Historie Podcasts

Hvad skete der med prinserne i Tower of London?

Hvad skete der med prinserne i Tower of London?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Ifølge Sir Thomas More og William Shakespeare blev Edward IV's sønner myrdet af deres onkel, kong Richard III. Men jeg har hørt (i sang), at dette var en "Tudor propaganda" løgn.

Hvis kong Richard III ikke dræbte dem, hvem gjorde så det? Er der nogen troværdige teorier om, at prinserne overlever efter deres forsvinden?


Wikipedia -artiklen beskriver de vigtigste mistænkte, herunder Richard III selv og forskellige allierede hans.

Der var en række mennesker, der hævdede, efter at Richard var død, at være en af ​​prinserne i tårnet, den mest berømte var Perkin Warbeck, der kæmpede Henry VII om tronen. efter at Warbeck blev taget til fange, tilstod han under tortur, at han havde fundet på dette. En anden pretender, Lambert Simnel, hævdede oprindeligt at være en af ​​prinserne, men ændrede det for jarlen af ​​Warwick, der havde et andet krav på tronen.


Princes in the Tower: A Mystery of Missing Royalty

Hvad der skete med prinserne i tårnet er et af Englands største mysterier nogensinde.

En af de mest varige skandaler i Englands historie fandt sted i 1483, da to prinser i Tower of London forsvandt under deres onkel, kong Richard III. Den ældre prins skulle snart blive kronet som konge af England, men hans tiltrædelse skete aldrig. Ingen, der lever i dag, ved præcis, hvad der skete med disse to drenge. Omstændighederne omkring deres forsvinden var imidlertid meget mistænkelige.

The Tower of London. Foto: Historiske mysterier.

Prinserne

Prins Edward, eller kong Edward V, var den ældste søn af kong Edward IV og den næste i rækken til at være konge af England. Hans mor var dronning Elizabeth Woodville. Edward blev født i Westminster Abbey i 1470 og sendt til Ludlow Castle for at blive uddannet.

Prins Edward og Richard i tårnet, af Sir John Everett Millais, 1878.

Prins Richard, den første hertug af York, var Edvards yngre bror og den anden søn af Edward IV og hans dronning. Richard var gift med den fem-årige Anne Mawbry, da han bare var fire.

Prinserne havde en halvbror på deres mors side, som også spiller ind i historien om deres forsvinden. Hans navn var Lord Richard Gray.

Kong Edward IVs død

Kong Edward IV døde af naturlige årsager den 9. april 1483. Hans søn Edward var dengang tolv og Richard var ti. Hans fars død gjorde den unge Edward til konge. Fordi de var så unge, blev deres onkel Richard, hertug af Gloucester, udnævnt til Lord Protector of King Edward V og Richard, Duke of York, efter kong Edward IVs død.

Kong Edward V. Billede: Public Domain.

Kroningsceremonien for Edward V skulle afholdes den 22. juni 1483. På tidspunktet for sin fars død var han på Ludlow Slot. Han forlod derfra til Tower of London, hvor hans kroning skulle begynde. Han blev ledsaget af blandt andet sin halvbror og Lord William Hastings.

Aflytning af den unge konges følge

Hertugen af ​​Gloucester og en gruppe af hans 'medsammensvorne' opfangede kong Edward V's følge i Stony Stratford. Dette resulterede i arrestation og fængsling af Lord Richard Gray. Lord William Hastings blev senere halshugget, da hertugen beskyldte ham for at sammensværge at myrde ham.

Kong Edward V blev taget fra Stony Stratford til St. Paul uskadt og under forudsætning af, at han stadig skulle krones til konge. Hans lillebror, Richard, blev taget til Westminster Abbey med deres mor. Edward blev senere bragt til Tower of London, hvor han skulle være. Unge Richard mødte ham der den 16. juni 1483.

Prinsernes lovlighed kommer i tvivl

Det blev påstået, at kong Edward IV var forlovet med Lady Eleanor Talbot, før han blev gift med Elizabeth Woodville. Selvom parret tilsyneladende aldrig giftede sig, ville dette engagement have gjort kongens ægteskab ulovligt. Ægteskaber, der var ulovlige eller bigamiske handlinger, blev betragtet som ugyldige. Hvis ægteskabet var ulovligt, havde ægteskabets børn været uægte.

Disse anklager virkede til hertugen af ​​Gloucesters fordel, da parlamentet den 25. juni 1483 konkluderede, at forlovelsen havde fundet sted. Derfor var prinserne ikke legitime tronarvinger. I lyset af dette blev Richard, hertug af Gloucester gjort til kong Richard III. Han fortsatte med at have en elsker af sin afdøde bror, Jane Shore, fængslet i Tower of London. Tilsyneladende var han ikke tilfreds med sin brors kærlighedsliv.

Kong Richard III. Billede: Public Domain.

På et tidspunkt efter at begge prinser ankom til Tower of London, forsvandt de begge. De blev bestemt set der så sent som i juli. Ingen er dog helt sikker på, hvornår de sidst blev set. Det er udbredt opfattelse, at ingen af ​​dem nogensinde forlod tårnet. Der er ingen registrering af, at de gjorde det. Faktisk er der slet ingen registrering af dem efter 1483.

Hvad skete der med prinserne?

Er det muligt, at navnene på prinserne lige gled ud af den registrerede historie? Dette er ikke sandsynligt, da offentligheden bemærkede deres fravær på tidspunktet for deres forsvinden. Kunne de have været gemt væk for at undgå yderligere sammensværgelse mod dem? Dette er muligt på grund af det faktum, at hvis de var i stand til at bevise, at de var legitime, ville Edward have været i stand til at tage kronen igen. Der er imidlertid heller ingen registrering af dette.

En skildring af mordet på prinserne i Tower of London (1865). Billede: Public Domain.

Kunne de være blevet myrdet efter ordre fra den nye konge? Dette er bestemt muligt. Der er spor, der synes at pege på netop denne ting. Imidlertid blev kong Richard III dræbt i kamp tre år efter at han havde indtaget tronen, hvilket gjorde plads til Tudor -dynastiet. Det er muligt, at ikke Richard, men en af ​​Tudors dræbte prinserne i Tower of London.

Dræbte kong Richard III prinserne i tårnet?

Som anført ovenfor er det ikke sikkert, at fyrsterne blev myrdet. Ikke desto mindre var der rygter baseret på øjenvidners påstande om, at kong Richard III lod dem myrde. August 2015 -artiklen om prinserne på det britiske nyhedswebsted Independent indeholder mange teorier og mulige mordere på brødrene. En af de mulige mordere på listen er Sir James Tyrell, kong Richards tjener, som nogle siger, at han tilstod under tortur, at han dræbte fyrsterne i tårnet, som han blev beordret.

Skeletterne til to børn blev fundet nær dette sted i 1674. Foto: Historic Mysteries.

Nogen havde angiveligt kvalt dem med en pude og derefter begravet dem under et sæt trapper. Dette stemmer overens med beviser fundet i Tower of London i 1674. Det år blev skeletterne af to børn fundet i en kiste under kapeltrappen i tårnet. Resterne blev ført til Westminster Abbey og begravet der, tæt på nogle af prinsernes søskende.

I 1933 blev knoglerne opgravet og undersøgt. De blev også fotograferet. Lægerne, der foretog undersøgelsen, konkluderede ud fra flere spor, at knoglerne bestemt kunne tilhøre fyrsterne. Desværre har myndighederne i Westminster Abbey hidtil forbudt yderligere undersøgelse af knoglerne. Ikke desto mindre har forskere undersøgt de fotografier, der blev taget og er kommet til deres egne, varierende konklusioner.


Fyrsterne i tårnet: hvorfor blev deres skæbne aldrig forklaret?

En øredøvende stilhed omringede forsvinden af ​​Edward V og hans bror, Richard, hertug af York. Men hvorfor? Som Leanda de Lisle skriver, havde både Richard III og Henry Tudor gode grunde til ikke at tale offentligt om fyrsterne.

Denne konkurrence er nu lukket

Udgivet: 1. oktober 2013 kl. 17:51

En usikker konge

En overlevende prins?

Spillerne i prinsernes fald

Henry VI (1421–71)

Efter sin far, Henry V, der døde, da han var et par måneder gammel, blev Henry VI's regeringstid udfordret af politiske og økonomiske kriser. Det blev afbrudt af hans psykiske og fysiske sammenbrud i 1453, hvor Richard, 3. hertug af York, blev udnævnt til beskytter af riget. Begge mænd var direkte efterkommere af Edward III og i 1455 resulterede Richards eget krav på tronen i de første sammenstød i Rosenkrigene - kæmpet mellem tilhængere af de dynastiske huse i Lancaster og York om arvefølgen.

Richard døde i slaget ved Wakefield i 1460, men hans families krav på tronen overlevede ham, og hans ældste søn blev konge året efter - som Edward IV. Richards yngre søn ville også være konge, som Richard III. Henry VI blev kortvarigt restaureret på tronen i 1470, men Lancastrians blev endelig besejret ved Tewkesbury i 1471, og Henry blev sandsynligvis dræbt i Tower of London et par dage senere.

Edward IV (1442–83)

Edward lykkedes, hvor hans far Richard, den tredje hertug af York mislykkedes - med at vælte Henry VI under Rosekrigene. Han blev erklæret konge i marts 1461 og sikrede sin trone med en sejr i slaget ved Towton. Edvards yngre bror Richard blev hertug af Gloucester. Senere, i Edwards anden regeringstid, spillede Richard en vigtig rolle i regeringen. Edward giftede sig med Elizabeth Woodville i 1463, og de fik 10 børn: syv døtre og tre sønner. Den ældste, Elizabeth, blev født i 1466. To af de tre sønner var i live på tidspunktet for Edwards død - Edward, født i 1470, og Richard, født 1473. Edward krediteres for at være økonomisk klog og genoprette lov og orden. Han døde uventet af naturlige årsager den 9. april 1483.

Elizabeth, Queen Consort (c1437–92)

Edward IV's ægteskab med Elizabeth Woodville, enke med børn, fandt sted i hemmelighed i 1464 og mødtes med politisk misbilligelse. Kongens bror, Richard, hertug af Gloucester, var blandt dem, der angiveligt var fjendtlige over for det. Den præference, Woodville -familien fik, forårsagede harme i retten, og der var friktion mellem Elizabeths familie og kongens magtfulde rådgiver, Hastings. Ved Edward IVs død i 1483 var Gloucesters mistillid til Woodvilles tilsyneladende en faktor i hans beslutning om at tage kontrollen over arvingen, hans nevø. Elizabeth søgte fristed i Westminster, hvorfra hendes yngre søn, Richard, hertug af York, senere blev fjernet. Legitimiteten af ​​hendes ægteskab og hendes børn var en af ​​Gloucesters begrundelser for at tiltræde tronen den 26. juni.

Da parlamentet bekræftede sin titel som Richard III, indsendte Elizabeth i bytte for beskyttelse af sig selv og hendes døtre - et arrangement han respekterede. Efter Richard IIIs død i slaget ved Bosworth blev hendes børn erklæret legitime. Hendes ældste, Elizabeth af York, var gift med Henry VII, hvilket styrker hans krav på tronen.

Edward V (1470–83) & amp; Richard, hertug af York (1473–83)

Edward IV's arving var hans ældste søn, også kaldet Edward. Da kongen uventet døde, kaldte hans testamente, som ikke har overlevet, angiveligt sin tidligere loyale bror, Richard, hertug af Gloucester, som herrebeskytter. Da han hørte om sin fars død, begyndte den unge Edward og hans følge en rejse fra Ludlow til hovedstaden. Gloucester opsnappede festen i Buckinghamshire. Gloucester, der hævdede, at Woodvilles planlagde at tage magten med magt, greb prinsen.

Den 4. maj 1983 kom Edward ind i London under ansvaret for Gloucester. Edwards kroning var planlagt til den 22. juni. Den 16. juni blev Elizabeth overtalt til at overgive Edvards yngre bror, Richard, tilsyneladende til at deltage i ceremonien. Med begge prinser i hænderne offentliggjorde Gloucester sit krav på tronen. Han blev kronet som Richard III den 6. juli, og en sammensværgelse for at redde prinserne mislykkedes den måned. I september så oprørerne Henry Tudor som kandidat til tronen, hvilket tyder på, at prinserne allerede antages at være døde.

Richard III (1452–85)

Richard var den yngste overlevende søn af Richard, 3. hertug af York, og var stadig et barn, da hans 18-årige bror blev Edward IV efter Yorkistiske sejre. I modsætning til hans bror George (henrettet for forræderi i tårnet i 1478 - angiveligt druknet i en skald med malmsey -vin), var Richard loyal over for Edward i løbet af sin levetid. Ved sin brors død flyttede han hurtigt til kontrol over sin nevø Edward fra drengens moderfamilie, Woodvilles. På et tidspunkt i juni 1483 flyttede hans rolle fra beskytterens til tilråber. Han anholdt flere af den tidligere konges loyale rådgivere, udsatte kroningen og hævdede, at Edward IV's børn var uægte, fordi deres far var blevet forudindgået til at gifte sig med en anden kvinde på tidspunktet for hans hemmelige ægteskab med Elizabeth. Richard blev kronet, men han stod over for oprør det år og yderligere uro det næste. Støtten til kongen faldt, efterhånden som den voksede til Henry Tudor, den rivaliserende fordringer, der vendte tilbage fra eksil og sejrede i slaget ved Bosworth i 1485.

Henry VII (1457–1509)

Henry Tudor var søn af Margaret Beaufort (oldebarnsdatter til Edward III) og Edmund Tudor, halvbror til Henry VI. I 1471, efter at Edward IV havde genvundet tronen, flygtede Henry til Bretagne, hvor han undgik kongens forsøg på at få ham tilbage. Som en potentiel kandidat til tronen gennem sin mors side blev Henry fokus for modstand mod Richard III. Efter det mislykkede oprør mod kongen i 1483 sluttede oprørere, herunder slægtninge til Woodvilles og loyale tidligere medlemmer af Edward IVs husstand, ham i Bretagne. I 1485 invaderede Henry Tudor, landede først i Wales og sejrede over Richard III ved Bosworth den 22. august.

Henry blev kronet på slagmarken med Richards krone. Året efter legitimerede han sin ret til at styre yderligere ved at gifte sig med Elizabeth af York. Da kongen døde i 1509, kom hans og Elizabeths søn til tronen som Henry VIII.


Forskning afslører DNA fra 'Prinserne i Tårnet'

Opdagelsen af ​​Dr. John Ashdown-Hill MBE gør det for første gang muligt at bevise, om knogler i Westminster Abbey er Edward V og hans bror Richard af Shrewsbury, hertug af York, Edward IV's eneste sønner.

Resultaterne af Dr. Ashdown-Hill, der døde i maj, afsløres i Prinsernes mytologi i tårnet, udgivet af Amberley Publishing i dag. Han var æreslektor i Institut for Historie ved Essex og kandidat fra Institut.

Drengene, nevøer til Richard III, blev indkvarteret i de kongelige lejligheder i Tower of London efter deres fars død i 1483. De forsvandt kort tid efter, og spekulationer om deres skæbne er fortsat mange.

Dr Ashdown-Hill har arbejdet med akademikeren Glen Moran fra Newman University, Birmingham og brugt lignende teknikker til dem, han brugte til at opdage mtDNA fra Richard III, og har været i stand til at bevise, at operasangerinden Elizabeth Roberts er en efterkommer af alle kvinder drengene og afslørede deres mtDNA -gruppe.

Elizabeth blev sporet af Glen Moran. Hun er en direkte efterkommer af drengenes tante Margaret Woodville og er deres første fætter 16 gange fjernet.

I 2012 var det Dr. Ashdown-Hills mtDNA-opdagelse, der viste, at rester fundet i Leicester var de af Richard III.

Taler tidligere på året forklarede Dr. Ashdown-Hill: “Det antages generelt, at drengenes knogler blev fundet ved Tower of London i 1674 og blev ført til Westminster Abbey, hvor de bliver. Disse knogler bør undersøges igen nu for at afgøre, om det er Edward og Richards. ”

Elizabeth Roberts sagde: “Det er ekstraordinært at være en del af denne proces med historisk forskning. Springet fra at vokse op i Bethnal Green til at finde dig generationer væk fra en af ​​de mest fascinerende historier i vores historie er ikke noget, jeg nogensinde kunne have forestillet mig. ”

Glen Moran sagde: “Opdagelsen af ​​prinsernes mtDNA-sekvens var kun mulig på grund af flere års hårdt arbejde fra mig selv og John Ashdown-Hills side samt Ronny Decortre og teamet på KU Leuven. Jeg er begejstret for, at den endelig bliver offentliggjort, og håber, at den nu kan bruges til at identificere rester, der mistænkes for at være prinsernes. Det kunne levere vitalt bevis for at løse et af de største mysterier i engelsk historie! ”

Som en del af sit Missing Princes Project -forskningsinitiativ opfordrer Philippa Langley MBE, der ledede eftersøgningen af ​​Richard III på parkeringspladsen i Leicester, til at undersøge »knoglerne i urnen«.

Hun sagde: ”Takket være denne bemærkelsesværdige nye opdagelse har vi nu begge sæt DNA til at identificere resterne i urnen og videnskaben til at fastslå deres køn og antikviteter.

“Moderne analyse af den mangelfulde undersøgelse fra 1933 tyder på, at det er meget usandsynligt, at resterne er af sønner af kong Edward IV, men hvis vi skal være sandhedens søgende, er det tid til at stille spørgsmålstegn ved historierne omkring dem, så vi kan flytte vores viden frem.

“Myte-sprængning er, hvad Dr. John Ashdown-Hill specialiserede sig i, og takket være ham og Glen har vi nu det sidste stykke i puslespillet for at komme til en endelig konklusion om, hvorvidt 'knoglerne i urnen' er de såkaldte prinser i Tårnet. Det er tid til sandheden. ”

Dr Ashdown-Hills bog rejser også tvivl om den populære opfattelse, at drengene blev holdt fange i tårnet og myrdet af deres onkel Richard III.

Han forklarede: “Meget af deres historie er ren mytologi. Tårnet var middelalderens ækvivalent til Buckingham Palace, og mordhistorien blev først udtænkt 20 år efter, at drengene forsvandt. Det er faktisk en tidlig illustration af noget, som alle regeringer er gode til, den politiske omskrivning af fortiden. ”


Genfinding af Henry VI

I 1470 befriede Henry VIs Lancastrian-tilhængere ham fra tårnet og lod ham krone igen. Arrangementet var kendt som 'Readeption'.

Edward IV flygtede til Flandern med sin nære bror Richard, hertug af Gloucester (fremtidig Richard III). Hans kone, Elizabeth Woodville og deres børn søgte tilflugt i Peterskirken i Westminster Abbey.

Den 1. oktober 1470 ankom den gravide Elizabeth til Abbey, ledsaget af sin mor og tre døtre, Elizabeth, Mary og Cecily. En måned senere fødte hun en søn, Edward, som blev tronarving. Familien levede i relativ komfort under abbedens pleje.

Vidste du?

St. Peters helligdom i Westminster Abbey var en chartret helligdom, der var i stand til at give asyl til forfulgte kristne, hvad enten det er kriminelle eller politiske skikkelser.

Mistænksom død af Henry VI

Lancastrian Henry VIs regeringstid blev afkortet, da Edward vendte tilbage fra eksil i begyndelsen af ​​1471. Han besejrede Henrys tilhængere i slaget ved Tewkesbury, hvor Henrys teenagesøn og arving blev dræbt i kampene. Henry blev igen fængslet i tårnet.

Så i maj kom der nyheder om Henrys død. Man troede først, at han døde af melankoli, men efterhånden opstod der mistanke om, at han blev myrdet af agenter fra hertugen af ​​Gloucester, mens han var i bøn i Wakefield -tårnet, et krav, der stadig ikke var bevist den dag i dag.

Imidlertid sluttede hans død effektivt Lancastrian -linjen, som bestemt var praktisk for Edward IV. Nu kunne han styrke sit styre, idet han både havde en arving i sin ældste søn Edward og en 'reserve' i sin næste søn Richard.

Kongens private kapel i Wakefield Tower Throne Room i Tower of London. © Historiske kongelige paladser

Med sin fars tilbagevenden og restaurering i 1471 blev prins Edward investeret som prins af Wales. Han blev sendt til sin fars barndomshjem Ludlow Castle i den walisiske grænse for at blive uddannet under omsorg af sin onkel, Anthony, Lord Rivers. Anthony var dronningens bror og kongens højre hånd. Han blev også betragtet som en intelligent mand og en kendt forsker.

Edward IV (1442-83) med Elizabeth Woodville (c. 1437-92). Ser på to fremtidige konger, Richard III (i blåt) og en ung Edward V (i rødt og hermelin) Earl Rivers, der præsenterer sin oversættelse af filosofernes dikter og ordsprog for kongen og hans familie Anthony Woodville (1440-83) anden 2. jarlfloder. © Lambeth Palace Library MS 265 f. Viv


Hvem myrdede fyrsterne i tårnet?

Det ærlige svar på det er, at det snarere afhænger af din fortolkning af kilderne og, som jeg har sagt før, dine tilhørsforhold. Richard III er en monark, der vækker stærke følelser! Jeg stødte først på begivenheden og et par af de forskellige kilder på elleve, da min historielærer brugte Jackdaw -aktivitetspakken om prinserne for at opmuntre sin klasse til at se, at historie ikke er noget støbt i beton, og at den samme kilde kan værdsættes eller diskrediteret efter synspunkt og kendte kendsgerninger. Historien om prinserne er historien om et uløst mord, og det ligner lidt at afdække Jack the Ripper ved, at alle har deres kæledyrsteori og nogle beviser til at bakke op om deres ideer. Forfatteren Patricia Cornwall har brugt en enorm sum penge på at samle overset bevis, der peger på, at Jack er kunstneren Walter Sickert. Uopklarede historiske mord har en fascination, fordi alle kan se på de tilgængelige beviser og drage deres egne konklusioner. Vanskeligheder opstår, når historikere – og bestemte amatørsludder – forsøger at finde tidligere ukendte beviser, der er forsvundet ned ad tidens sprækker, der vil pege i den rigtige retning. Det er ofte arbejdet med omhyggeligt at flytte stykkerne rundt, indtil et mere klart billede tegner sig. Indtil da skal det være den bedste og mest accepterede pasform, men det betyder ikke, at beviserne i en moderne domstol ville frembringe en skyldig dom.

Så her er mulighederne for, hvad der skete med prinserne- i ingen bestemt rækkefølge, bortset fra den rækkefølge, de kom ud af min hjerne.

    Kong Richard III fik dem dræbt. Venligst ikke indånde og række efter dit tastatur, hvis du tror, ​​at han er uskyldig, og han er en temmelig bemærkelsesværdig mistænkt. Richard, som hertug af Gloucester, tjente sin bror Edward IV med loyalitet og ære. Edward forlod ham for at fortsætte med at styre det nordlige England, og han gjorde det storslået godt. De gode folk i York følte tilstrækkeligt stærkt over det til at notere hans aflejring og død i Bosworth – en handling, der garanteret ville hacke det nye regime. Problemet for Richard, hvis du er på den måde tilbøjelig, var, at Edward IV tillod Woodville -fraktionen at få dominans ved retten med hensyn til lukrative stillinger, ægteskaber og i sidste ende ved at give plejen af ​​sin søn i Woodville -hænder. Richard fandt kun ud af sin brors død, fordi Lord Hastings sendte ham en seddel, der advarede om Woodville intentioner om at få unge Edward kronet så hurtigt som muligt, hvilket ville have set Richard som en beskytter uden nogen magt, fordi han ikke havde kontrol over konge. Da Richard opsnappede den unge konge i Northampton, kunne det hævdes, at Richard handlede i interessen for ret mange mennesker, der ikke var frygteligt ivrige efter de førnævnte Woodvilles, der af mange blev betragtet som for store til deres støvler – og nu er det ikke tid til at gå ned ad sidegyden af ​​Jacquetta Gray ’s slægt. Så langt så godt. Dette indlæg er heller ikke tid til at gennemgå hele begivenhedens kronologi. De vigtigste ting, der holder mig i tankerne, er Eleanor Butler -hændelsen, dvs. meddelelsen om, at Edward IV allerede var blevet indgået i ægteskab, hvilket gjorde alle hans børn uægte og Richard som arving til tronen. Argumentet fremsættes normalt, at hvis børnene var uægte og siden Titulus Regulus lov fra parlamentet sagde, at de så var der ingen måde de kunne arve-så hvorfor dræbe dem? Der er også episoden med Lord Hastings, der fandt sig selv at blive håndteret ud af et menighedsrådsmøde til en praktisk tømmerklump, hvor han blev henrettet uden retssag – tydeligvis en stor bid fra den historiske stiksav, der mangler der, selvom masser af historikere har præsenteret teorier om emnet om, hvorfor Richard skulle falde ud med sin brors ven så dramatisk og afgørende. Jane Shore fandt sig i at gøre offentlig bod, mistede sin ejendom og endte i fængsel i kølvandet på episoden – igen, hvorfor skulle Richard gøre det? Hans bror havde masser af andre elskerinder. Problemet med skulduggery er, at folk ikke har en tendens til at lave omhyggelige noter før, under eller efter begivenheden, og i hvert fald ikke hvis de ville beholde hovedet. Der er naturligvis meget mere, som jeg kunne skrive om både for og imod Richard ’s engagement. Jeg har fire temmelig store mængder på mit skrivebord, mens jeg skriver. Richard var den vigtigste mistænkte dengang ifølge rygter- Dominic Mancini forlod en beretning om begivenheder, som han forstod dem. Han forlod England i ugen med Richard ’s kroning, giver ikke en redegørelse for, hvordan Richard lignede, og hans manuskript forsvandt indtil 1934. Han siger:” Men efter at Hastings blev fjernet, blev alle de tjenere, der havde ventet på kongen, afskåret adgang til ham. Han og hans bror blev trukket tilbage til de indre lejligheder i selve tårnet, og dag for dag begyndte man sjældnere at se bag stængerne og vinduerne, indtil de i længden ophørte med at se helt ud. Lægen John Argentine, den sidste af sine ledsagere, hvis tjenester kongen nød, rapporterede, at de unge slægtninge, ligesom et offer forberedt på ofre, søgte tilgivelse for sine synder ved daglig tilståelse og bod, fordi han mente, at døden stod foran ham. & #8221

Jeg har set mange mænd bryde ud i gråd og klagesang, da der blev nævnt ham efter hans fjernelse fra mænds syn, og der er allerede en mistanke om, at han var blevet fjernet. W hæter, Imidlertid er han blevet ophævet, og på hvilken måde død, indtil videre har jeg slet ikke opdaget det endnu. ”

Sagen er, at der er nogle beviser, men det er selvmodsigende og omstændigt. Det kan være muligt at udelukke prinsernes overlevelse, hvis knoglerne i urnen i Westminster Abbey viste sig at tilhøre Edward V og Richard af York. Selvom de ikke ville betyde, ville det ikke nødvendigvis betyde, at de havde overlevet deres uheld. Og hvis knoglerne var deres, ville det ikke bevise, hvem der gjorde drabet, da skeletterne ikke dukkede op fra deres hvilested og knyttede en seddel, der identificerede morderen, selvom det ville gøre kontoen, der tilbydes af More, mere plausibel – fejl og alt.

Og det er alt, hvad jeg har til hensigt at skrive om prinserne i tårnet foreløbig. Det meste af tiden, med et par bemærkelsesværdige undtagelser, hvis det ikke var for trafikstatistikken på History Jar, ville jeg ikke vide, om nogen læste mine vandringer eller ej. Jeg har ikke fået styr på at blive elsket, deltage i fællesskaber eller udvikle samtaler gennem kommentarer – Richard III, Woodvilles og prinserne på den anden side får bestemt et svar! Så tak for dine kommentarer – positive, negative, kyndige og tankevækkende som de er.

Primære kilder eller nær primære kilder omfatter:

André, Bernard: Vita Henrici VII (i Mindesmærker for kong Henry VII, red. J. Gairdner, Rolls Series, 1858)

Tyr af pave Innocent VIII om ægteskab med Henry VII med Elizabeth af York (red. J. Payne-Collier, Camden Diverse I, 1847)

Fabyan, Robert: Concordance of Histories: The New Chronicles of England and France (1516) (red. H. Ellis, 1811)

Grafton, Richard: Graftons Chronicle eller Englands historie (2 bind, red. H. Ellis, 1809)

Hall, Edward: Unionen af ​​de to adelige og illustre familier i Lancaster og York (London, 1550 udg. H. Ellis, faxudgave 1809 af den originale udgivne 1970)

Holinshed, Raphael: Krønikerne i England, Skotland og Irland (6 bind, red. H. Ellis, 1807–8)

Leland, John: Collectanea (6 bind, red. T. Hearne, Oxford, 1770–74)

En London Chronicle i Henry VII og Henry VIII's tid (red. C. Hopper, Camden Society, Camden Diverse IV, 1839)

Mere, Sir Thomas: Historien om kong Richard den tredje (i De komplette værker af Sir Thomas More, bind. II, red. R.S. Sylvester og andre, Yale, 1963, London, 1979)

Rous, John: Joannis Rossi Antiquarii Warwicensis. Historia Regum Angliae (red. T. Hearne, Oxford, 1716 og 1745)

Sangen om fruen Bessy

Stow, John: En undersøgelse af London

Vergil, Polydore: The Anglica Historia of Polydore Vergil, AD 1485–1573 (trans. og red. D. Hay, Camden Series, 1950)


Overlevede en af ​​prinserne i tårnet at være en Essex -murer?

Legenden fortæller, at han blev myrdet sammen med sin kongelige bror i Tower of London.

Men ifølge en fascinerende ny teori undslap den unge prins Richard væggene i sit fængsel.

Og han endte med at bygge vægge selv. som murer i Essex.

Mysteriet om, hvad der skete med prinserne i tårnet, er en af ​​de mest varige i engelsk historie.

I 1483 efter deres fars død, Edward IV, blev drengene i alderen 12 og ni år låst inde i tårnet og aldrig set mere.

Deres onkel, Richard III, får bred skyld for at have dræbt drengene efter at have overbevist parlamentet om at erklære dem ulovlige og overtage tronen.

I 1674, næsten 200 år senere, blev to skeletter opdaget under nogle trapper i tårnet. Ingen har kunnet fastslå, om det virkelig var prinsernes rester.

University of Leicester historiker David Baldwin har kastet nyt lys over mysteriet.

I sin bog, The Lost Prince: The Survival of Richard of York, fastholder hr. Baldwin, at forræderiet af Richard III ikke understøttes af beviserne.

Han mener, at Edward V, den ældste prins, døde af naturlige årsager, mens Richard, den yngre prins, til sidst blev genforenet med sin mor, dronning Elizabeth Woodville, og fik lov til at bo hos hende under opsyn af to betroede hoffolk.

Prinsen blev senere flyttet til Lutterworth i Leicestershire og ført til Bosworth Field dagen før slaget.

Kong Richard kan have overvejet at navngive drengen til sin arving, siger historikeren. Men hans nederlag og død ændrede alt.

Baldwin foreslår, at prins Richard blev ført til St. John's Abbey i Colchester efter slaget ved Bosworth og arbejdede der som murer indtil opløsningen i 1539.

Han sagde: "Var han 'Richard Plantagenet', der døde i Eastwell, i Kent, i december 1550, og som usædvanligt for en murer kunne læse latin?

"Han fortalte sin nye arbejdsgiver, at han var en naturlig søn af Richard III - men hvad nu hvis han virkelig var 'Den tabte prins'?"

De fleste kommentatorer antager, at ingen vidste, hvad der var blevet af de to unge prinser. Men hr. Baldwin hævder, at mange mennesker - konger, kongelige fortrolige, drengenes søstre og tidligere husholdningsbetjente - vidste det, men valgte ikke at sige noget om det.

Han tilføjede: "Døde prinser var en mulig forlegenhed, men en levende prins ville have været en reel fare og en tæt bevogtet hemmelighed.

"Richard overlevede, da andre med et yorkistisk krav på tronen omkom, fordi han var ude af syne og måske i sidste ende også var ude af sind.

"Eastwell, hvor han døde, ligger kun 20 km fra Canterbury -katedralen, hvor hans portræt stadig pryder det 'kongelige' vindue i Martyrdomskapellet.

"I wonder, did an elderly bricklayer ever pause to look into the face of his own image - an image from another life - on the occasions when he visited the greater church?"


The Princes in the Tower

The Princes in the Tower, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, c.1500 © The 'Princes in the Tower' were Edward (1470-1483) and Richard (1473-1483), the sons of Edward IV. Shortly after Edward was crowned Edward V, he and his brother disappeared and were never seen alive again.

Edward was born in London in 1470. His brother Richard, Duke of York, was born in 1473 in Shrewsbury. Their parents were Edward IV and his wife, Elizabeth Woodville. Edward IV had come to the throne as a result of the Wars of the Roses and managed to restore a certain amount of stability to the country.

Edward IV died suddenly on 9 April 1483 and his eldest son was proclaimed Edward V at Ludlow. Edward's uncle, his father's brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was named as protector. Elizabeth Woodville and her supporters attempted to replace Gloucester with a regency Council, aware of the dislike Gloucester had for them. As the new king, Edward V, travelled towards London, he was met by Gloucester and escorted to the capital, where he was lodged in the Tower of London. In June, Edward was joined by his brother, the Duke of York.

The boys were declared illegitimate because it was alleged that their father was contracted to marry someone else before his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville.

In July 1483, Richard, Duke of Gloucester was crowned Richard III. The two boys were never seen again. It was widely believed that their uncle had them murdered.


Dr Ashdown-Hill, a leading expert on Richard III and the Wars of the Roses, and a key member of Philippa Langley’s Looking For Richard Project that discovered Richard III in a car park in Leicester, has today revealed that the ‘bones in the urn’ in Westminster Abbey, believed for centuries by traditional historians to be those of the ‘Princes in the Tower’, apparently have no blood relationship to King Richard III.

This discovery, which throws into question the identity of the ‘bones in the urn’, is revealed for the first-time in Dr Ashdown-Hill’s highly acclaimed work, The Secret Queen: Eleanor Talbot, the Woman Who Put Richard III on the Throne, in a new and updated paperback edition published in July by The History Press.

The ‘Princes in the Tower’ were the nephews of King Richard III
(1483-85) who vanished during his reign.

With no evidence of any murder, their disappearance ignited one of our greatest unsolved historical mysteries.

The remarkable finding is part of Dr Ashdown-Hill’s continuing investigation into the mythology surrounding Richard III and came about through his analysis of the medieval monarch’s dental record.

X-ray evidence of skull from Norwich (possibly Talbot) with congenital missing tooth

The dental record reveals that Richard III had no congenitally missing teeth, in sharp contrast to the ‘bones in the urn’, where both skulls are said to present this genetic anomaly.

Previously it has been argued that this feature provided strong evidence of the royal identity of the ‘bones in the urn’.

It was claimed that the ‘Princes’ inherited their missing teeth from their grandmother, Cecily, Duchess of York.

But Dr Ashdown-Hill’s latest discovery strongly suggests that the ‘bones in the urn’ are not related to Cecily’s son, Richard III, who was a first degree relative of the ‘Princes’.

Scientific studies of hypodontia (congenitally missing teeth) have further suggested that the anomaly is relatively rare, being present in less than 5% of the population, and is slightly more prevalent in the female population.

This discovery adds further weight to the many questions now surrounding the identity of the ‘bones in the urn’, and raises the possibility that the remains may even be those of as yet unidentified females.

In 1674, the bones were discovered at the Tower of London by workmen digging ten feet below the stairs that led from the Royal Apartments to the White Tower.

Four years later, they were reburied in the urn in Westminster Abbey by Charles II who had been persuaded to accept that the remains were the ‘Princes in the Tower’.

The story of a stair burial for the ‘Princes’ had been proposed in the 16th century by Thomas More. However, in his account, now generally discredited by academia as a dramatic narrative, More went on to say that the bodies were removed from the stair burial and taken elsewhere.

What caused the four-year delay in the reburial of the bones in Westminster during the reign of Charles II, where the bones were kept during this time, and if they are indeed the same bones that were discovered in 1674 by the workmen, is also not known.

This newly-revealed dental evidence is another remarkable discovery from the results of the Looking For Richard Project. Modern scientific analysis applied to the flawed 1933 investigation of the ‘bones in the urn’ has revealed that the sex and historical period of death of the remains is unknown. My latest discovery now casts doubts on the dental claims put forward in 1934, 1965 and 1987. Nor can we be sure that there are just two sets of bones within the urn. It used to be thought that there were two sets of bones in the Clarence vault at Tewkesbury Abbey, where Richard III’s brother was buried. But when I had those remains re-examined in 2013 it emerged that there were three or possibly four individuals present – information published by The History Press in my book The Third Plantagenet. The only way we will ever truly be able to answer all the questions about the ‘bones in the urn’ is, of course, either by further archival discoveries, or scientific analysis.

I’m very excited about this new, updated edition of my work on Eleanor Talbot, published by The History Press. The book includes a remarkable new facial reconstruction of Eleanor’s putative remains, produced by experts at the University of Dundee. It also contains important new dental evidence in respect of Eleanor’s putative remains, provides evidence of when and where she could have married Edward IV, and offers two new theories for what may have caused her early demise.

Philippa Langley of the Looking For Richard Project states,

By discovering Richard III, the Looking For Richard Project succeeded in demolishing so many of the myths surrounding this much maligned monarch. We dared to question where others merely repeated. Indeed, by questioning the age-old story of the ‘bones in the river’ we succeeded in finding the king. Now it’s been revealed that the remains we found in Leicester question the received wisdom and dogma surrounding the disappearance of the sons of Edward IV. This exciting new discovery by Dr Ashdown-Hill is another step forward in our quest for knowledge, so that one day we may be able to uncover the truth about one of our most enduring historical mysteries. The search continues.

John Ashdown-Hill is a freelance historian and a bestselling author with a PhD in history. He regularly presents his research, and has achieved an excellent reputation in late medieval history. A Channel Four TV documentary was partially based upon Ashdown-Hill’s DNA research in The Last Days of Richard III. In 2015, Philippa Langley and Dr Ashdown-Hill were awarded MBEs by HM The Queen for their work in the discovery and identification of Richard III.


Will the Mystery of the Princes in the Tower Finally Have Answers?

Could the mystery of the Princes in the Tower finally be solved?

In 1674, workers (while remodeling the Tower of London) came upon two child skeletons that were hidden in box under a staircase. Instantly, to the 17th century contemporaries, these bones were assumed to have been the lost Plantagenet princes (Edward V and Prince Richard). Sir Thomas More, in his histories, wrote specifically that the princes were buried “at a stair-foot” (possibly this information came from interviews with those who lived during the time of Richard III or maybe More was just making assumptions). This was enough for Charles II who had the bones buried at Westminster Abbey where they have remained to this day.

But, these bones have never been tested. There is no proof that these were the Princes except that they were found in the last location that the Princes had lived and were bones of children. Now, there might be a chance to solve this mystery once and for all. A direct descendant of Jacquetta of Luxembourg (the prince’s maternal grandmother) has been found and has allowed a sample of her DNA to be used to test against the bones found in the tower. From what I have read, it has been very difficult search to find a direct descendant (which makes sense due to the over 500 year time gap). The only hurdle now is to get permission from Westminster to exhume the bones once again in order to complete this test. Again, from what I have read, it seems that Westminster has been unwilling in the past to allow this, but maybe with having this solid DNA sample they may be more accepting.

Jaquette of Luxembourg, Mother of Elizabeth Woodville

Edward V and Prince Richard were the two surviving sons of Edward IV and his queen, Elizabeth Woodville. They lived towards the end of the ongoing conflict of the War of the Roses (Lancaster v. York, cousin v. cousin). This civil war had been continuing for over 30 years, but towards the end of Edward IV’s reign there seemed to finally be a relative peace. The succession also seemed extremely secured. Edward IV and Elizabeth had 12 children which included two sons (an heir and a spare). When Edward IV died of an unexpected illness, he left his two sons who were only aged 12 and 9 years old. Edward IV named his brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, to be his son’s regent. Duke Richard had always proven himself to be one of Edward’s most loyal subjects, so who would suspect what happened after?

Elizabeth Woodville, mother of the Princes

Duke Richard quickly took control of the heir, Edward, as Lord Protector. The Woodville family did not quite agree with the situation and preferred the heirs to be in hands of their own family (who had quickly grown powerful under Edward IV’s reign). Duke Richard knew this and quickly arrested and executed the boys uncle Anthony Woodville and their half brother, Richard Grey. Dowager Queen Elizabeth quickly took her daughters and remaining son, Richard, into sanctuary.

Once Duke Richard was able to convince the dowager queen to let his nephew out of sanctuary, the coronation for young Edward V was indefinitely postponed. Richard was sent to join his brother in the Tower of London, where they would remain for the rest of their lives. In 1484 Parliament declared that Edward IV’s marriage with Elizabeth Woodville invalid due to a “pre-contract” with a Lady Eleanor Butler. I personally believe this was false. Duke Richard use this existing rumor as an excuse to take the throne once the nephews were proven “illegitimate.” He was crowed as Richard III on July 3 of that year.

There are recorded sightings of the boys playing outside on the Tower ground, but eventually were restricted to the inner apartments of the Tower. There were less and less sightings of the boys outside until they seemly disappeared. Many believe they were murdered by 1483 and others believe they were alive until 1484. It is really one of histories enduring mysteries as to the fate of the poor Princes in the Tower.

The main theory, of course, is that Richard III had the boys killed then hid their bodies. This would make sense as he did have them initially imprisoned in the Tower. The Princes were also an obvious threat. Despite Parliament declaring the Princes “illegitimate”, it would not stop those who believed in them from starting another revolt against Richard III. They were a clear danger for Richard. Allegedly, Sir James Tyrell later gave a confession that he smothered the princes under orders from Richard III. Tyrell obtained the keys and orders from the Constable of the Tower, Brackenbury and proceeded with the act. But, this “confession” has never been documented. When Henry VII later had Tyrell executed, the death of the princes was not one of the reasons. One would think that Henry VII, being so paranoid about his position on the throne, would have done anything to show his Yorkist predecessor was a kin slayer and that there was no chance the boys were still alive.

The potential DNA test, if it comes back a positive match, would be very incriminating for Richard III. There are many who, recently, have been working on rehabilitating Richard III’s reputation and often argue he was not the one who caused the disappearance of the boys. This test may hurt their cause.

There are other theories out there addressing what happened to the boys. The next most popular theory suggests that the princes were murdered due to a plot by Henry Tudor and his mother, Margaret Beaufort. Henry was out of the country during the suspected time of the disappearance, but were the boys possibly still alive by the time he took the throne? Did he have them murdered then? Were agents sent to commit the deed? Henry would definitely have a cause to eliminate the last Yorkist heirs and pave the way for his own claim.

Henry VII

Another popular theory is that one of the boys survived. I remember Philippa Gregory in her Cousin’s War series, suggesting that Richard was whisked to safety and a replacement child was sent to Richard III (I don’t know if she believes in this theory or if it just made good fiction). This is an intriguing theory as there were two later instances where rebellions were started led by one claiming they were Richard Plantagenet, son of Edward IV. The two main rebellions revolved around Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck.

Lambert Simnel was used as a puppet in 1487 to start another Yorkist rebellion against the new King Henry VII. Simnel was under the control of the Earl of Lincoln John de la Pole and Richard Simons. Initially, they rallied support claiming young Simnel was Prince Richard who had miraculously escaped, but later flip flopped to make him Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick (the princes cousin). They gathered support in Ireland, but once the invasion began could not get the support of the English nobles. The rebellion fizzled out and poor Simnel was spared by Henry VII. Simnel went on to work in the royal kitchens.

Perkin Warbeck is a little more interesting. Warbeck always claimed he was Prince Richard, son of Edward IV and to many this was supported by his appearance. It was not until he was captured that the full confession came out revealing he was a peasant’s son (but was this induced by torture?) Margaret, Duchess of Burgandy and sister of Edward IV, brought Warbeck to her court in Flanders and groomed him for his role to revolt against Henry VII for the Yorkist cause. They gained the support of many European sovereigns, who believe Warbeck was the true heir. James IV of Scotland even arranged a marriage with a noble born wife, Catherine Gordon, who was the daughter of the Earl of Huntley. This caused extreme anxiety for Henry VII and the current English government. From 1490-1497 Warbeck and his followers worked to bring back a Yorkist government, but were eventually defeated and imprisoned by Henry VII. The rebellion failed and Warbeck was made to give those confessions about his humble origins. Then he was eventually hanged for treason on November 23rd 1499. Yet, Warbeck never wavered from his claim he was Prince Richard, until he was under the influence of possible torture. This brings up the questions: Did Prince Richard somehow survive?

Richard III

I am not sure when the DNA test will be performed or if permission will be granted, but I am eager to hear the results. My personal belief is that Richard III had the boys killed discreetly to solidify his claim. The Henry Tudor theory seems a little far fetched and, while intriguing, I don’t think any of the boys escaped. The leaders of those rebellions used young men who could pass for one of the Princes as a pawn in their game.

I am always interested in hearing other theories as this mystery has always fascinated me. Do any of you have any theories as to the fate of the Princes? Do you think the DNA test will have a big impact in solving this cold case or do you think it won’t make a difference?

First read about the DNA testing from History Magazines Sept Edition 2018

A good reading on this topic is Alison Weir’s The Princes in the Tower published in 1992. She is one of my favorite historians, though the book isn’t without its biases. As this is a cold case there are many different interpretations of who was reaponsible and why.


The Princes in the Tower: What happened to Prince Edward V of England, aged 12, and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, aged 9? Did Richard III kill his own nephews?

Prince Edward V of England and Richard of Shrewbury, Duke of York, were the only surviving sons of King Edward IV og Elizabeth Woodville surviving at the time of his death. They were kept in the Tower of London by their paternal uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, supposedly in preparation for Edward V's coronation. However, before young Edward could be crowned king, he was declared illegitimate and Gloucester himself ascended the throne as Richard III. Since then, the boys' fate has been largely debated by historians as they disappeared from written history. What happened to the two young boys?

While I will be attempting to keep the story as straight as possible, a lot of the names in this story are either the same or change throughout the course of history. I will make a list here of everyone relevant to the story for the sake of clarity.

Edward V og Richard of Shrewbury, Duke of York: 12-year-old and 9-year-old sons of Edward IV, disappeared followed being kept in the Tower of London.

King Edward IV of England og Elizabeth Woodville - parents of Edward V and Richard of Shrewbury, Duke of York.

Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York: Father of Edward IV

Henry VI: King of England until 1471, overthrown by Richard, Duke of York

Richard, Duke of Gloucester = Richard III = Brother of Edward IV, uncle of Edward V and Richard of Shrewbury. I refer to him as "Gloucester" for clarity.

Lady Eleanor Butler: Edward IV's intended, before her death in 1468.

Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells: Bishop who had declared Edward IV's marriage null.

King Edward IV of England, the father of the Princes in the Tower, was a man with a long lineage of royalty, reaching back to 1154. His family belonged to the House of Plantagenet, which had been split into two opposing factions--the House of Lancaster, and the House of York.

The House of Lancaster (referred to as Lancastrians) had ruled since 1399. Following King Henry VI's weak rule and subsequent mental illness, Edward IV's father, Richard, Duke of York (a descendant to Edward III via the Yorkist branch) made a great effort to claim the throne in 1455.

Edward IV's father, Richard, 3rd Duke of York, was famous for this opposition and caused what is known today as the War of the Roses, which continued periodically through a series of bloody battles for the next thirty years. The Act of Accord was passed on October 25, 1460, stating that Henry VI should remain on the throne for the rest of his life, but that Richard and/or his heirs should succeed Henry VI to the throne. Naturally, this was not soon enough for Richard, and during the Battle of Wakefield on December 30, 1460, Richard and his youngest son, Edmund, were killed in a final pursuit for the crown. Edward IV was suddenly the new successor to the crown his father had died fighting for.

Edward IV proceeded to imprison Henry VI, and fought the largest and bloodiest battle entitled the War of the Roses. Edward IV came out as the victor and forcibly seized the throne from Henry IV. In the Battle of Tewkesbury on May 4, 1471, Henry IV's son and heir, Edward of Westminster, was killed in action. Henry VI is said to have died of "melancholy," shortly afterward on May 21, 1471. However, this death is also debated, and historians argue that it is entirely probable that his death was ordered by Edward IV once his successor was killed.

The Death of Edward IV and Move to the Tower of London

On April 9, 1483, Edward IV died unexpectantly after a three-week-long battle with a mysterious illness, usually agreed upon to be either pneumonia or typhoid. Before his death, he named his brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester (referred to as "Gloucester" from here on out) as Lord Protector. As Lord Protector, Gloucester was required to help Edward V through his minority until he would be old enough to rule independently.

In April of 1483, Edward V was only 12 years old. Gloucester quickly attempted to take control of the young boy and had the king's uncle and Edward V's half-brother arrested and beheaded to ensure that none other could claim the throne. By May 19, 1483, Edward V was moved into the Tower of London, which was a traditional residence for monarchs before the coronation ceremony. A month later, his 9-year-old brother Richard, Duke of York, joined him in the tower. The date was set: By June 22, 1483, Edward V would be named king.

Claims of Illegitimacy

However, the coronation of Edward V seemed to get pushed back again and again. Gloucester, away from the Tower, was slowly concocting a plan of his own. Gloucester was postponing the coronation deliberately in order to push favor towards himself. By mid-June, Gloucester had convinced Parliament (with the aid of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells) to declare the princes illegitimate on the grounds that their father, Edward IV, had committed bigatry. Hvordan?

Prior to meeting Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV had been contracted to marry a widow named Lady Eleanor Butler. At 13, Eleanor had married Sir Thomas Butler, Lord of Sudeley, who had died before Edward IV's overthrow of the House of Lancaster. She had died in 1468. Gloucester

Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells, had been briefly imprisoned and fined for speaking out against Edward IV in 1478. The bishop claimed that the late Edward IV had been in love with a beautiful young woman (Lady Eleanor) and had promised her marriage upon the condition that he slept with her. According to the bishop, the lady consented, and he had married them when nobody was present but the two and himself. He said that Edward IV never revealed his relationship with Lady Eleanor due to his "fortune depending on the court."

As Edward IV, in this recount, would have been committing bigamy, this illegitimized both of his sons in line to the throne. With his brother Edward IV dead and Edward IV's sons stripped of their title, there was only one living male who could take the throne: Gloucester. And on July 6, 1478, in a coronation ceremony originally intended for Edward V, Gloucester was crowned King Richard III (hereafter, Gloucester will be referred to as Richard III).

Forsvinden

The last reference to the young princes, left in the Tower after the coronation of their uncle, was mentioned in the Great Chronicle, on June 16. It records that the children of King Edward were seen shooting [arrows] and playing in the garden of the Tower. Dominic Mancini, who was an Italian friar and chronicler, recorded that after Richard III seized the throne from Edward V, the brothers were taken into "the inner apartments of the Tower", and were gradually seen less and less until they disappeared altogether. His account suggests that the boys were moved from the Garden or "Bloody" Tower to the White Tower, where royal captives were typically held.

There are reports of a physician visiting Edward V while he was in the tower, and there are a handful of reports of the two princes being seen after the coronation of their uncle. But, after the summer of 1483, there were no recorded sightings of either of the boys.

Another source claims that the princes may have been alive as late as July 1484, referring to a household regulation issued by Richard III, claiming that "the children should be together at one breakfast." However, it is ambiguous as to who Richard refers to as "the children."

Despite the seemingly obvious end-result, there is no direct evidence that either of the princes were murdered. There is also no direct evidence or accusations were made against Richard during his lifetime. Rumors of their death (recorded by Mancini) following their disappearance in the Tower had taken hold by 1484, even scaring the young King Charles III of France, who has only 13. Their disappearance was seen as a warning to other young princes, and early reports all state that Richard had killed the princes.

Of all sources, Dominic Mancini's accounts are considered most accurate, as they were written accounts of what he witnessed and heard while living at court.

These later sources are uncertain, as they were written in the years following Richard III's death and the succession of Henry VII (and many accounts post-Henry VII are considered biased in terms of tudor influence).

A source from 1500 identifies the Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, as the person who put them to death. There were theories that he took it upon himself to murder the boys to gain King Richard III's favor. He later fell out of favor with the infamously paranoid Richard III, and was executed for treason.

Henry Tudor, who later became Henry VII in 1485 after defeating Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth, has also been claimed to be the killer. Henry VII was known to execute rival claimants to the throne, and later married the princes' elder sister, Elizabeth of York. Her right to inherit the throne, therefore, was dependent on both of her brothers being dead. Many historians suggest that Henry VII's tight-lipped approach to the subject may have been due to the fact that the princes were still alive he had openly criticized Richard III for many of his character traits, and yet had never mentioned the murder of the two boys.

Robert Fabyan's Chronicles of London, which was complied around 1500, named Richard III flatly as the murderer.

I Holinshed's Chronicles, written in the late 1500s, also claims that the princes were directly murdered by Richard III. This was the main source of Shakespeare, whose Richard III play directly portrays Richard as the murderer.

Famous Thomas More, the Tudor loyalist, wrote The History of King Richard III between 1513 and 1518, portraying Richard as the villain. He names two men, Miles Forest and John Dighton, as the murderers. According to More, they entered the Tower at midnight and smothered the two boys in their sleep.

Another source cites Sir James Tyrrell as the murderer, acting on Richard's orders. Sir James Tyrrell was a loyal servant of Richard III, who allegedly confessed to the murder of the princes before his execution in 1502. Tyrrell claimed to have smothered the boys in their sleep, buried, then exhumed, disinterred, and then reburied in a secret location.

According to Matthew Lewis, a historian and author of Richard III: Loyalty Binds Me in 2018, sources from the Tudor era suggested that at least one of the boys may have survived. They suggested that they may have been smuggled from the Tower across the sea, or spared by their would-be murderers. Lewis holds the belief that Richard III had in fact not killed the princes, citing Elizabeth Woodville sending her daughters out of sanctuary and into Richard III's care in spring 1484. He also cites that none closest to the princes had accused Richard of murder.

Discovery of Bodies

In 1674, remodeling of the Tower of London revealed a wooden box containing two small human skeletons, found 10 feet (3.0 m) under the staircase to the chapel of the White Tower. These were not the first bones of children found in the tower, with the bones of two children being found earlier "in an old chamber that had been walled up." This location, however, was significant as it matched the earlier writings of Mancini's accounts. However, in More's account, the bones had been later moved to a different grave than the Tower.

Under the orders of King Charles II, the bones were placed into an urn and laid to rest in Westminster Abbey, in the wall of the Henry VII Lady Chapel.

The bones were removed and examined in 1933 by an archivist of Westminster Abbey. After investigations by forensic experts, they concluded that the bones belonged to two children around the correct ages for the princes. However, this examination has been criticized as it was entered under the assumption that the bones were of the two princes, rather than an unbiased perspective. No further DNA testing has been conducted on the bones, allegedly due to prevention due to Westminster Abbey officials.

In 1789, St. George's Chapel in Windsor was undergoing repairs when workers rediscovered and accidentally broke into the vault of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, and in the process discovered a small adjourning vault containing the coffins of two unidentified children. The tomb was said to have been labeled for their children George Plantagenet (died before age 2), and Mary Plantagenet (died at 14), whose deaths had predeceased the king. However, two lead coffins clearly labeled as George Plantagenet and Mary Plantagenet were discovered elsewhere in the chapel.

In order to receive permission to examine the graves, royal consent would be necessary to open any royal tomb. A 2012 Leicester archaeological dig prompted renewed interest in re-excavating the skeletons of "the two princes," but Queen Elizabeth II has not granted the approval required for testing of an interred royal.

Modern Examinations

On February 2, 2021, new research has pointed towards Richard III having murdered the princes. A paper published in the academic journal History, entitled "More On A Murder," was written by Professor Thornton of the University of Huddersfield. He claims that Sir Thomas More's account of the murder of the Princes is likely the most accurate. He cites that the two men More implicated--Miles Forest and John Dighton--were acting on direct orders from Richard III. Professor Thornton claims that the alleged killer, Miles Forest, had two sons who became courtiers for King Henry VII and therefore worked alongside Sir Thomas More himself. Professor Thornton speculates that the two sons spoke with Sir Thomas More about their father's (Miles Forest) murder of the young boys. He believes that More's accounts of the events are given more credibility with the knowledge that Forest's sons had worked and lived alongside More, likely giving more credence to More's account.

What do you believe? Who was the true killer of the boys? Could Richard III's image, skewed by Tudor history, been falsely accused of murdering his nephews? Or, did he really murder the boys to secure his place as king?


Se videoen: Guy Lives In The Tower Of London (Juli 2022).


Kommentarer:

  1. Grosvenor

    Disse nyttige ting er forskellige)) karoch prikona

  2. Gladwyn

    gør noget

  3. Fionnbarr

    Stadig kvaliteten ......... Nej, det er bedre at vente

  4. Acrisius

    Jeg lykønsker, den strålende idé



Skriv en besked