By late July, the now crowned Richard III began a progress through England with his royal entourage. He'd left behind him people paid to guard the boys. It can be assumed that they were safe and sound, just hidden indoors, around this time.
The Duke of Buckingham had been one of Richard's closest friends and allies. He was included in the grand tour of the country. But in Gloucester, the two of them violently quarreled over some unknown cause.
By the time that Richard reached Warwick, on August 8th 1483, the Duke of Buckingham had left his company. He'd used a flimsy excuse to check on his lands in the Welsh Marches. Buckingham promptly raised one of the most serious rebellions of Richard's reign.
He did it initially in the name of Edward V, whom Buckingham sought to return to the throne. In short, whatever they argued about, Richard's closest friend believed the boy to still be alive in early August.
However, by the autumn, Buckingham's uprising swiftly changed gears. He suddenly and without ceremony ditched his bid to return Edward. Instead his allegiance went to Henry Tudor (a man with less claim to the throne than Buckingham himself). What had he heard (or done) to make him opt for the long shot?
Most damning of all, around the same time, Elizabeth Woodville also had a change of heart. She had begun negotiating with Margaret Beaufort, attempting to gain Tudor support for Edward V. The idea was to marry her daughter, Elizabeth of York, to Henry Tudor to secure the deal.
That plan ultimately did go ahead. The couple became the founders of the Tudor dynasty. But Elizabeth Woodville's motivation had also flipped in the autumn of 1483. Now it wasn't allegiance for her son that she wanted, but her daughter on the throne.
She had some knowledge which assured her that her sons were dead. But she never once stated that it was murder. Unlike York refugees on the continent, or the later Tudor propaganda machine, such rumors didn't even appear that current in 1483.
It wasn't until January 1484 that anyone openly accused Richard III of killing, or ordering the murder, of his nephews. The York King merely kept silent, even while his reputation took a battering. It would have been so much easier for him to have produced them to prove that they were alive.
That he didn't is perhaps the strongest indication of all that they were not.
The great Medieval mystery remains - if they were dead, then how did they die? Unfortunately, it's a question that seems unlikely ever to be answered.
Comments
JoHarringtonAug 2, 2013
I'll see what I can come up with about daily life in 1640.
RagtimelilAug 2, 2013
JoHarringtonAug 2, 2013
What do you want to know about daily life in 1640?
RagtimelilAug 2, 2013
JoHarringtonAug 2, 2013
RagtimelilAug 2, 2013
JoHarringtonJul 30, 2013
I've not considered the theory that she had them smuggled out before. There were certainly plenty of Woodvilles and their supporters in and around the Tower of London. Access was therefore possible, if difficult.
The Sanctuary Plot - uncovered around July 1483 - relied upon a Woodville inside the Tower creating a diversion with a fire, so that the boys could be ninja-ed out. The plan was foiled, if it had ever existed at all.
Richard used that as the excuse to confine them to one section of the White Tower. That would have made it incredibly difficult for any Woodville to sneak the boys out. The idea is therefore looking unlikely.
However, let's assume that it happened. What next? I think that Elizabeth would have certainly shouted about it from the rooftops, especially three years later, when Edward V was fifteen. At this point, he would have legally achieved his majority and he could therefore be viewed as an adult monarch.
The fact that she didn't really does make me think that Elizabeth hadn't had the princes removed. The aftermath just doesn't support the notion. Intriguing plot twist though!
MiraJul 30, 2013
JoHarringtonJul 26, 2013
Elizabeth Woodville was certainly trying to smuggle her daughters out at one point too.
I'm with you. I think all this wrangling for the crown was way too high a price to pay for the reality.
cmoneyspinnerJul 26, 2013
≧◠◡◠≦
JoHarringtonJul 26, 2013
No, Elizabeth Woodville never publicly accused anyone of murder. This is true even when it would have been safe and encouraged to do so, during the reign of Henry VII. Instead, she retired to an abbey and lived a quieter life.
I very much enjoy reading your Tudor histories too. Thank you for those! Glad that you enjoyed the 'prelude' to what you write so much about!
AlexandriaInghamJul 26, 2013
Thanks for sharing and you really do make the story come to life. I look forward to reading more.
JoHarringtonJul 25, 2013
cmoneyspinnerJul 25, 2013
JoHarringtonJul 25, 2013
WriterArtistJul 25, 2013
JoHarringtonJul 25, 2013
It was only when York dissenters gave up on Edward V (suggesting that they were sure he was dead), that Henry Tudor's claim got any support. He'd attempted to invade in 1483 with no joy. Insert the alleged murder of the Princes by Richard III, and suddenly there's a swell of support for Tudor by 1485 and Bosworth.
Henry Tudor had WAY more to gain from the murder of the Princes, but of course he didn't have access.
Richard had to have known about the circumstances of Edward IV's birth, marriage and claim to the throne, not to mention the implied illegitimacy of the children. Richard was right there at Edward's side, when most of this was going on. During their brother George's bid for power, it had all come out then too. It was all very public and well-known amongst the aristocracy. His kid brother certainly knew.
I don't think that Richard was necessarily after power, even at the point where he seized Edward V. I suspect that only became a certainty when the Woodville seemed set upon stripping him of his Lord Protector title.
He'd grown up during, and fighting in, the Wars of the Roses. Perhaps he was simply after peace, with a side bonus of being king. Intriguing, as you said!
WiseFoolJul 25, 2013
I wonder whether he knew all along that Edward V was 'illegitimate'. Presumably he did know that his older brother was already betrothed when he wed Elizabeth? So, didn't the illegitimacy bother him on a personal level? Was it only when it became 'public knowledge' that it began to be a problem? If he knew and had his sights set on power, wouldn't he have kicked up a stink about it earlier? Or was he just very smart in the way he went about things?
So many questions we'll very likely never know the answers to. Love the mystery of it!