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

LoveHistory · 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.

EC2 · 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.

Miss Moppet · 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?

EC2 · 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

Anna Elliott · 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!

stumpy · 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.

MLE (Emily Cotton) · Post by **MLE (Emily Cotton)** » Sun January 31st, 2010, 9:59 pm

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

zsigandr · 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.

Miss Moppet · 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 · 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.