: 249
Joined: October 2009
Location: Chicago

Post by Sharz » Mon February 1st, 2010, 4:34 pm

I suppose its possible he felt guilty he hadn't protected the princes from someone else.It does maybe indicate he knew that the princes were dead.
Possibly. And assuming it was related to the princes, it indicates at least that they were missing (and feared dead, of course) at that point. That it's not merely that they remained in the Tower, in Richard's custody, but no one meantions them.

I also agree that it would be helpful to have a comparison with other monarchs' chantry provisions. And it might be a good thing to know the relative state of the crown's finances at the time of each, too. An unusually large provision (by anyone, not just Richard) at a time the crown's finances were in bad shape would have more significance than a similar one when they were normal.
Last edited by Sharz on Mon February 1st, 2010, 5:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Debate/Rant Forum”